Print

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

[Locklave]

Sigh ... wish there was an option to have certain lanky ships join the fight from the sides of the map, or the enemy rear, or enemy ships joining from your rear ... sigh

This sir is what command points SHOULD be for. Not for stopping the AI from being dumb.

[Megas]

I bring Colossus 3 mainly for Ground Support Package.  (Colossus 3 is much more common than Valkyrie.)  Nice when my fleet is small and I do not have unlimited money for many marines.  Also has decent cargo capacity.  Great ship for raiding New Maxios, few other industry worlds, and pirate bases.  Colossus 3 may stink at fighting, but it is a great early campaign ship.

[Plantissue]

Spoiler

An anvil is a ship that's not particularly fast or damaging, but it can take a lot of punishment. They hold the line and prevent other ships (including themselves) from being flanked, and if the enemy is being flanked, they prevent him from paying full attention to flankers and becoming vulnerable in the process.
A hammer is typically a ship that's fast and focused on dealing damage, be it because of burst and mobility combo, or because of its innately good offensive stats.
A distraction ship's role is to distract the enemy. It does not have to be able to sustain damage, since it's role isn't maintaining a formation, but disrupting the enemy's. It's only requirement is that it's able to survive on its own for some time on its own.
A flanker is a ship that flanks. It can be a part of the hammer, it can just be a distraction ship. If you love high tech, you can even try to create tough flanker ships and try to trap the enemy in multiple "fronts".
An anchor is a ship that allows other ships to take a breath. It typically means ships that have lots of burst just to drive the enemy flux up (and make AI cowardly), or ones that can point their guns in all directions. Long range is recommended.

Unless you provide better terms for hammer and anvil, that's what I'm going to use. It's not perfectly accurate, but when has ever warfare stopped changing?

[close]

Those are just your personal definitions for your personal tactics. And different from Goumindou's anyhow. And mine. No one in modern military parlance would ever use hammer and anvil. In fact, there is no record of its use in antiquity. It's a phrase of armchair generals with doubtful etymology in wargaming.

___________

There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.

And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

I was making fun of you, that whilst you insist something is a very real thing, you refuse to ascribe any defintion to it. So space infantry and space cavalry it is.

The AI do not flank. At least not in a purposeful way, more by accident by outnumbering and slow drifting.  You can try to flank, but the AI do not have discrete concept of "anvil". You might do, and you can go ahead with it. Ships can "anchor" themselves in space just fine by repeatedly retreating themselves behind another ship.

There is no need to throw other concepts from games or real tactical concepts if they do not fit into starsector. There needs not be a "centre". There is no "folding". It's a really inflexible way of thinking. Ships are more likely to get destroyed when outnumbered or concaved.  By way of example more useful concepts are those, because they describe what is actually occuring, than your own personal definitions that cannot be communicated.

________

Spoiler

Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.

[close]

The Venture already have a missile reloader system called Fast Missile Racks. It does have Surveying Equipment innately, but it does not have salvage gantry, so if it has both without being needed to be added, that is a mod thing.

Fast Missile Racks is a terrible ability due to how fast it makes you use up all your limited ammunition, and considering the Venture's limited mounts, it becomes completely useless after firing a few intense volleys. Instead, it should become a dedicated and affordable missile cruiser that even a civillian can afford by getting the Reloader system instead.

It has surveying equipment but Surveying by itself isn't enough to make the Venture worth its credits; it needs both Surveying and Salvage Gantry built in to offset the fact that it has a civillian hull and bad burn + its other bad stats.

At this point I am at loss by what you mean by reloader system. I thought the Venture's ship system is a reloader system, but according to you it is not. I am obviosuly missing something. Would you care to explain?

I don't see a point for a a dedicated and affordable civilian missile cruiser. Why not an affordable civilian missile capital ship? Or any one of hundred of roles? Why that one in particular? Venture does the role of a civilian cruiser well enough; being both a cruiser and more available in civilian markets.

[Innominandum]

This sir is what command points SHOULD be for. Not for stopping the AI from being dumb.

Well you know what the funny thing is? The functionality is already partly there, remember how the enemy fleet engages you when you fail to disengage? Yeah exactly ... i find my heart breaking every time that deployment screen comes up ... sniff sniff 

[Goumindong]

All ships can keep other ships "busy". A couple of tempests can usually keep any ship busy indefinitely as can a phase frigate till it runs out of CR. But you keep changing want you mean by anvil to whatever suits your purposes.

Yes but i dont want to keep them busy i want to keep them in the same spot.  And tempests do not do that because they retreat when you fly at them or they die. We just... literally just talked about how those things are different.

I am not changing what i mean by anvil. You seem to not be understanding. Is it me? Does the rest of the thread understand?

