Print

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

[Awe]

@Flying Birdy: Seems like a colony just near, so must be not very fuel intense.

Anyway, nice core farming setup. Must be viable for midgame game too without any dead weight if you dont engage 2 fleet at once.

[intrinsic_parity]

I don't know how viable it would be midgame to have that many sparks, I wonder how the strategy would perform with other fighters.

[Awe]

Must work without sparks too. I think sparks here just to negate crew losses.

[Thaago]

The key of this post isn't even really about carriers or fighters: its about tricking the deployment system to give the player more deployment points. For carriers this is especially good because the AI can't handle fighting them they concentrate force so well and the more the better, but in the end the strategy will work for any ship: going from 40-60 against to 60-40 for is a MASSIVE change in force balance.

Of course the point is moot, because the "dead weight" fleet is massively more powerful than the fleet that it is boosting for the trick. But its still a neat trick. (10 Paragons, or rather 5 as thats what you can deploy for 300 DP, will curbstomp any and every fleet in the entire game without the player needing to push a button.)

[intrinsic_parity]

It's definitely true that this strategy is mostly good because of the 10 paragons (i.e. not practical), but I was thinking of this thread http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=15271.0 in reference to the sparks. They are uniquely strong compared to other fighters because they have 5 fighters per wing and do energy damage. There's nothing else that can quite achieve the same concentration of force/firepower. I'm sure you could get it to work with other fighters but probably not as well. I'm just interested if the OP (or anyone else) has tried fighter spam similar to the other thread with other fighters.

[goduranus]

Broadsword+ Talons work pretty well, combining kinetic from Broadsword and HE and Frag from talons, they can dominate mid game, and be used to farm the first couple of Sparks from mid threat system.

An impressive feat of financial power to forge The Grandest Fleet  (a nod to a classic turn-based naval strat game).  A fleet of ten active, crewed Paragons, and 20 fully crewed carriers (I mention "crewed" but not really concerned about the crew salaries for a faction that could build and deploy all of these)...

...however is carrying 1200 total supplies and is burning 114 of them in...a single day.

A @six day radius of operations even IF all battles conducted are break-even on supplies?

114? Each Paragon burns 2 a day = 20, the astral burns 1.5, 19 Drovers burns 7.6, should be 29.1 supplies per day?

[Awe]

114? Each Paragon burns 2 a day = 20, the astral burns 1.5, 19 Drovers burns 7.6, should be 29.1 supplies per day?

He just look at postbattle consumption, which include CR recovery rate. 

[Goumindong]

So here's a thought experiment for you guys

What would be the most cost-effective "dead weight" ship to lug around for this kind of carrier spamming strat? I'm farming remnants in my game right now and flying around 5 capitals is already crazy fuel intensive, not to mention bringing 10 for the deadweight.  I'm talking about just in terms of fuel. I'm less concerned about supplies, as I can always suicide for d-mods on my ships for maintenance reduction.

For just fuel use its hyperions. 15 deployment / fuel. But hyperions also only carry 15 LY of fuel* and only have 15 DP/slot. Deadweight optimization is also a function of how many ships youre planning on deploying because there is a hard cap at 40 ships.

This makes the Doom probably best in general at 35/slot and 11.6 DP/Fuel with 50 ly. The Paragon is 60/slot, 6 DP/fuel, and 30 ly of capacity

*if a ship carries more ly of fuel than the average of he fleet then it will increase your total range and if it carries less it will decrease it. So while frigates may look good logistically for fuel many of them will significantly reduce your range compared to larger ships because some of them dont have comparable range to their larger counterparts

[Awe]

Broadsword+ Talons work pretty well, combining kinetic from Broadsword and HE and Frag from talons, they can dominate mid game, and be used to farm the first couple of Sparks from mid threat system.

Made a few tryes with Broadswords+Talons vs high threat solo fleets - winnable, but too costly - battles is too long. Need a decent flagship, like Astral from OP video, or Conquest. Just want something more common. I tryed with Omen. =)

[Megas]

@ intrinsic_parity:  During the first 0.8a, Sparks had two burst lasers and six from skilled Astral could solo the Remnant Nexus.  Lux were also overly strong with normal IR Pulse Lasers instead of the high-delay version.  Warthogs were strong too, but not as good due to their speed.  After Sparks and Lux were toned down, Warthogs became the strongest fighter, until 0.9a.  In later 0.8.x releases, I would want five Warthogs and a Claw on Astral.  Today, I just want bombers on Astral.

I tried other fighters, but it was solo carrier vs. solo warship of similar size, not against full endgame fleets.

[Thaago]

Sparks are currently overtuned yeah. Major factors:

1) High wing size + shield = surprisingly durable. 2250 effective points of health, except that its shield only takes .25 damage from frag or .5 from HE! So more vs many common PD weapons (can the shield dissipate soft flux, or are fighters weird/special? If it can, then beam based PD has a built in 50 dps damage reduction). Thats the same effective health as a Broadsword wing, though the broadsword has much higher armor.
2) Exceptionally accurate and long ranged: perfect accuracy at 500 range is a greater effective range than other interceptors or fighters. Heck, if a Talon or other gun based fighter is more than like 200 units away then its bullets are going to miss. Sparks have a longer effective range than many point defense systems, though they will also fly closer than their max (attack run range 200 according to wiki? Dunno if still accurate)
3) Damage downside goes away when massed. Soft flux doesn't matter if you have enough of it. Burst PD is front loaded with multiple charges, then the per wing DPS is 320. BUT: whenever the Spark overshoots the target and is out of firing range, it is still recovering charges! So when it comes around for the next pass, it has another burst of higher damage.
4) High armor penetration for a fighter (not sure how long the duration is, but its 128 damage and I think less than a second, so probably higher than 64 effective penetration). MUCH higher than kinetic or frag based fighters, and still a good deal higher than IR pulses.
5) Very high speed.

Honestly the biggest issue is probably armor penetration: the little buggers are way too good against heavy ships.

[Goumindong]

Beam penetration is always half of dps. Though its the dps of the beam and not the dps of the weapon (a beam that does 400 dps but only fires 1/4 th of the time will have a penetration of 800 as its actually a 1600 damage beam being fired for 1 second every 4)

Burst pd has a DPS of 214 and so if it had unlikited charges would be doing 214 dps as a beam. Which means it has 112 effective penetration.

[intrinsic_parity]

I think they are meant to be good because they are remnant tech and thus very hard to get relative to other fighters, but Idk exactly how much better they should be

[Zhentar]

The Burst PD beam DPS is 350; the reported 214 is accounting for the refire delay, so it's effective damage for armor penetration is 175 - higher than any other non-torpedo fighter weapon (even the warthog light mortar).