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)

Poll

Should Odyssey 3 large turret sweetspot piloting awkwardness be fixed?

Make 3 turret sweetspot convenient to use (several variants how)
- 7 (21.2%)
Remove 3 turret sweetspot, compensate elsewhere
- 12 (36.4%)
Fine as is
- 8 (24.2%)
No preference on option 1 or 2, but something needs to change
- 6 (18.2%)

Total Members Voted: 33


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: Odyssey's piloting  (Read 16010 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2018, 11:58:58 AM »

Did a bit more playing against the same enemy fleet of seventeen.

Tried Onslaught, and it is hard and annoying, but winnable.  Like Paragon, I need to send Onslaught to the wall (by turning around and burn drive toward it), then pick off ships when possible.  Without Paragon's range and lances, killing craven enemy ships with my Onslaught was harder, despite using cheese that served Paragon well, and I needed more time, which meant Hardened Subsystems to outlast ships that just would not engage on my terms.  On the plus side, I did not need rare stuff.  I tried Mjolnir, but Onslaught did not have quite enough range and drew too much flux.  In the end, I used Mark IXs, Heavy Maulers, and both types of Flak (four dual flak and three single flak).  Onslaught can kill everyone, but it requires cheese and patience.  Harder than it is with Conquest, Legion, Paragon, and maybe lance Odyssey.

Tried Lance Odyssey one more time, this time with Hardened Subsystems (at the cost of most LR PD and about 15 vents), and it barely won (27 hull left and CR decayed to about 40 or 50).  Had to use shield more to block missiles.

Then, I tried autopulse Odyssey, but with shorter ranged PD Lasers so that enemies would not kite as far, and Hardened Subsystems.  It was too hard to engage enemies safely despite enemy not kiting quite as far because shot range is too short.  (If I try to engage one ship, ten or so more enemies will surround Odyssey and cut off its escape.)  All it managed to do was kill about eight out of seventeen ships before CR decayed too much, and Odyssey had Hardened Subsystems.

Plasma cannon Odyssey is even worse against a fleet of small ships.  Too inefficient, and requires precise aiming.  Easy to get frustrated then surrounded by the enemy when player loses patience.

Three lance Odyssey is the way to go.  It definitely needs that sweet spot to concentrate all three lances for maximum firepower.  Up to four tactical lasers can easily sweep that sweet spot.  One tactical laser centered on the nose, one immediately to the right, and two immediately to the left.  Those four will cover the sweet spot.  If all four are firing at one target, then all three lances can be aimed where the tac lasers are and fired.  Trying to focus a fifth or sixth tac laser with those core four makes it too hard to focus-fire three lances.  Besides those four small mounts, the rest of them could be filled with whatever PD you want... except you probably do not have enough OP left to fill them all.

Did not get to suggestions for improvement this post.  That will come later.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2018, 12:59:35 PM »

Triple Lance Odyssey, under player control, can compete with capitals for sweeping a fleet of smaller ships, and it take on some capitals it can outrange (often Onslaught).  It still cannot slug it out with capitals, but it does not need to.  It is still not the best ship, but it is useful.  It being worth 40 is not out-of-line, but a bit high.  Its current 45 is still too much.

Any other Odyssey loadout is a joke.  If Odyssey did not have its triple lance loadout, it would not be worth more than 30, maybe 35.  It cannot deal with capitals, and it cannot deal with a fleet of small ships.  Shot range with non-beams is much too short, and it is not fast enough to engage enemies with such short range.  Either capitals outgun it, or a swarm of smaller ships keep up and Odyssey cannot escape if it gets too close.

* * *

My problems with the Odyssey:
* Three lance Odyssey is the only useful loadout.
* The other variants are awful, and they were not so bad in previous versions.
* Odyssey has a severe OP shortage.

TaLaR mentioned the hassle of lining up all three heavy turrets.  That is worth addressing.

If Odyssey will not be improved enough to use variants aside from triple lances effectively, then the three turret sweet spot MUST stay!  Removing that will kill the only thing that lets allows Odyssey to perform like a capital.  In that case, its sniper role should be embraced totally, perhaps have a system change, although High-Energy Focus works well with triple lance to crush annoying smaller ships.