[intrinsic_parity]

I think I know what you mean by anvil, although I tend to use the word tank more. In other scenarios anvil would refer to a geometrical relationship (the anvil would be behind the enemy preventing them retreating or avoiding a charge or something) which is I think why people are getting so bent out of shape (no idea why). More abstractly though, I would say there are things that cause the enemy to vulnerable and things that exploit the vulnerability. The flux mechanics in this game result in a scenario where expending offensive resources results in a loss of defensive capability so ships that tank damage are causing the enemy to become more vulnerable. In that sense, I think tanky ships can be seen as anvils since they prevent the enemy from going where they want to go (to kill the squishy damage dealers) and also cause the enemy to become more vulnerable. Distracting/avoiding damage can have a similar effect but definitely not the same effect. They tend to more cause the enemy to me mispositioned and less to be high on flux so they might be more or less effective depending on the enemy. I think it's worthwhile to make the distinction. The term anvil is a bit of a stretch, but it's certainly usable to describe that idea and I have thought in those terms before when designing fleets.

[Eji1700]

I will again say i think the venture is a perfectly fine hull.  It's a cruiser hull that's really more inbetween Destroyer and Cruiser, but that's ok for what is supposed to be the "low end salvagers" ship.

It would help ship balance a lot in general to both tweak weapons a bit more and another pass at ship/weapon availability.

Further I think the apogee comparison is kinda silly because while they're both great front line ships their loadouts and systems do heavily influence their roles. A venture can kill fluxed ships while an apogee is a lot more defensive/support thanks to its flares.

[Plantissue]

Apogee can absolutely aggresively kill ships by themselves. No need to be pre-fluxed, they simply flux and kill ships by themselves. I've made fleets out of them. (Only because the only useful cruiser blueprint I had at the time was Apogee and I wanted to fight remnant fleets. This was before their slight shield nerf, but it shouldn't change how they act too much.) Choose a Plasma Cannon on them and ignore the small frontal energy mount for best results. Their main weakness is against frigates and fighters. So give it a pair of pulse lasers and if you are really worried about fighters place a Locust SRM Launcher instead of any other large missile mount.

[Eji1700]

Apogee can absolutely aggresively kill ships by themselves. No need to be pre-fluxed, they simply flux and kill ships by themselves. I've made fleets out of them. (Only because the only useful cruiser blueprint I had at the time was Apogee and I wanted to fight remnant fleets. This was before their slight shield nerf, but it shouldn't change how they act too much.) Choose a Plasma Cannon on them and ignore the small frontal energy mount for best results. Their main weakness is against frigates and fighters. So give it a pair of pulse lasers and if you are really worried about fighters place a Locust SRM Launcher instead of any other large missile mount.

And a feet of ventures can alpha strike down capitals with sabot/harpoon spam, but if you're using them to compliment a fleet rather than just making a fleet of them they're often is slightly different roles given that the venture is a heavy missile boat + PD and the apogee is close to jack of all, master of none.

[Agile]

Spoiler

An anvil is a ship that's not particularly fast or damaging, but it can take a lot of punishment. They hold the line and prevent other ships (including themselves) from being flanked, and if the enemy is being flanked, they prevent him from paying full attention to flankers and becoming vulnerable in the process.
A hammer is typically a ship that's fast and focused on dealing damage, be it because of burst and mobility combo, or because of its innately good offensive stats.
A distraction ship's role is to distract the enemy. It does not have to be able to sustain damage, since it's role isn't maintaining a formation, but disrupting the enemy's. It's only requirement is that it's able to survive on its own for some time on its own.
A flanker is a ship that flanks. It can be a part of the hammer, it can just be a distraction ship. If you love high tech, you can even try to create tough flanker ships and try to trap the enemy in multiple "fronts".
An anchor is a ship that allows other ships to take a breath. It typically means ships that have lots of burst just to drive the enemy flux up (and make AI cowardly), or ones that can point their guns in all directions. Long range is recommended.

Unless you provide better terms for hammer and anvil, that's what I'm going to use. It's not perfectly accurate, but when has ever warfare stopped changing?

[close]

Those are just your personal definitions for your personal tactics. And different from Goumindou's anyhow. And mine. No one in modern military parlance would ever use hammer and anvil. In fact, there is no record of its use in antiquity. It's a phrase of armchair generals with doubtful etymology in wargaming.

___________

There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.

And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

I was making fun of you, that whilst you insist something is a very real thing, you refuse to ascribe any defintion to it. So space infantry and space cavalry it is.

The AI do not flank. At least not in a purposeful way, more by accident by outnumbering and slow drifting.  You can try to flank, but the AI do not have discrete concept of "anvil". You might do, and you can go ahead with it. Ships can "anchor" themselves in space just fine by repeatedly retreating themselves behind another ship.

There is no need to throw other concepts from games or real tactical concepts if they do not fit into starsector. There needs not be a "centre". There is no "folding". It's a really inflexible way of thinking. Ships are more likely to get destroyed when outnumbered or concaved.  By way of example more useful concepts are those, because they describe what is actually occuring, than your own personal definitions that cannot be communicated.

________

Spoiler

Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.

[close]

The Venture already have a missile reloader system called Fast Missile Racks. It does have Surveying Equipment innately, but it does not have salvage gantry, so if it has both without being needed to be added, that is a mod thing.

