Print

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

[Temstar]

Over the last 2 weeks I've been working on a challenge I set myself: build three 200FP fleet profiles, each consisting of ships from only one tech level. Having just completed the last one with low tech I must say, low tech is not underpowered at all.

See aside from small frigate actions where maneuver is king, once you get to serious fleet action with cruiser and above the name of the game is flux race. Two ships go head to head and the one that can fill the others flux quicker is most likely the winner. Other than the tricky to aim Sabot SRM, the best weapons for winning the flux race is by far ballistic kinetic weapons, and low tech have by far the most of them.

Let's take my favorite: railgun

7 OP
small ballistic
200 kinetic DPS
700 range
180 flux/s

To put that into perspective let's compare it to the daring of energy weapons: the Heavy Blaster:

12 OP
medium energy
400 energy DPS
600 range
720 flux/s

So both weapons do the same damage against shields. Railgun out ranges heavy blaster, is much lighter in OP, uses a smaller mount and generates only 1/4 the flux of a heavy blaster. The only advantages heavy blaster have is higher damage against armour (not hull!) and infinite ammo.

Oh but you say, energy weapons are better than kinetic against ships armour once shield is down. Well that's true, but neither energy nor ballistic (both kinetic and HE) are the king of killing unshielded ships, that title goes to missiles due to their enormous burst damage. Harpoons, torpedoes, rockets and MIRV, those are the things you want to be lobbing at venting/overloaded ships when you need to kill them fast. Even if a big missile strike doesn't outright sink a ship it will nuke the section of armour facing you, showing you the hull underneath which is equally vulnerable to kinetic, HE or energy and especially vulnerable to very high DPS fragmentation weapons like dual flak cannons.

Let's look at the missile bays:

Low tech:
Destroyer - 4 small or 1 medium + 3 small
Cruiser - 3 medium or 2 medium + 2 small
Capital - 4 medium

Late tech:
Destroyer - 2 light if you use the universals
Cruiser - 1 large + 4 small
Capital - 4 small + 2 medium universal or 3 medium or 2 large 2 small

Only thing that comes close is the Aurora with its 4 small missile and 1 large. And even in that case it has to dedicate the small missile bays to Sabot due to crappy shield killing power of its 3 heavy blasters (which as we established, can be outraced flux wise by 3 railguns). On top of this all low tech ships missile bays (aside from Buffalo Mk II) are all mounted together facing forward, perfect for hard to aim weapons like sabot or rockets or reaper torps.

Putting it all together, I find the low tech ships the best bar none for overloading shields and then follow up with a deadly missile barrage. Throw in the best PD weapons and they're pretty much the king of line of battle fleet actions.

[Iscariot]

A pretty fair assessment, I'd say, at least from a firepower perspective.

Unfortunately, that's not where high tech ships really shine. It's the fact that they can achieve battlespace superiority so quickly that you zone out the enemy with your speed, and can bring more of your fleet to bear faster. In more simplistic terms, their maneuvering means they can impose local superiority on any fight.

Couple that with their generally more versatile and efficient shields, and defeating a low tech fleet becomes cartoonishly easy.

[Calodine]

Which is fine, really. The low tech ships still have hteir use (In straight up killing power), but a high tech fleet will demolish a low tech fleet. Not much point devloping high tech ships if the previous models were better

Would love to know how the midline fleet weighs in.

[Iscariot]

Not enough midline ships

EDIT: I'm always a little uncomfortable when people start talking about how high tech ships ought to be 'just better'. I understand that a gun is better than a bow, but I don't think that's really the intent of Alex, and if it were, I don't like the idea that in a top tier endgame fleet, the only thing you'll be flying are stupid bulbous high tech ships.