Odyssey should get OP relief.  However, it is starved enough that adding ten or twenty more will not change triple lance configuration significantly.  It just means player will add more vents or probably another hullmod (like Hardened Subsystems if he did not get it before).  Missiles will probably still be left empty.  If player really wants missiles badly, Dagger escort is probably the best the player can have since they are effectively unlimited.  If Odyssey filling missile slots and using them is desirable, then it needs a builtin hullmod that makes missiles free.  Otherwise, triple lance Odyssey does not want them, there is not enough OP to indulge in that luxury (unless Odyssey got more than 50 additional OP, maybe).

If triple lance Odyssey remains the only useful loadout, I am not sure changing missiles to synergy would be useful enough for the purpose of diversity.  All that (change from missile to synergy) means it player will rip out what little PD the player has left (or spend new OP for this) and put Graviton Beams into the front two medium slots so player can pile more soft flux and beat dissipation for even more damage.

I am afraid thinking of things that can improve the Odyssey are hard, if triple lance stays in its current form.

So far, my recommendations, mostly the same as before.
* Restore the 0.8 shield.  Triple Lance build will not be affected much (it already outranges everything it can fight), but it will let other loadouts charge in and not be wrecked by more than token resistance.
* OP relief of some sort.

If I can think of something more useful I will post it.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2018, 04:29:36 PM »

Just to see how effective triple lance Odyssey really is, I put it on autopilot and see what it can do.

Against single opponents that the player can kill, AI uses it surprisingly well.  It will kite, and it can aim all three lances on target when not distracted by moving somewhere.  However, it is not good at coordinating all three at the same time.  As long as its bombers hold out, Odyssey will do alright.  It can solo Onslaught by itself without taking hull damage.

However, it falters against more than two opponents.  It is unable to focus beams at one target, it will divide its beams at the nearest targets of opportunity.  At least it can tank, but it will not do much good against a crowd like a player can.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2018, 09:27:21 PM »

@Megas, could you write which sim opponents did you use for these tests? Just to have a more precise reference point (and maybe test my piloting skills  :) ).
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2018, 05:00:18 AM »

For the seventeen, cruisers were Eagle, Falcon, and Dominator.  Destroyers were Condor, Medusa, two Enforcers, two Sunders, and a Hammerhead.  Frigates were two Lashers, a Brawler, a Hound, two Wolf (P), and one Lasher (P).

Falcon was originally Aurora, until I had one battle which Odyssey did well against the Falcon, so I kept the Falcon and tested that fleet with the other capitals.

* * *

I finally decided to try my hand against the other capitals with triple lance Odyssey.  Conquest was only a threat with Squalls (and MIRVs).  After it ran out of Squalls, it was dead meat like Onslaught was.  Astral was harder.  Make it run out of Squalls first, plus kill enough fighters so they are not constantly attacking Odyssey.  Maybe make Astral run out of peak performance first.  After Odyssey outlasts Astral, it can kill it.  Stock AI Odyssey was no match for triple lance Odyssey.  Paragon I see no way to get past the shields besides outlasting it with more peak performance.  For killing Paragon, all I did was squeeze Hardened Subsystems in (I swapped out Expanded Deck Crew for Hardened Subsystems because the fighters will not make it past Paragon's weapons.) and waited until its CR decayed to zero first then killed it fast.  TaLaR might have had a more fair (but very dangerous) way to kill Paragon, but I forgot what it was.

So... triple lance Odyssey can stand up to capitals because it does not need to get into their weapons range, and in case of Paragon, just get Hardened Subsystems and wait it out.  Like Conquest, Odyssey has its anti-Paragon loadout, but instead of getting different weapons, it involves getting Hardened Subsystems and outlasting it.

* * *

This post will get much bigger after I add more commentary.  So I will take a break and write more a little later.  For now, any balance changes that make other Odyssey loadouts more viable (like restoring 0.8 shield) might make triple lance Odyssey too good, which is a shame.  More to come later.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2018, 05:46:32 AM »

TaLaR might have had a more fair (but very dangerous) way to kill Paragon, but I forgot what it was.

Not completely fair either - I exploit shield drop behavior and fire off center (AI always deploys shields exactly from facing to your ship). Then again, I could potentially build up hard flux up to 100% same way.

3xTL, 2xLongbow, ITU, Advanced Optics, Hardened Shields, full vents and rest into caps. That is to maximize chance vs Paragon by dropping everything unnecessary, of course more reasonable build would at least include Tac Lasers/ LRPD.

