Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Raiding for Fun and Profit (11/27/19)

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: Warship Balance  (Read 4182 times)

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Warship Balance
« Reply #75 on: July 19, 2019, 02:10:38 PM »

I consider 2 HB on an Aurora mandatory because it gives fairly decent DPS while saving the other mounts for missiles and costing very few OP. Its true that the HB is more an armor cracker than a shield cracker because of its poor efficiency, but the Aurora can support two of them well enough. The ship is a little vulnerable to Remnants because it doesn't have any kinetics, but it is fast enough to mitigate that somewhat.

Every mount on an Aurora that can mount a missile should mount a missile, other than some specialized SO builds that can run triple HB (and not much else). And it should have extended racks. The AI is good enough with them when it is set to aggressive or reckless.

Consider it this way: I can build an 1100 flux dissipation warship with moderately more efficient weapons that will be a little bit better against shields and a lot worse against armor and hull (Pulse lasers are very bad against cruiser grade armor and IR pulse will be doing minimum damage), that has some missiles. Or I can build an 1100 flux dissipation warship a little worse against shields, much better against armor and hull, and that has a large and deadly missile package.
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Warship Balance
« Reply #76 on: July 19, 2019, 02:24:35 PM »

what are grav beams and tac lasers like on these high tech ships? Worth it/not worth it?
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
    • View Profile
Re: Warship Balance
« Reply #77 on: July 19, 2019, 02:54:20 PM »

For a ship that can only use energy weapons, blasters can be as much of a shield cracker as pulse lasers because higher DPS from blasters means less DPS from the enemy taken by shields.  If the enemy overloads faster from blasters, that is less damage taken by your shields.  You shields may take less flux from using heavy blaster than from more efficient pulse lasers because the enemy could not fire as much and put as much hard flux on your shield before losing the flux war.

Beams on high tech ships can be handy at times to take out unshielded or poorly shielded enemies, like pirates.  Generally more useful on midline ships that can mix them up with ballistics.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Warship Balance
« Reply #78 on: July 19, 2019, 03:26:56 PM »

I really like gravs and tacs (and HILS!) on an all beam Paragon - very powerful, though enemies with good enough dissipation can be immune, which is a punch in the teeth. I also really like a Sunder with HIL and gravitons.

Tacs can be ok as secondary anti-fighter weapons or to create a zone effect, but I agree with Megas: I prefer those weapons on midline ships where they can be backed up by ballistics. I suppose a Medusa with 2 Gravs, 4 tacs would do 700 soft flux to shields at 1000 range at the cost of 450 flux, but its ability vs armor and hull would be pretty limited.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Warship Balance
« Reply #79 on: July 20, 2019, 02:53:29 PM »

what are grav beams and tac lasers like on these high tech ships? Worth it/not worth it?

Long range weapons are for slow ships that cannot easily single out and eliminate weaker targets
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]