Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?  (Read 9794 times)

cjuicy

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Figuring out how the hell to wear heels (She/it)
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2017, 08:02:30 PM »

Thanks for pointing that out. I personally love the Apogee, but rarely get it in my modded playthroughs. In vanilla play it usually becomes my flagship until I go for my first capital, but recently I've taken a liking to the Eagle-class.
Logged
It's been a long time, but I still love ya!

- Pfp done by Sleepyfish!

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2017, 08:56:34 PM »

Thanks for pointing that out. I personally love the Apogee, but rarely get it in my modded playthroughs. In vanilla play it usually becomes my flagship until I go for my first capital, but recently I've taken a liking to the Eagle-class.

Aye, the Eagle isn't a bad ship by any means. Good armament, good armour, good shields, good flux handling, good mobility. It's only drawback in my opinion is a lack of versatile missile mounts, but it's a small con in comparison to its benefits as an excellent all-round midline cruiser.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2017, 09:13:56 PM »

I just hope that going forward, the "light" affix is used sparingly. I don't care for the Falcon because it brings little more than destroyer-grade firepower/staying power and yet it pays cruiser size costs for hullmods! No bueno!

I suggest that any ship that is considered "light" will have a builtin hullmod that grants them the price of previous tier hullmods—so, a "light" destroyer would have frigate hullmod costs! This buff would really help make these ships standout more and thus avoid feeling like they're just watered-down inbetweeners.
Logged

Toxcity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2017, 09:17:57 PM »

At that point, just make it a destroyer.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2017, 09:47:22 PM »

Yeah, kinda how I feel about the Falcon. The "light" ships down work so well.
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2017, 09:48:06 PM »

I just hope that going forward, the "light" affix is used sparingly. I don't care for the Falcon because it brings little more than destroyer-grade firepower/staying power and yet it pays cruiser size costs for hullmods! No bueno!

I suggest that any ship that is considered "light" will have a builtin hullmod that grants them the price of previous tier hullmods—so, a "light" destroyer would have frigate hullmod costs! This buff would really help make these ships standout more and thus avoid feeling like they're just watered-down inbetweeners.

At that point, just make it a destroyer.

Ditto. :-\ The thing is, you have to look at it not just from a gameplay standpoint, but a logistical and consistency standpoint. A Light Cruiser for instance is just a cruiser that's a little smaller, lighter and faster than other cruisers. That does not necessarily make it a destroyer. Sure, perhaps the Falcon could use a little love as well as other things being changed in 0.8, but it's still a valid ship with a valid classification.

Besides, the "light" prefix already is used sparingly, as you put it. How many ships in Starsector have it?

EDIT: According to the stock shipdata.csv file, two is the answer. Condor - Light Carrier; Falcon - Light Cruiser.

EDIT 2: Personally I like the "Light" and "Heavy" prefixes. It allows me some mental leeway when choosing ships in the campaign, but especially when creating ships for mods. I feel like I'm less restrained to create a ship to match a certain combat capability. A cruiser I've made feels a little stronger than stock cruisers? Call it a heavy cruiser and balance stats accordingly. Same happens in the other direction. I have never had to reclassify a ship entirely (cruiser -> destroyer, etc.) because it was under/overpowered for its size.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 09:57:24 PM by AxleMC131 »
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2017, 09:59:11 PM »

Here's another thought for you. This comes directly from Wikipedia's definition of a Cruiser.

By the early 20th century after World War I, the direct successors to protected cruisers could be placed on a consistent scale of warship size, smaller than a battleship but larger than a destroyer. In 1922, the Washington Naval Treaty placed a formal limit on these cruisers, which were defined as warships of up to 10,000 tons displacement carrying guns no larger than 8 inches in calibre; heavy cruisers had 8 inch guns while those with guns of 6.1-inches or less were light cruisers, which shaped cruiser design until the end of World War II.
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2017, 01:42:14 AM »

Bear in mind that the Falcon paying Cruiser costs also gets Cruiser benefits, most importantly from ITU/DTC.
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2017, 02:11:11 AM »

Bear in mind that the Falcon paying Cruiser costs also gets Cruiser benefits, most importantly from ITU/DTC.