Then stick exactly outside of Needlers range while using Longbows to build up hard flux (engage -> fire sabots from your shield's edge -> regroup). At about 10-20% hard flux Paragon drops shield -> quickly go in and fire at it's edge. Retreat to vent and repeat whole process about 4 times.

This tactic would fail against a better Paragon build though. Just 2 HVDs would be enough. Or all 4 TLs, especially if combined with Advanced Optics and extra Tac Lasers.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 06:56:08 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2018, 09:08:02 AM »

Some more rambling about the Odyssey.

Odyssey is almost two different ships, one is a sniper while another is a brawler.  Only the Lance sniper is capital quality.  The classic brawler (i.e., mostly or fully non-beams) is no better than cruiser quality (while paying for full capital quality) without skills.  With skills, brawler Odyssey is a bit more usable against unskilled enemies but still inferior to other capitals.

The sniper requires rare stuff:  three Tachyon Lances, Advanced Optics, and Integrated Targeting Unit.  Sure, other capitals might need rare stuff too, but in case of Odyssey, the difference between sniper and brawler is huge.

It seems the latest Odyssey was balanced for the sniper loadout (whether intentionally or not).  The sniper does not have OP to afford much beyond what the sniper really needs, which is three Tachyon Lances, maybe up to four Tactical Lasers (as a laser pointer to aim at things if player has trouble finding the sweet spot, if nothing else), one Longbow wing, a second bomber (either Longbow for more hard flux or Dagger to deal with pesky smaller ships)  Advanced Optics, Integrated Targeting Unit, and 30+ vents.  Adding more OP does not mean weapon slots like missiles get filled, it simply means player will get more hullmods or points in capacitors.  (High capacitors can be a poor man's substitute for Hardened Shields.)

So the most important question regarding Odyssey now is this:  Should Odyssey embrace and evolve into a sniper specialist, or should it go back to its roots of being part-brawler and part-carrier like Legion?

If Odyssey should stay as a (tachyon lance) sniper, then it should be easier to assemble and use.
* Tachyon Lance should be easier to obtain, if they will not be built-in the Odyssey like Onslaught's TPCs.  I get that next release will feature blueprints, but I bet Tachyon Lance will be one of the rare ones that is hard to find like various hullmods today.
* Making the sweet spot wider would be nice, although AI has no trouble using it today.
* Maybe do something with missile mounts.  Wasting OP on them, especially when Odyssey has fighters, does more harm than good.

For sniper, weak shield means little if it can outrange most things and can outspeed anything that it cannot crush (and use Hardened Subsystems to win the peak performance war and kill enemy when it hits 0 CR first).  It has enough flux stats to absorb stray shots here and there.  Low OP is annoying, but all sniper Odyssey really needs to fix that is Loadout Design 3 to get all of the critical things it needs.  It still cannot afford missiles and few other luxuries, but it does not need them.

If the sniper is considered degenerate, then things that would enable it need to be stopped (less top speed, no more three heavy mount overlap, maybe less peak performance to make Hardened Subsystems required), but then the Odyssey will need significant buffs so it can compete with other capitals instead of being a joke ship that cannot pull its weight.

I am tempted to say that maintaining sniper Odyssey, with perhaps minor QoL tweaks, is probably easier than trying to balance the mess classic Odyssey is.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #37 on: March 30, 2018, 10:15:21 AM »

Few more radical ideas to encourage sniper Odyssey:

* New ship system that temporarily lets beams hit for hard flux.  Sort of like High Energy Focus except enable hard flux for beams instead of adding more damage.  This might make HIL usable, which is more common than Tachyon Lance.  Currently, HIL cannot overcome dissipation, and Odyssey with HILs instead of Lances relies entirely on fighters for hard flux.  Even with Longbows, it takes too long to kill many ships.

* Make the following hullmods built-in:  Unstable Injector, Advanced Targeting Core, and Delicate Machinery.  Unstable Injector for more speed (without base exceeding cruisers' best) and to take a bite out of the extra range from Advanced Targeting Core.  Advanced Targeting Core (combined with range malus from UI) for little more range boost.  Delicate Machinery so that CR decays even faster after peak performance expires so that Odyssey cannot rely on outlasting enemies with otherwise comparable peak performance.

* Lower peak performance a minute or two.  Also less OP to compensate for the goodies.

