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 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12

Author Topic: War on Vanilla  (Read 21556 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #120 on: June 05, 2019, 04:15:20 AM »

Re: Gladius
"Fast, deadly, and well-armored"  It is fast.  Deadly?  No.  Well-armored?  Not if it is just as fragile as a Thunder, with matching hull and armor.  I cannot see any time where I would take Gladius over Thunder, or possibly Claws.  (If I did not have Thunder or Claws, then I probably take more Talons and Broadswords.)  Worth no more than 8 DP as it is.
Logged

stormbringer951

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #121 on: June 05, 2019, 05:21:54 AM »

Thunders and Claws could probably both stand to be more expensive. They're probably the most threatening fighter at their price point against most of the enemies in the game.
Logged
Weapons Group Controls mod - deselect all weapon groups, hold-down hold-fire mode, toggle alternating/linked fire
Captain's Log - throw away your notepad: custom notes, ruins and salvageable reminders
Old Hyperion - for your dose of nostalgia
Adjustable Skill Thresholds - set fleet DP and fighter bay thresholds

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #122 on: June 05, 2019, 05:27:00 AM »

Thunders are fine.  They may dominate fights that are easy, but they die easily in hard fights.  Claws have been weakened in 0.9.x; they can immobilize targets, but they take too long to kill things.  Claws used to kill things slowly in 0.8.x with normal Ion Cannons, but now peak performance will run out before they can do more than EMP targets with weaker high-delay Ion Cannon.

Thunders hit harder than Broadswords, but are nowhere near as durable.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #123 on: June 05, 2019, 07:41:06 AM »

Flares are why Gladii are tougher than Thunders. They are a big deal.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #124 on: June 05, 2019, 10:47:02 AM »

It would be more accurate to say that flares may cause a few shots miss (and Gladius resurrects from death faster), much like how Ion Cannon from Thunders may prevent shots from being fired in the first place (along with flaming out engines).  From what I see, Gladius and Thunder are very similar, with the biggest difference that Gladius costs more OP.  So no, Gladius is not tougher than Thunder.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #125 on: June 05, 2019, 10:09:58 PM »

A few notes on Vanilla balance from my new exploration playthrough, which is a non-combat tree run.

1) Apogee is in a good place. It is a good exploration ship, but slow, and it is an acceptable hybrid combat ship. Its deployment cost is mostly right: it has similar battlefield impact to a Falcon because, like a Falcon, it has low DPS, but it lacks the speed and maneuverability to get out of bad situtations. Its strong shield makes it an acceptable anchor and the large missile slot can mount a Locust. It is very much inferior to Eagles and Dominators, but that is reflected in the deployment cost

2) Shrike needs a mobility system that can let it back up, for the AI if nothing else. Its absolutely find offensively and flux wise as a cheap light destroyer/frigate hunter, but the AI keeps backing off, then charging in again to get popped by proper combat destroyers.

3) Playing without combat skills is much more difficult. My fleet is about half as effective, maybe even less, than in my combat playthroughs. A fleet of Apogee, 2 shrikes (1 regular, 1 P), 2 condors, 3 shepherds, and a wolf are struggling against foes that I would comfortably farm with 1 Hammerhead, 2 wolves, 1 condor, because my personal ship is so much less powerful.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #126 on: June 05, 2019, 10:53:13 PM »

The Apogee when properly outfitted is definitely a full combat cruiser: a LOT more powerful than a falcon. With a plasma cannon and a locust, it puts out a respectable amount of DPS, significantly more than a falcon, and comparable to eagle loadouts that aren't totally overfluxed. The The dominator can definitely put out a lot more DPS than either eagle or apogee but it is much less maneuverable, so I consider it to fill a different role. I find that the AI is more survivable with hardened shields apogee than eagle. I think the AI just performs better with tanky ships than ships that depend on maneuverability for survivability. For the player, I'd rather pilot and eagle probably, but it's close to a plasma cannon apogee.