Excellent point.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2017, 07:11:48 AM »

Until more recent versions, when its sprite was updated, Falcon did not have two small energy mounts ahead of the medium turrets.  It really was a destroyer posing as a cruiser, little more than a poor-man's Medusa.  Old Falcon had no PD unless it used its medium mounts for that purpose, but then it had terrible firepower comparable to a frigate.  Overall, old Falcon was rubbish, much like Hammerhead.  Today, standard Falcon is good.  It is just slightly better than what you can get from a best-in-class destroyer, but definitely less than what you get from most cruisers.  It straddles the two classes, and it is effective for what you pay for.

Bear in mind that the Falcon paying Cruiser costs also gets Cruiser benefits, most importantly from ITU/DTC.
...and cruiser downsides, such as less speed from Augmented Engines (at least as important as shot range) and higher OP costs for hullmods.  Old Falcon had puny OP for its size, and had trouble affording everything it needed.  Its stats would be great if it was a destroyer.  Current Falcon has a bit more OP (for its two new small mounts).  While it still does not have plentiful OP, it has enough to make do.

For the Falcon, cruiser-size was a net-loss.  Extra range from ITU/DTC is not enough to make up for the downsides bigger ships get.

* * *

As for OP, the only high-tech capital that matters today is Paragon.  The others just get in the way of buying a Paragon.  Maybe 0.8 will make the others more useful?  For low-tech, they do not need anymore battleships because Onslaught is so brutally effective.  Maybe if Onslaught's costs get raised to (nearly) match Paragon, then a cheap low-tech battlecruiser may make sense, maybe a slightly bigger Dominator with better angle coverage.  Midline is in trouble, though.  Conquest is no battleship that can match Onslaught or Paragon.  I would like to see something like a super Eagle for a midline battleship, or maybe capital-sized Eagle and Heron combo.

Similarly, there is only one high-tech destroyer combat ship, Medusa, although it is so good that high-tech does not really need another brawler.  (I consider phase ships its own epoch not the same as high-tech; they feel like a mod faction in the game.)  High-tech does not have hybrids or carriers of destroyer size though.  Then again, since energy weapons are usually completely inferior to ballistics, that having more ships may be pointless if they have junk weapons and stuff like current Aurora.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2017, 12:42:36 PM »

Meh, with the way hullmods work I'm still not convinced "Light" ships have any business being in Starsector—"Heavy" pans out much better.

Tying into this, we can see it also doesn't work so well with the battlecruiser vs battleship! Same deal—who wants a slightly faster but otherwise inferior battleship?
Logged

Toxcity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2017, 12:48:20 PM »

If you're fighting ships head on, of course heavier designations are going to win. Lighter ships are generally better for kiting or in fleets geared toward overwhelming opponents with numbers.
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2017, 12:51:22 PM »

battleships are only too good because strike is so weak.

slow speed is not a realistic disadvantage due to burn drive (strategically quite quick) + insane range scaling + insane accuracy scaling (no incentive to close ranges whatsoever) + weakness of strike meaning no need to ever move out of the way of incoming ordnance + energy weapons are too weak = the current dominance of battleship superheavies.

remove a few of these things and they are threatening yes, but not overly.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 01:11:18 PM by Cik »
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Will high tech's monopoly on combat capitals be addressed with 0.8?
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2017, 02:08:38 PM »

Since next patch is going to make UI reduce weapon range (and AE won't increase combat speed anymore) and ITU/DTC cheaper/compulsory, I think the Falcon will win in terms of hullmod benefits.

I don't think low-tech needs a low-cost battleship if Onslaught's price gets appropriately increased, because to my mind the Dominator is already a pocket battleship rather than a heavy cruiser.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]