If Odyssey will be untouchable death, make it better at it, but lower the time it can fight on the field.
Logged

Blothorn

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #38 on: March 30, 2018, 02:45:25 PM »

Builtin unstable injector + ATC seems weird--why not just boost speed and let players install ITU if they want it? If you do not want players achieving super-speed by stacking UI on top of the increased base speed, an incompatibility hullmod is probably more transparent than that odd combination.

Regardless, I do not think kite-and-snipe should be encouraged, at all--it tends to be boring to use and frustrating to fight against.

Few more radical ideas to encourage sniper Odyssey:

* New ship system that temporarily lets beams hit for hard flux.  Sort of like High Energy Focus except enable hard flux for beams instead of adding more damage.  This might make HIL usable, which is more common than Tachyon Lance.  Currently, HIL cannot overcome dissipation, and Odyssey with HILs instead of Lances relies entirely on fighters for hard flux.  Even with Longbows, it takes too long to kill many ships.

* Make the following hullmods built-in:  Unstable Injector, Advanced Targeting Core, and Delicate Machinery.  Unstable Injector for more speed (without base exceeding cruisers' best) and to take a bite out of the extra range from Advanced Targeting Core.  Advanced Targeting Core (combined with range malus from UI) for little more range boost.  Delicate Machinery so that CR decays even faster after peak performance expires so that Odyssey cannot rely on outlasting enemies with otherwise comparable peak performance.

* Lower peak performance a minute or two.  Also less OP to compensate for the goodies.

If Odyssey will be untouchable death, make it better at it, but lower the time it can fight on the field.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2018, 03:30:56 PM »

The point of the weird hullmod combo was to give more shot range, but the penalty from UI to prevent range from being too much.  Unstable Injector to boost speed without having its base speed exceed 80, the base speed the fastest cruisers have.  Delicate Machinery is there to speed up the CR decay and discourage Odyssey from outwaiting an enemy it cannot beat fairly (namely Paragon).  It is a radical idea, after all.

If lance sniper will be Odyssey's final role, perhaps it could be turned into something like a capital-sized Hyperion (without teleportation).  Disgustingly overpowered on the field, but has very limited time to wreck things before it breaks down.  Currently, lance sniper with Hardened Subsystems can run away from anything it cannot fight fairly and wait until enemy CR ticks down to 0, then approach and zap the undefended enemy with long-range tachyon lances.

Quote
Regardless, I do not think kite-and-snipe should be encouraged, at all--it tends to be boring to use and frustrating to fight against.
It is fun to use for me, but it is annoying to fight against (which the player will not since AI only has the classic brawler variant with Autopulse and Guardian PD).  I do think waiting until the enemy runs out of CR first is annoying and boring, but if it is the only way (or most efficient way) to win, I will use it without hesitation.

Currently, the Odyssey is only good if it can run away from everything and snipe things to death with Tachyon Lances; or in case of enemy Paragon, wait until enemy runs out of CR first.  If Odyssey uses HILs instead of Lances, it is too hard to scratch the enemy.  If Odyssey uses anything else, it gets outranged and clobbered either by an enemy capital or surrounded by a group of smaller ships.  Odyssey is only powerful with lances or with various character skills fixing major weaknesses with the hull.

The biggest problem with the lance sniper is the Odyssey cannot receive buffs that would help the classic brawler loadouts without making the lance sniper loadout even stronger.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 03:36:21 PM by Megas »
Logged

Blothorn

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2018, 03:35:38 PM »

Note that by adding UI+ATC you actually hurt range relative to ITU--from 1.6x nominal for all weapons to 1.5x nominal for non-PD weapons and 1.2x nominal for PD.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2018, 03:41:57 PM »

Note that by adding UI+ATC you actually hurt range relative to ITU--from 1.6x nominal for all weapons to 1.5x nominal for non-PD weapons and 1.2x nominal for PD.
ATC doubles shot range to non-PD, while ITU gives only +60%.  UI removes 15%.  If range bonuses are additive, that is net gain of +85%.  As for PD, this is the sniper loadout we are talking about.  If push comes to shove, PD can be completely sacrificed (even if it hurts a bit) if the loadout needs another hullmod or something else more (like Hardened Subsystems to outlast Paragon or other hard fight) to win.  Without Loadout Design 3, Odyssey is too OP starved to get everything useful (but not necessarily required), something needs to be sacrificed.
Logged

Techhead

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2018, 07:25:54 PM »

Note that by adding UI+ATC you actually hurt range relative to ITU--from 1.6x nominal for all weapons to 1.5x nominal for non-PD weapons and 1.2x nominal for PD.
ATC doubles shot range to non-PD, while ITU gives only +60%.  UI removes 15%.  If range bonuses are additive, that is net gain of +85%.
Bonuses are multiplicative with penalties, so ATC+UI gives +70% range to non-PD and +36% range to PD.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2018, 08:11:04 PM »

Megas, your testing indicates to me that you're almost to the point of thinking nothing needs to change. Part of the reason you're not quite there is because you're looking at the ship in a testing vacuum and aren't looking or thinking about how the ship interacts with player fleets.

