Print

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

[AxleMC131]

I've recently found that Gladii are pretty darn good in a mixed interceptor wing. They are the only interceptor with flares, so they really up the survivability of the other wings, while also adding shield breaking.

Oh hey, it's almost as if the Gladius' description was accurate to its performance in-game!  

(I love the Gladius mostly as a multi-role fighter though, great when you have limited decks in your fleet and can't decide what else to put on.)

[Thaago]

Heh

I almost added that it needed a shield to be a top tier fighter.

[Megas]

At 10 OP, Gladius is a bit too pricey for what it does.  It is a Thunder without the Ion Cannon that replaces a little faster.  I only use it if Thunder's replacement rate would be too slow for the ship.  Otherwise, I take my chances and stick with cheaper (8 OP) Thunders (or Broadswords if availability is an issue).  Thunders' swarmers act either an improvised flares or HE damage.  If Gladius cost less OP to match Broadswords and Thunders, it would be very good.

[Philder]

Derailling from original topic a bit, but I disagree about Gladius. It's only 2 OP more than Broadsword and Thunder so it's hardly noticeable. What you gain, however, is a Talon's mobility and some bonus DPS that is more effective against low armor and hull. Frigates' speed is disadvantageous to fighters with lower speeds. It makes it take longer to take them down and reduces fighters' evasive mobility.

I tend to view Broadsword, Gladius and Thunder as the same class of ship, with their own unique advantages and disadvantages.

Broadsword: + Tank, + Better Kinetic DPS, - Low Speed and Maneuvreability

Gladius: + Good Speed and Maneuvreability, + Slight Armor and Hull Pen, - Small Wing

Thunder: +Extreme Speed and Maneuvrability, + Armor and Hull Pen, + EMP, - Very Slow Replacement, - No Decoy Flare

I use Thunder almost exclusively with Reserve Deployment to counteract the slow replacement time, and mainly just for chasing down and disabling fast ships. Gladius is great in early game to quickly take care of frigates. I use them as an upgrade to Talons. They take down shields much faster and are much sturdier. A Drover with 2x Gladius and 4x Swarmer is exceptional in early game. Broadsword I use for all other situations that calls for shield suppression. Their ability to soak damage and suppress shields is just unmatched. Their lesser mobility is largely irrelevant once cruisers show up.

[Megas]

Derailling from original topic a bit, but I disagree about Gladius. It's only 2 OP more than Broadsword and Thunder so it's hardly noticeable. What you gain, however, is a Talon's mobility and some bonus DPS that is more effective against low armor and hull. Frigates' speed is disadvantageous to fighters with lower speeds. It makes it take longer to take them down and reduces fighters' evasive mobility.

With stingy OP totals and multiple bays, 2 more OP per wing Gladii have over Broadswords and Thunders is highly noticeable, especially on Legion or other ships where I am stripping small weapons or cutting vents to make everything fit.  Carriers in general are extremely OP hungry, more so than conventional gunships.

If availability is problem, I use Broadswords because they are one of the three LPCs (among Talons, Broadswords, and Piranha) that are common and readily available from Open Market.

Thunders can hit any defense.  Their "decoy flare" are the swarmers.  Either they distract PD or they hit their target can cause some damage.  If Thunders did not replace so slowly, they would be a no-brainer pick over Gladius.  Even with slow replacement, they are almost a no-brainer.  Both Gladius and Thunder have similar durability.  Perhaps the main reason to use Gladius over Thunder is availability - I have Gladius but no Thunders (or no Claws).

The only thing Gladii have over Thunders is somewhat faster replacement rate (on par with Broadswords).  That is not enough to justify spending 2 more OP than its competitors.

[Igncom1]

Aren't thunders classed as interceptors rather then as fighters?

Although even I'm not too sure what the distinction is.

Fighters I think are generally heavy craft with flares, designed to escort bombers to their targets. Where as Interceptors are designed to quick and nimble to catch enemy craft and missiles before they can strike?

I dunno, because even then interceptors are often just as good as most fighters at just killing stuff that they don't really need the durability. And the Gladii isn't very tank-y at all.

Terminology is confusing.

[Philder]

@Megas

As I mentioned, I pretty much only use Gladius vs frigates, mostly just in early game. Or put in another way, I mostly just use them with Destroyer carriers, which aren't so OP starved.

As for Thunder vs Gladius, replacement rate is more crucial when you have a smaller fighter swarm, and Gladius has much better dps vs shields. The faster my fighters can remove shields, the faster I can blow things up with HE missiles. I rather use Thunder for their interceptor role. Their overall shield dps is much lower. I haven't done the math but I daresay Gladius will at the very least also be competitive when it comes to armor dps. Gladius also wins with hull dps as well. Given that, the Gladius is the obvious winner when it comes to dps. Thunders' strengths are in the department of utility. ie: max speed, engagement range, and EMP damage, and I use them as such. I agree, the swarmers are good for distracting PD, but they're absolutely nowhere near as effective as decoy flares. To approach that level of use you have to have a substantial swarm of Talons constantly peppering the target with swarmers, and even then it only distracts PD, not normal weapons or missiles.

