Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AxleMC131]

Just to be clear though, I'm not saying Burn Drive is a poor ship system—it can be quite powerful/useful and I admit it'd probably serve the Legion rather well. But I dunno, to repeat the same system for yet another capital ship seems kinda uninspired. I feel that of all the ship types capitals should be given that extra effort to really make'em stand out, and part of that would involve giving them a unique ship system (or at least one that isn't used quite so frequently ).

Ah, I can see where you're coming from. Still, with the number of capital ships steadily increasing, that's going to become harder and harder as time goes on.

The Onslaught isn't in much trouble if it gets flanked. It has 270° or so coverage of at least 1 large, 1 medium, and 3 small ballistic weapons. Burn Drive can also help get it out of bad situations, like being flanked. It's when you get directly behind the Onslaught that it gets in trouble, but it's still got 2 medium ballistics pointing backwards and a heck of a lot of armor to bust through. The Onslaught is very specifically vulnerable to EMP or high-powered strike weaponry coming from a 90° cone directly behind it. And the best Onslaught builds are defensive in nature, mounting lots of Dual Flak PD to become almost immune to missile weaponry. The Onslaught's 2 TPC cannons fill a similar role to the Paragon's 2 large energy hardpoints, firing only directly forward and thus only able to be used against large and slow ships. The two ships are much more similar in battlefield role than you are making them out to be, even if they get there with different stats.

Eh, I'm still not convinced. Sure, you can burn drive out of a tricky situation if you need, and defensive weapons are good in the rear arc, but outside of that the Onslaught doesn't really deal well with flankers. It needs a fleet to support it to work best - every big ship does - but I feel the Onslaught needs substantially more than a Paragon might because a Paragon shouldn't be used to push forwards. I'm not specifically saying the ships are hugely different layout-wise. If you look at the weapon arrangement of an Onslaught and a Paragon, yes, they're fairly similar in many ways. But for what they are, they still present themselves very differently and aim to please best in quite different roles.

I don't believe you can ever point to two ships and say, "This one is better than that one," (unless it's a blatant upgrade or upsize of the other) because when it comes down to it, that all depends on your situation. There are many reasons in the campaign for instance, when I will look at two ships I could buy and pick one or the other. How good one ship is (ignoring pilot skill) is entirely reliant on where you put it and what you do with it.

You definitely can do so. For example, in 0.7.2, the Apogee was superior to the Aurora. That's a large part of why the Apogee is being nerfed and the Aurora is being "buffed".

See, I wouldn't have said the Apogee was "superior" to the Aurora. It's slower, less manoeuvrable, has a (arguably) defensive ship system and it's default loadout is most certainly not friendly to its flux. But then, it has a large missile and large energy mount, neither of which the Aurora can boast, and the Apogee has the High-Res Sensors hullmod, which is fairly rare and (in the campaign) quite handy. Again, they're different, but I don't agree one is simply "better" than the other, in either direction.

... Although for the aesthetic, the Apogee definitely does it for me. It just feels so utilitarian, and I love that in a ship.

[ANGRYABOUTELVES]

Eh, I'm still not convinced. Sure, you can burn drive out of a tricky situation if you need, and defensive weapons are good in the rear arc, but outside of that the Onslaught doesn't really deal well with flankers. It needs a fleet to support it to work best - every big ship does - but I feel the Onslaught needs substantially more than a Paragon might because a Paragon shouldn't be used to push forwards. I'm not specifically saying the ships are hugely different layout-wise. If you look at the weapon arrangement of an Onslaught and a Paragon, yes, they're fairly similar in many ways. But for what they are, they still present themselves very differently and aim to please best in quite different roles.

Have you tried not pushing forward with an Onslaught? It's better than the Paragon at not pushing forwards because ballistics get longer ranges than energies. The Paragon actually has to push forward in order to get low-tech ships inside its range.

See, I wouldn't have said the Apogee was "superior" to the Aurora. It's slower, less manoeuvrable, has a (arguably) defensive ship system and it's default loadout is most certainly not friendly to its flux. But then, it has a large missile and large energy mount, neither of which the Aurora can boast, and the Apogee has the High-Res Sensors hullmod, which is fairly rare and (in the campaign) quite handy. Again, they're different, but I don't agree one is simply "better" than the other, in either direction.