Just like how you found that the Paragon has a hard time against the fleet you set up unless you cheese it your evaluation of the Odyssey still leaves out the bonuses attached to your original estimation of the Paragon as a result of flying it in a real game. That is, you tend to have a fleet behind you in the real game so the ship that is being tested itself does not need to do everything on its own.

The lack of an easy way to apply hard flux as well as the necessity to point all three weapons at a single enemy are not things that are as significant in an actual game, whereas the ability to interact with the rest of the ships in your fleet is. The Odyssey is really amazingly good at that. The Paragon, with a fleet behind it, doesn't get surrounded and so cannot get overwhelmed. The Odyssey, with a fleet behind it, doesn't have to worry about applying hard flux to cruiser sized targets and above.

While you are correct that in the non-TL setups it is currently maybe a bit weak and this might justify a tweak to its OP costs* i don't think that the things you're proposing are necessary or even wise with regards to the ships overall balance. Adding a fleet behind it corrects the primary complaints. However, i can definitely see places where the ship can be modified in order to make it more suitable and more obviously purposeful compared to the other capitals

The way I see is is that the odyssey is a continuation of the Apogee line but doesn't have the unique strategic advantages that the Apogee has. The Apogee has Capital size sensor range and cruiser size sensor radius. The intention is that it is supposed to lead fleets for exploration and while its OK for that (it still fails in terms of combat deployment efficiency) it still has unique advantages compared to a more conventional warship cruiser that cannot be overlooked. The Odyssey doesn't really. The 8 burn speed is nice (especially when going dark) but its fuel cost is just as high as any other capital. Its sensor radius is as large as any other capital, its sensor range is just as small as any other capital.

If we are going for a "niche" then the "efficient capital" seems like a reasonable place to put it to me. This doesn't have to be in terms of DP (40 would be fine) but could be in terms of maintenance and fuel use. If the Paragon was a vanity project then the Odyssey would be the "newfangled environmental wonder". Drop it down to 30 supplies/month and 7 fuel/LY. Give it High Resolution Sensors and/or Insulated Engine Assembly built in... or maybe an Operations Center. Things that don't directly benefit the pilot but are still very useful on the campaign map(or tactical map in terms of the OP center). Things that justify Tri-Tach using it as a primary battlecruiser rather than skipping over for the more straightforward Astral and Paragon.


*at the very least because the AI is bad with it, they do the whole "nose in; point three guns at a target" which while OK when you're alone is a recipe to get ruined against a player. So while a 5 OP cost to the player isn't so much its more important to the AI, which needs every ship it can get to counteract human advantages.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Odyssey's piloting
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2018, 06:22:52 AM »

Lance Odyssey is probably comparable to Conquest in effectiveness.  Non-beam Odyssey is probably about as effective as a cruiser, which is not good enough for how much it eats.

I do not like the current Odyssey design.  There is one true loadout, lance sniper, which is very hard to assemble (due to weapon and hullmod rarity), while the rest (including classic loadouts that used to be viable) are traps.  Loadout of lance Odyssey is so rigid that it might as well have nearly everything (aside from which hullmod among Expanded Deck Crew and Hardened Subsystems and second bomber wing you need for a particular fight) builtin.

If Lance Odyssey will be the official Odyssey, it needs to be redesigned to that it does not have so many empty mounts (three missile mounts which will never be filled and at least one small mount due to lack of OP).  It also needs to widen the sweet spot because Odyssey really needs to focus-fire three lances.  (AI might not have much problem aiming three lances, but then again, AI lance Odyssey can only fight well in one-on-one duels.  Its attacks are too unfocused against a crowd.)