Broadsword, at first glance, seems better than Gladius in every way but the mobility of Gladius grants it hidden stats, so to say. They reach the target faster, they can stay in range faster, and can turn faster to keep their guns firing more often. In that way, a single Gladius is able to output more dps with the LMGs alone than the Broadsword. Add on the IR Pulse Laser and Gladius easily outdoes the Broadsword in that department.

Availability is irrelevant in ranking fighters. You use whatever is available + whatever you can afford + whatever is currently best. It'd be silly to skip a better option that's currently available just because it's not commonly available. It'd be like skipping on a Tempest, Paragon or Astral that popped up in the market or had a chance to recover just because it's a rare find. Where's the sense in that? If it's rare and it's good, buy it when it finally does pop up!

@Igncom1

The class is just their intended design/use. You can use any ship for whatever use you like, of course.

As far as terminology, fighters are just that. They fight things out with the enemy, ie; going toe-to-toe. 'Heavy' just means beefier. Interceptors are meant to intercept, ie: super speedy, long ranged, and capable of disabling dangers. North America, for example, invests heavily in interceptors because of the huge area it has to protect from several directions, and has to deal with very speedy potential dangers like intercontinental ballistic missiles.

That doesn't mean that interceptors can't engage in other circumstances, however.

Fighters don't necessarily need to be tanks, they just need to win. But I disagree with you; the Gladius is quite tanky. It is faster and more maneuvrable, ie: harder to hit, and it has decoy flares which decreases the effects of any attacks. Sort of like what armor/hull does, no? It just doesn't have as much hull as the Broadsword, which is a fair exchange for the difference in maneuvreability.

[Megas]

Availability is irrelevant in ranking fighters. You use whatever is available + whatever you can afford + whatever is currently best. It'd be silly to skip a better option that's currently available just because it's not commonly available. It'd be like skipping on a Tempest, Paragon or Astral that popped up in the market or had a chance to recover just because it's a rare find. Where's the sense in that? If it's rare and it's good, buy it when it finally does pop up!

Availability is why I use clunkers instead of what I want.  I much prefer to use a fleet full of undamaged ships with all of the best weapons, but I do not because even if I have it, if I lose it, it is an automatic game reload (because I am not willing to grind hours for replacements ala Diablo 2 or other grindy online RPG).

I do not want to spend most of my time reloading games because the game is too stingy handing out the fun stuff like Diablo 2's high runes or trading card game's ultra rares.  Thus, the clunker fleet with lots of Open Market hardware, even if I do not enjoy it but I use it anyway because the alternative is worse - constant game reloading to restore rare stuff lost in combat.

Sure, availability is irrelevant to ranking, but ranking is meaningless if it is not practical to use it.

P.S.  As for Gladius vs. Thunders, they seem about equal at killing smaller ships.  Gladius is slightly better than Thunders at killing bigger ships.  I still think 10 OP is a bit much for Gladius, but I would not be opposed to 9 OP.  If I am hurting for OP, I will pick Thunder over Gladius due to OP cost alone, because both are roughly comparable in performance.  I agree Broadswords are not as good at killing things as either Gladii or Thunders, but... I can easily replace Broadswords (and Talons for that matter).  I much prefer to have all of my fighters be Warthogs and Claws, but I do not have enough to go around.  Thus, a mix of various good stuff mixed in with Open Market stuff.  For example, I think my Legion has one Warthog, one Broadsword, one Thunder or Claw, and one Talon.

[Philder]

To be clear, I never mentioned any such thing as "Use only this" or "Never use that". I'm just saying Gladius wings are worth it, so, much like with anything else that is rarer and good, when the opportunity shows itself, make use of them.

re Gladius vs Thunder: during the period of time I usually make use of Gladii, the durability and replacement rate is very important, especially if I don't have Reserve Deployment. Also, I make use of HE missiles, so optimizing killtime would require that shields are killed faster. The missiles I use are better than what Thunder offers, so it's much more efficient to do it like that. And running flux up faster gives the bonus of reducing the enemy's ability to output damage, so there's that, too. The difference in killing shields/running up flux between Gld and Thnd is significant enough to make note of. Gld does have a slower approach to target, so it sooooort of evens out, but only if there's a lot of distance to target. All the other strengths of Gld still make it the better choice for the 'fighter' role.

If I get my hands on a Gemini or Odyssey, though, Thnd wil be the priority fighter. On the Gemini, the synergy of Thnd + Annihilator Pod is just too good. And Odyssey makes great use of them for chasing down destroyers and frigates, or disabling engines on bigger craft so the Odyssey can better flank. Gemini has RD, and Odyssey doesn't need fighters to be constantly out there, so the replacement rate doesn't matter so much. Herons can also make pretty good use of them. Their speed makes them great for chasing anything down, and again the Thnd + Anni Pod synergy.