Fast Missile Racks is a terrible ability due to how fast it makes you use up all your limited ammunition, and considering the Venture's limited mounts, it becomes completely useless after firing a few intense volleys. Instead, it should become a dedicated and affordable missile cruiser that even a civillian can afford by getting the Reloader system instead.

It has surveying equipment but Surveying by itself isn't enough to make the Venture worth its credits; it needs both Surveying and Salvage Gantry built in to offset the fact that it has a civillian hull and bad burn + its other bad stats.

At this point I am at loss by what you mean by reloader system. I thought the Venture's ship system is a reloader system, but according to you it is not. I am obviosuly missing something. Would you care to explain?

I don't see a point for a a dedicated and affordable civilian missile cruiser. Why not an affordable civilian missile capital ship? Or any one of hundred of roles? Why that one in particular? Venture does the role of a civilian cruiser well enough; being both a cruiser and more available in civilian markets.

I think im talking about a modded ship actually, because I can't find it on the Wiki as a vanilla ship. Its basically a full missile ship considered the "Yang" to the Onslaught and has a system that rapidly reloads all missiles, and built in hammer barrages into the front.

My bad.

[Locklave]

Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.

[Pappus]

Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.

But for what? It is only 15 DP.

You already have capital ship armor - if you think that is useable or not is a thing about armor, not the venture
You have great ability + great missile slots for that size
Nice dual medium ballistic

You have distincticly low speed which is neither a plus or a negative - if you want something to accompany your onslaught it will work better with ventures than with falcon P.

All things considered I think it might be time for a proper ship showcase for the venture.

[Agile]

Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.

But for what? It is only 15 DP.

You already have capital ship armor - if you think that is useable or not is a thing about armor, not the venture
You have great ability + great missile slots for that size
Nice dual medium ballistic

You have distincticly low speed which is neither a plus or a negative - if you want something to accompany your onslaught it will work better with ventures than with falcon P.

All things considered I think it might be time for a proper ship showcase for the venture.

Its supposed to be a exploration ship. While im OK with the mining pods, no salvage gantry for such a mess of a ship is a deal breaker for me. This is especially so with the Venture due to it being a civillian ship, so you HAVE to use up a logistics slot for militarized subsystems to make it viable, and maybe even augmented drivefield to make it fast. Its not even the burn that sucks, its the high sensor profile and maintenance costs you have to pay for fielding a civillian hull (which is very bad for a cruiser level ship due to its exponential costs).

Having more out of combat useability might make me want to buy or keep ventures I find out in the wilds. Right now, though, its pretty useless (at least to me) when you consider other more specialized ships and their bonuses.

[Plantissue]

Apogee can absolutely aggresively kill ships by themselves. No need to be pre-fluxed, they simply flux and kill ships by themselves. I've made fleets out of them. (Only because the only useful cruiser blueprint I had at the time was Apogee and I wanted to fight remnant fleets. This was before their slight shield nerf, but it shouldn't change how they act too much.) Choose a Plasma Cannon on them and ignore the small frontal energy mount for best results. Their main weakness is against frigates and fighters. So give it a pair of pulse lasers and if you are really worried about fighters place a Locust SRM Launcher instead of any other large missile mount.

And a feet of ventures can alpha strike down capitals with sabot/harpoon spam, but if you're using them to compliment a fleet rather than just making a fleet of them they're often is slightly different roles given that the venture is a heavy missile boat + PD and the apogee is close to jack of all, master of none.

I've tried that before. Like I said, I didn't have any other cruiser blueprints and I wanted to fight remnant fleets. Their missiles get shot down and is extremely vulnerable to fighters. Even if you could alpha strike like you said, what happens next? Ventures are too slow to comfortable retreat. Lose all the ships?

Jack of all is a compliment is it not? But it isn't an Apogee isn't a jack of all trades anyways. It's a bit like a smaller Dominator specialised for fighting against other cruisers and capitals and notably weaker against frigates. It's a bit strange to call the Apogee a lot more defensive/support thanks to its flares. Having flares don't change any of the useful characteristics of an Apogee. The uses of a ship goes beyond extrapolating from its ship system.

[Serenitis]

Venture needs Salvage Gantry and proper fighter slots, not limited to mining drones.

I think the salvage gantry might be a bridge too far considering this is the 'base' level cruiser in the game. It can already reduce survey costs.
But I very much agree that an unlocked fighter bay like versions past, would make the ship somewhat more attractive for general use.

One of the reasons the Venture exists in the fashion it does and is assigned to the default base_bp, is to give in-game factions without access to a heavy industry the ability to field at least something that does a passable job of being a fleet anchor.
With the limited ability act as a carrier, the Venture would be a little more effective in this role for the tradeoff that the OP cost of the fighters still has to come out of the ship's loadout thus reducing it's already limited combat potential. This incentivises the use of 'cheap' fighters, but still leaves the option to specialise in that direction if desired.

If this is still too unbalanced for your taste, you could also consider removing the fighter bay and giving the Venture a built-in converted hangar. This would effectively restrict it's use of bombers, and even further incentivise the use of the cheaper fighters.