It is probably better if lance Odyssey was split into a different ship, a new high-tech capital that does everything Lance Odyssey can do, without the wasted mounts and weird turret arcs, maybe less peak performance too since its fighting style consists of outspeeding and outranging everything.  I do not know if people would enjoy fighting against it controlled by enemy AI, since such a ship can run away like a Timid ship.  Currently, there is no way to fight against triple lance Odyssey in a campaign without mods.  Meanwhile, classic-style Odyssey should get significantly buffed, but turret arcs changed so that triple lance sniper is no longer possible (because it is so much better than every other Odyssey loadout).

If classic-style Odyssey with terrible shot range is to be used, it needs to have much better shields, perhaps 0.6, and maybe better flux stats, so it can approach enemies safely and slug it out.  Without lances, Odyssey has no choice but to slug it out like an Aurora, but since Odyssey is capital-sized and is too big and slow to hit-and-run with short-ranged weapons, it needs to be tanky enough to fight like a capital.  Or perhaps instead of huge durability buff, its system can be replaced by Phase Skimmer (which works wonders at dodging stuff) and durability might not be raised as much.

* * *

Paragon had a harder time initially until it made it to the wall.  (In a campaign fight, Paragon would not need to go so far into the open to attract enemies.)  Once Paragon made it to the wall, it absolutely destroyed the enemy, and relatively quickly.  Admittedly, it used much of the same rare stuff Odyssey needs.  Onslaught had a harder time, but it did not need rare stuff beyond ITU (which will eventually drop after enough endgame fights).

Odyssey had to run for its life from frigates much and it needs time to pick off isolated targets.  Odyssey could avoid getting surrounded, but it did not have infinite time to kill things.  Peak performance was the greatest enemy.  Odyssey had to take some risks to kill ships before CR timed out.  Conquest fought similarly as lance Odyssey.

Against smaller targets, Odyssey did not necessarily need hard flux.  With three lances and four lasers, soft flux was overwhelming enough to destroy frigates and some destroyers.  It is only against bigger ships that soft flux is very important.

The point of solo simulator fights is an approximation of campaign fights, albeit without campaign skills on enemies that can turn otherwise easy fights much harder.

I have had one-on-one fights against capitals in the campaign.  Sometimes, my fleet would take too many casualties if they engaged with the capital, so I send them elsewhere to fight everyone else while my flagship duels the enemy capital.

* * *

Apogee is a bad ship because it lacks the speed and the tools to fight effectively.  It is too slow, and it does not have the shot range to engage effectively without getting surrounded.  Apogee has noticeably better capacity than other cruisers, which makes it more like a high tech Mule, but Apogee comes too late when hybrids are useful.  It might have been alright if it was easily accessible and found early in the game like Mule or Venture, but it comes too late.  As a warship, it is sub-par.

I do not know what other campaign advantages Apogee bring.  Apogee's builtin surveying equipment is eventually available to everyone (that gets put on all of the freighters and tankers if I bother with surveying), and high resolution sensors eventually does not matter when I want enemies to find me and fight.  Anything useful Apogee could bring for non-combat, I am better off bringing a dedicated hauler.

Odyssey can haul a bit more supplies than other capitals, but not enough to matter.  That is like saying Wolf is a good enough hauler to qualify as a hybrid (which it does not) because it can take ten or so more supplies than Lasher.  Odyssey used to have decent fuel capacity before 0.8, but that probably got whacked when fuel was gutted for every ship that was not a tanker, not to mention Odyssey guzzles ten fuel per light-year.  If anything, Odyssey is more similar to either Aurora (classic loadouts) or Conquest (lance sniper).  Modern Odyssey is a dedicated warship.

As for fleet, that is not a point in Odyssey's favor (as a flagship) because it is not a front-line unit, not to mention ships in general benefit from a fleet.  After all, a ship that can help itself and others is better than a ship that requires help.  Currently, carrier fleets are probably the most effective fleet in the game.  Due to AI faults, AI carriers love to send their fighters (if you want heavy fighter spam) to escort your flagship, and if you want to use their fighter escorts (who insist on buzzing around your flagship like flies) to attack ships, you need to wade in and tank for your carriers, and Odyssey cannot do that as well as others (because it is too fragile and too slow to escape if it gets caught).  Your flagship needs to be somewhat close before your fighters decide to attack whatever you are attacking.  (Astral flagship has a terrible day, it must tank for the other carriers just so all fighters from your fleet attack something instead of hovering around your flagship.)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5