[Goumindong]

At 10 OP, Gladius is a bit too pricey for what it does.  It is a Thunder without the Ion Cannon that replaces a little faster.  I only use it if Thunder's replacement rate would be too slow for the ship.  Otherwise, I take my chances and stick with cheaper (8 OP) Thunders (or Broadswords if availability is an issue).  Thunders' swarmers act either an improvised flares or HE damage.  If Gladius cost less OP to match Broadswords and Thunders, it would be very good.

Nah. Gladius is almost a straight upgrade to the broadsword and much better than the Thunder at applying general damage and anti-shield work.

The IR pulse laser make the gladius cut through fighters and frigates much faster than the broadsword. A broadsword wing does 1404 shield damage/second. A Gladius wing does 1240. But the broadsword wing does 468 armor DPS with a pen value of 12.5. The Gladius does 616 with a pen value of 50 on half of it. As an example vs an armor value of 100 (broadsword) a broadsword wing does 52 DPS. A gladius wing does 136.5 DPS.

The Thunder, while good to OK for anti-fighter work simply has pathetic anti-shield punch and an unfortunate tendency to fail against the majority of fighter defenses. (Shields negate ion cannon and swarmer, flares negate swarmer). Because it only has two fighters it can easily be swarmed (negating the ion cannon advantage) by other fighters. This means that, ironically, is mainly best at defending against Gladius and Boradsword or Khopesh. But unless you’re at over 4K range from your allies you could just defend with Gladius or Broadswords... 

Though their ability to go and chase down frigates is super nice (due to their hilarious speed and long range) that isn’t a particularly pressing need since either those frigates come back or they’re no longer your problem. But the fact that they’re not able to put significant anti-shield pressure down on larger ships is a huge disadvantage for general fleet work.

If you’re so concerned about OP that 2 is going to break the bank then you’re probably not looking for the types of things that Thunder/broadswords/Gladius do. You want a wasp wing to be your permanent makeshift fighter bay companion. But if you’re not then the 2 upgrade cost is worth it.

[Linnis]

Are carriers overpowered?
Sure.

But does that make the game less enjoyable?
On the contrary it makes the game more fun.

 Before fighters were just meh and fights between fleets always had several fights going on where one ship will just kite the other until a frigate got mixed in and then something happens. Now it is much more action packed as fighters would act like the soldiers and destroyers and above would act like heavy ordinance.

Instead of the previous mandatory frigate swarm in larger fleets it is now fighter carriers in fleets. Also it is not like other ships are useless to a point where only fighters is the best strategy.

[Thaago]

I share Linnis' opinion: Fighters/carriers being very powerful is great for gameplay because it gives variations in fleet composition that are all valid viable options. Anti-fighter builds on ships, to the point where they are weaker in ship v ship combat, are actually competitive in fleets that are lighter on fighter support. Meanwhile a fleet with lots of interceptors can outfit its combat ships for pure anti-ship work, or a fleet heavy in frigates might outfit the carriers with anti-capital strike.

[Goumindong]

I don't think carriers are overpowered. They have useful roles and can anchor a fleet better than many other ships, but they don't actually have particularly good ways to deal HE damage compared to regular ships.

Daggers and Tridents are OK at this but because they have to rearm they fall in effectiveness compared to more specialized non-carrier ships. As an example, a Heron with 3 Daggers produces between 540 and 1080 HE DPS depending on the distance to the target. Though this number is produced with high quality penetration values it also assumes perfect application of the ships ability. An Eagle, a relatively low DPS ship, produces 600 HE DPS with the medium slots alone. It has a much shorter range sure, but if you need to punish something it works just about as well, and can do so without much worry about point defense. And if you didn't worry about getting up close then you could put upwards of 1200 HE damage out. Again with just the medium slots.

Granted the best ships at this are pretty specialized (Sunder w/HIL -> 500 HE DPS to 1400 range for 11 Supply, Enforcer 1200 HE DPS to 1200 range for 9, Brawler 400 to 1100 for 4; these last two cap permitting) but the margin here is on the kinetic damage, which is where carriers shine. That same Heron puts out 2808 kinetic DPS with Broadswords not using the active ability.

In general, bigger ships get better at anti-fighter work, smaller ships do best in terms of raw DPS, and carriers do best at disabling ships(especially small ships). Its pretty balanced all things considered

*Daggers and Tridents are good to OK, but the total effective DPS time is a lot lower than standard ships options.

[intrinsic_parity]

Trying to compare DPS will not necessarily highlight the reason why carriers are good or bad. The benefit of carriers is not DPS. Standard battleships may have more damage potential but in order to us it, they must put themselves at risk by closing distance and raising their flux levels. Carriers do not need to do this. They can stay far away and devote their entire flux pool to defense. This makes them much more powerful because they are never at risk, and dictate the engagement while the enemy has to undertake massive risks to any lasting damage at all. Fighters are also functionally unlimited ammo missile launchers which gives carriers massive and sustainable alpha damage potential that almost no other ships have. Finally, carriers hard counter frigates which is something that slow cruisers and capitals struggle with.

[Goumindong]

Carriers do not have zero risk. They must, at the least, fight their own. And if they rely on regular line ships to defend them from line ships or other carriers then...