I was using 5 apogee's at one point in my campaign and they were always the last ships to go down. When outfitted with hardened shields, they become ridiculously tanky. It does depend on having good weapons though. Without a plasma cannon, the apogee is relegated to a support/tank role, but there are plenty of fleet compositions where that it what is required from the cruisers and that is also what the AI is best at. Any fleet with a heavy bomber composition will benefit a lot from having apogees. The campaign stats push it over the edge from balanced to overturned imo, but it's somewhat rare as are the weapons/hullmods to enable it so it's not totally unbalanced.

I've found the AI performs worse with mobility systems, and ships with no mobility systems tend to be safer in AI hands, regardless of how good the ships are. I think it is because the AI thinks it is safe while the mobility system is activated and when the system runs out, it ends up in a situation it can't escape. I generally avoid giving mobility system ships to the AI for that reason.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #127 on: June 05, 2019, 11:12:33 PM »

Huh, thats nearly the opposite of my experience with a very similar loadout (Plasma + Locusts). The locusts are of course great, and give good anti-fighter cover for a light cruiser, but the shorter range of a plasma cannon combined with the Apogee's slow speed makes it offensively very weak: unable to catch anything it can overwhelm, and unable to beat anything it can catch. I've been doing a comparison of performance with a newly bought Falcon, and the Falcon, in AI hands, is just so much more active on the battlefield. The only reason I consider the Apogee worth the same amount is its ability to mount a locust :P.

This may also reflect my own bias: I don't care at all if a ship is the last to go down, because I want my ships to be killing rather than just not-dying. Or at least be pushing the enemy back and/or giving me supporting fire.

The AI does well with maneuvering jets, but I think the main reason for that is that the jets have short cooldowns and allow them to change direction in mid-maneuver. I agree with you for plasma burn, that is a bit of a nightmare.
Logged

Null Ganymede

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2019, 11:16:49 PM »

Shrikes work well with bursty close-range weapons and an aggressive officer. They need to dominate their immediate surroundings and avoid prolonged engagements.

You could probably do a standoff beam shrike, but it wouldn't make good use of the system. Officers or default AI not aggressive enough to get *in* there and flux-lock or EMP the enemy are also doomed.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #129 on: June 06, 2019, 12:02:58 AM »

I'd say in early-mid game, falcons are probably better for killing smaller things, but they don't scale into late game for me. They just start dying once heavy hitters come onto the battlefield. If an onslaught or conquest burns onto a falcon, it instantly dies, but an apogee usually gets away. Apogees can take a huge punch. I generally depend on fighters/bombers to kill things along with my flagship, so my expectation for my AI companions is that they don't die and occupy the enemy until I or my bombers get around to killing them. I will often have a couple aggressive officers that I give things like dominators, but aggressive officers in highly maneuverable ships tend to die too much for my taste. They like to push flanks too far and then get surrounded.

Fighters can kill or distract anything smaller than a cruiser without too much trouble, and I've started using a strategy where i initially deploy a SO tempest as my flagship with couple omen/tempest escorts and sweep as many frigates/destroyers as I can (while also messing with the enemy AI by flying around behind them) before peak performance time runs out, after which I deploy a big flagship to finish the fight. So I don't expect my cruisers to kill destroyers or frigates. Essentially, I expect my warships to primarily occupy the enemy cruisers and capitals and punish anything that makes a mistake, and the apogee does that very well. Fighters/bombers are just much better at running things down than any cruiser.