... Although for the aesthetic, the Apogee definitely does it for me. It just feels so utilitarian, and I love that in a ship.

The Apogee is slower and less maneuverable than the Aurora. This is true, but completely negated by the effects of player skills. A player piloted Apogee was more than maneuverable enough for any purpose you could put it to. Increased range is not a defensive ship system; range is quite possibly the most important offensive stat. Default loadouts are often bad. I'm pretty sure there's a default Apogee loadout which sticks 2 Heavy Blasters in the rear medium mounts, which is a really terrible idea. Basically everything else about the Apogee was better than the Aurora.

[AxleMC131]

Well, in my opinion they both have pros and cons. I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

[ANGRYABOUTELVES]

Well, in my opinion they both have pros and cons. I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

I will not agree to disagree. Doing so is intellectually lazy. If you wish to drop the argument, I am perfectly willing to do so. However, I will not agree that we are both equally right and equally wrong, that your position has merit equal to mine, which is what that phrase usually means.

[Toxcity]

Without taking player levels into account, the Paragon is better than the Onslaught.

The Paragon is better vs. smaller more agile targets and can survive scenarios where its engines and/or weapons are disabled due to its shield.

[AxleMC131]

Well, in my opinion they both have pros and cons. I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

I will not agree to disagree. Doing so is intellectually lazy. If you wish to drop the argument, I am perfectly willing to do so. However, I will not agree that we are both equally right and equally wrong, that your position has merit equal to mine, which is what that phrase usually means.

Umm... Hopefully without any issues, I'd like to drop the argument and move on. I had hoped to not start one in the first place, but looks like I managed it nontheless. I apologize profusely for any offense I may have caused by disregarding your opinion.

[ANGRYABOUTELVES]

Without taking player levels into account, the Paragon is better than the Onslaught.

The Paragon is better vs. smaller more agile targets and can survive scenarios where its engines and/or weapons are disabled due to its shield.

You cannot ignore player/officer levels. They are a fundamental part of the game and drastically change the math of combat. And why would you have a capital without a well-leveled combat officer piloting it? You're essentially saying that if someone is a very poor player and fighting a fleet without officers, then the Paragon is better for them.

Officer levels go a long way to helping the Onslaught deal with small, agile targets. Obviously we don't know how well that will hold up in 0.8 as the entire skill system is getting revamped, but that doesn't mean the Onslaught will get the short end of the stick. Yes, the Paragon and the Onslaught have different weaknesses. The difference is that the Onslaught's weaknesses have ways to be shored up by hullmods and skills, like Resistant Flux Conduits and Damage Control, while the Paragon's major weakness (sustained kinetic bombardment from outside its weapon range) is much harder for it to deal with.

Umm... Hopefully without any issues, I'd like to drop the argument and move on. I had hoped to not start one in the first place, but looks like I managed it nontheless. I apologize profusely for any offense I may have caused by disregarding your opinion.

No issues at all. Argument was perhaps the incorrect word to use as, in casual use, it has connotations of anger. Debate would probably have been a better word. I do not believe there is reason for you to apologize, but if you feel it is necessary I accept it nonetheless. I firmly believe that opinions and ideas are meant to be challenged, and that there is no reason to apologize for doing so.

[AxleMC131]

In which case I shall respond only with a respectful nod and bow out until I have something more interesting to bring to the discussion. Thank you for understanding.

[Gothars]

This exchange makes me happy



Here's a side-by-side of the Legion and the Mora-class cruiser:



This is roughly the ingame scale. Notice how the Pillum sizes line up, but the flight deck seems much bigger on the Mora. This is because smaller ships are displayed bigger than they are in the lore, so you can clearly discern them during gameplay.

The flight deck, being likely the same lore-size on both ships (supporting 2x3 vs 1x3 wings), helps to compare the "real" ship sizes:



Gives a good impression of how big capitals really are, doesn't it?