I guess I rank ship power for AI more by how much punishment they can take, and view high damage/mobility ships as primarily player ships. Ships are crazy expensive now, so I'd rather minimize RNG and take risks myself while letting AI pilot safe ships that will keep my back clear and punish things that get out of position because of me. Bombers are a much more low risk way of letting the AI kill things. I've also found this strategy lets me take fights that I have no business winning (in terms of firepower), because I am not relying on the fleets ability to overwhelm the enemy. I've successfully killed a multi capital fleet (I think 6 capitals, several with officers with many more cruisers) with only cruisers in my own fleet because the onslaughts couldn't kill my apogees and my herons/moras/drovers eventually killed all the capitals with bombers.
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #130 on: June 06, 2019, 03:18:25 AM »

Apogee gives you large mounts and a great flux / shield pool on a budget. It doesn't have to be the fastest and it's seldom 1v1 anyway. It just has to take the hits. It works like a pocket cap ship in that regard. I'm never worried seeing an Onslaught or Paragon facing off against my Apogee because I know it can stand up to it for a while.

I wouldn't want more than one in my fleet, but that one makes all the other more offensive ships that much better.

Shrike's system could be changed to allow it to go two ways, forward and back. That should make it a fair bit more annoying and probably more survivable.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #131 on: June 06, 2019, 06:14:41 AM »

A few notes on Vanilla balance from my new exploration playthrough, which is a non-combat tree run.

1) Apogee is in a good place. It is a good exploration ship, but slow, and it is an acceptable hybrid combat ship. Its deployment cost is mostly right: it has similar battlefield impact to a Falcon because, like a Falcon, it has low DPS, but it lacks the speed and maneuverability to get out of bad situtations. Its strong shield makes it an acceptable anchor and the large missile slot can mount a Locust. It is very much inferior to Eagles and Dominators, but that is reflected in the deployment cost

2) Shrike needs a mobility system that can let it back up, for the AI if nothing else. Its absolutely find offensively and flux wise as a cheap light destroyer/frigate hunter, but the AI keeps backing off, then charging in again to get popped by proper combat destroyers.

3) Playing without combat skills is much more difficult. My fleet is about half as effective, maybe even less, than in my combat playthroughs. A fleet of Apogee, 2 shrikes (1 regular, 1 P), 2 condors, 3 shepherds, and a wolf are struggling against foes that I would comfortably farm with 1 Hammerhead, 2 wolves, 1 condor, because my personal ship is so much less powerful.
1) Apogee is a much stronger ship once it gets plasma cannons and Locusts.  Plasma cannon is a bit rare, but Locusts have become fairly common now that pirates have the Atlas 2 (they sell what they use).  Apogee is mostly fine, except maybe DP cost.  18 DP is too low if Paragon is any indication.  (I think Paragon at 60 DP is too much unless it uses a specific loadout that uses Tachyon Lances.)  With plasma cannon and locusts, Apogee is probably worth 20 or even 22 DP.  But with inferior weapons, 18 DP seems about right.

2) I agree with this, but mainly for Odyssey's sake since it has the same system as Shrike, and AI is just as dumb with it on Odyssey.  At least Shrike is cheap and disposable.  Odyssey is expensive and a bigger problem.  Despite Odyssey's flaws, player can make it work if he pilots it.  AI cannot.  It treats Odyssey much like on Onslaught and will burn head on into combat for a direct frontal assault, where it will get popped quickly by enemy capital or a mob of small ships because Odyssey has weaker defenses and firepower (without plasma cannons) than a proper battleship.

3) What would you call full combat build?

Generally, I go for Electronic Warfare 1, Loadout Design 3, Fleet Logistics 3, Coordinated Maneuvers 1, Combat Endurance 1, Evasive Action 1, and Helmsmanship 2 first, then get Defensive Systems 2 or 3, Gunnery Implants 3, and Power Grid Modulation 2.  There, I get into decision paralysis because there are a bunch of other things I want but will not get enough skill points for them all.  Among them, Ordnance Expert, Damage Control, Fighter Doctrine, Planetary Operations, Navigation, Colony Management, and Industrial Planning - all maxed.  Plus Officer Management 1 or 2.

With industry limits and harsher demand for ores and volatiles, the Industry colony skills are not negotiable if I do not plan to depend on cores for my primary colonies.  Even Planetary Operations looks very attractive for increased defense and stability.  (Once Free Port in on, stability is too swingy with pirate activity and enemies stealing relays, nevermind stuff like Decivilized on the occasional planet that would be good to colonize.)

I agree with others that survivability is more important than mobility and offense for AI ships.  (I do not put Helmsmanship on the few officers I have.)  They do need some offense to hurt the enemy, but the ability to survive mistakes or to prevent mistakes that would plague weaker ships is more important.

P.S.  Before 0.9.1a, I would have shrugged off Navigation because of the skill point crunch.  It is convenient, but I was not aggravated enough to take it.  Lately, after constant babysitting and big systems to slog through, plus fleet cap making four tugs hard to bring, I am starting to rate Navigation as high as max colony skills and will take it eventually, once I need to babysit core worlds much.  Also, I do not remember pop-up bases spawning in neutron stars before 0.9.1, and dodging pulsar beams to kill a base and leave is a pain.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2019, 06:24:26 AM by Megas »
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #132 on: June 07, 2019, 02:25:12 PM »

I'll give that the Apogee is a solid tank: it has a good shield and great flux. But even with Plasma and Locust, its DPS is just too low for me to think of it as anything other than an AI support ship. I can accept it plays the role of punching bag very well without dying, but thats just not what I want in my AI ships. I want them to kill :P.

This might be related to me not using carriers very much - If I needed a blocking ship to protect carriers, like something to keep an Astral safe, then I can see the Apogee's tank role having more use. For 18 DP though, thats about right.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #133 on: June 07, 2019, 03:21:54 PM »

It has similar dps as an eagle unless you are exceeding the eagles dissipation by a lot. I pilot the apogee quite regularly and I have no trouble killing things. Plasma + locust is a lot of dps (750 energy and 900 frag), hardly a support ship. A little underpowered into shields (made up for by great dissipation) and plasma is great armor penetration and 900 frag damage gives it tons of finishing power with a lot of range.

The eagle theoretically has the weapon mounts to put out significantly more dps but it doesn't have the dissipation to actually utilize all it's mounts effectively. Even just filling the 3 ballistic mounts with decent weapons will exceed the base dissipation of the ship. You have to max vents to accommodate even a conservative beam and PD loadout for the energy slots. I consider the apogee and eagle to have similar firepower with the eagle as the winner by a small margin. The falcon is totally outclassed by the apogee for anything other bullying fast destroyers and frigates. I think 18 DP is underselling the apogee as combat ship, but then the apogee is also probably the best ship in the game for campaign stats. It's the combination of being slightly undervalued for combat performance and also being amazing outside of combat that makes it over tuned Imo. Maybe factoring in rarity, you might make an argument that it's in an ok place though.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: War on Vanilla
« Reply #134 on: June 07, 2019, 03:40:30 PM »

The more I fly the Apogee, the more I dislike it. I now consider it completely outclassed by an Eagle, and only comparable to a Falcon for its tough shields. Its slow speed, short range (on a plasma cannon build), and inability to mount kinetics means that, in practice, it has destroyer level firepower (and not even good destroyer level - both the Sunder and Hammerhead outclass it in damage, though its true both are much more fragile). It can't outpower a cruiser and it can't catch a destroyer. The Locust is absolutely great and gives the ship some ability at the beginning of the fight, but is sadly ammo limited.

An Eagle can comfortably support 3x ballistic + 2x phase lance + 1x ion beam, which is both my AI and personal loadout. This gives is greater range, speed/maneuverability, dps vs shield and armor, support ability, and accurate burst killing power.

A Falcon is so fast that it can kite with impunity anything it can't outright kill. Its a terror to destroyers and frigates, and fast/tough enough to flank and EMP capital ships without fear of dying.

At this point I would not rate an Apogee at 18 DP for my fleets/fighting styles - the fact that others seem to like it so much means that maybe its worth that much for other people's styles, but for me its a 15 at best, barely more effective than a heavy destroyer.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12