[Megas]

With max skills (which requires level 80+) and player control, Onslaught outperforms Paragon somewhat.  Onslaught kill fleets faster.  Burn Drives gives Onslaught better battlefield mobility.  It lets the Onslaught reach the map corner faster than Paragon when besieged by multiple frigates.  Corners are very good for Onslaught because they negate its weakness (ships cannot go behind the Onslaught when the map prevent them), and Onslaught has the range and firepower to destroy anything, and most ships cannot even get close enough to attack without getting shot at for big damage.  As for Burn Drive, Burn Drive is good.

All Onslaught needs for offense is three Mjolnirs, two Heavy Maulers, and TPCs boosted with Expanded Magazines.  Everything else should be (seven) Dual Flak and six Vulcans.  Missiles can be anything you want, but Pilums are probably best for total damage over a fight, but Annihilator pods are acceptable for burst damage instead.  PD will destroy missiles and ships, and the other weapons are enough to snipe at and kill things without building up flux too fast.  Shields are useful mostly to block heavy weapons from other capitals like TPCs or Tachyon Lance, which flak cannot stop.

With less than max skills, Onslaught will have trouble killing everything in time because smaller ships will start to kite as the enemy fleet gets thinned out.  AI does not kite as far away from Paragon.  At lower skill levels, Paragon is better partially because the AI does not kite as much, and the Paragon does not need to waste as much time moving towards ships to kill.  At max skills, Onslaught is so brutally efficient that things just die fast, and it will solo big fleets with more time to spare than Paragon or other ships.

[Sy]

First ones are Claw interceptors, armed with ion cannons, I think. Second look like some kind of bomber, though they could also be heavy fighters or escorts. Third are obviously Tridents, fourth I think are Khopesh rocket bombers, probably firing Annihilator rockets.

i don't think any of these are Claws and Khopesh. if i'm not mistaken, those look something like this:



that's assuming they didn't get changed into something entirely different, which is quite possible. but a wing with 5 Ion Cannons seems too much to me, i think Claws will have 3 or maybe even just 2 fighters per wing.
my guesses for those unknown fighters are, from top to bottom: 1) interceptor, 2) multirole fighter or light bomber, 3) heavy support/escort fighter.

Alex mentioned fighters have "0 - 5000" max range, so that probably means there is at least one type that always stays around the carrier, even while the carrier's other fighters are sent to attack a specific target or escort an allied ship. i wonder if one of those 3 does this. would be nice to have 1 wing cover the Legion's vulnerable rear against missiles and/or hostile fighters, while the rest are sent out.

Gives a good impression of how big capitals really are, doesn't it?

interesting! when i first looked at the Legion screenshot, it didn't seem large for a capital ship to me. but even in game scale, it sure is a lot more massive then the Mora.

[CrashToDesktop]

You know, the shape of the Legion definitely tells me some Domain ship designer was given the task of providing a dedicated Battlecarrier and said "let's strap a pair of Mora-class carriers together".  Lo and behold, the Legion!  Or maybe that was David.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I would expect the larger of the two, the Khopesh, to be a defensive fighter.  IIRC, it's much larger than most other fighters and appears to be heavily armored (with some rather pitiful-looking engines), so having it as what equates to a big, heavy flail to bang stuff at close range or as defense could be cool.

[Toxcity]

A lot of fighters had their art redone. http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11375.msg193452#msg193452
I'm also assuming we just got the 2 new fighters.

[Dri]

I think both the Mora and the Legion are on the smaller side of their respective hull sizes. Though, the fact that they are more block-ish in design surely has something to do with that.

I'd like to see the Mora next to a Dominator and the Legion next to the Onslaught.

[Embolism]

I think the fourth fighter wing is just a pair of redone Gladiuses. The first is definitely Claw: Alex already said they're five per wing. Second wing I'm unsure: it doesn't look like Khopesh, plus it looks high-tech whereas Khopesh is low-tech. Probably a new fighter added after the fighter blog.

Also Khopesh are (annihilator) rocket bombers, so not very defensive.

On-topic: like people have said I really dig the Galactica feel of the Legion, although the squatness (though obviously intended) bothers me a bit. Unlike other wide-than-long ships (e.g. Dominator and Mora, which are bricks) it has a "semi-streamlined" look which gives the illusion it should be longer.