For me, the 'low tech versus high tech' ship debate has always been more of a 1911 versus Glock sort of thing. The 1911 is literally over a hundred years old, but it's a firearm that works so well that it's still in service with a lot of military units and private citizens. Competition shooters continue to use it, even though on paper it's outstripped by more modern handguns. The reasons for that are simple-- it's so damned old and well liked that people have kept improving it and releasing improved parts for it for over a hundred years. Larry Vickers, a famed firearms instructor, former Delta operator, admitted to carrying a Glock for most of his range work, but only said so with the caveat that it was because the 1911 required so much attention in maintenance, and that nothing shot better than a well tuned 1911.

[Temstar]

It's the fact that they can achieve battlespace superiority so quickly that you zone out the enemy with your speed, and can bring more of your fleet to bear faster.

I don't find this true. Talon are now 200 speed and therefore faster than Wasp due to Wasp having permanent green crew. In a straight up dog fight and factor in Talons are 1/3 cheaper per wing than Wasp they're actually pretty even now. I don't find much difference in terms of capping power between low tech and late tech.

Not enough midline ships

That's where midline comes in, they're the king of capping and air superiority due to Thunder and Broadsword. The two midline heavy fighters are also pretty deadly and make up for the difference between Trident vs Piranha, particularly those crazy IR Pulse Laser spamming Gladius.

[Iscariot]

Sure, a talon can get there two seconds earlier, but they'll die in about two seconds as well. I've never been zoned out by a low tech fleet. Not even once.

Also, the broadsword is low tech, not midline.

[Calodine]

Not enough midline ships

EDIT: I'm always a little uncomfortable when people start talking about how high tech ships ought to be 'just better'. I understand that a gun is better than a bow, but I don't think that's really the intent of Alex, and if it were, I don't like the idea that in a top tier endgame fleet, the only thing you'll be flying are stupid bulbous high tech ships.

For me, the 'low tech versus high tech' ship debate has always been more of a 1911 versus Glock sort of thing.

The Onslaught's been redesigned and improved quite a bit. Didn't even have shields to start with

I'm fine with a high tech fleet demolishing a low tech fleet. Doesn't mean a mixed fleet with fast high tech ships to cap and a few low tech ships for beefiness wouldn't beat either
They're weaker overall, but way stronger in one or two particular areas. An Oddesey gets overloaded it's screwed. An onslaught barely uses it's shield at all and still does okay. Which basically sums up the 1911 argument - It's not the most modern or best on paper, but it's reliable and does what it's supposed to very very well.

[Iscariot]

The Onslaught's been redesigned and improved quite a bit. Didn't even have shields to start with

I'm fine with a high tech fleet demolishing a low tech fleet. Doesn't mean a mixed fleet with fast high tech ships to cap and a few low tech ships for beefiness wouldn't beat either
They're weaker overall, but way stronger in one or two particular areas. An Oddesey gets overloaded it's screwed. An onslaught barely uses it's shield at all and still does okay. Which basically sums up the 1911 argument - It's not the most modern or best on paper, but it's reliable and does what it's supposed to very very well.

I agree with the gist of this.

Well, other than the assertion that the modern 1911 is reliable-- it's not, as any owner of one will tell you. It's a pain in the ass, and needs work like a Ferrari, but it's ridiculously accurate and its ergonomics are pretty much the best in the handgun world.

....I'm boring you. That's neither here nor there.

[Nanostrike]

EDIT: I'm always a little uncomfortable when people start talking about how high tech ships ought to be 'just better'. I understand that a gun is better than a bow, but I don't think that's really the intent of Alex, and if it were, I don't like the idea that in a top tier endgame fleet, the only thing you'll be flying are stupid bulbous high tech ships.

That's my biggest concern right now.  The high-tech SHIPS, not weapons, are ridiculously better than anything low-tech can offer due to how much maneuverability, speed, and shields (Their biggest strengths) play a part in the game.

[Chittebengo]

Good to know, as I can't stand piloting a cap ship, way too close and clunky.  Usually let the AI have it and designate a small fighter (Hyperion) as my flag to dance around and disable ships tiers above it.  Majority of my fleets are usually fighter swarms due to their cheap deploy costs, ability to repair mid-battle, and totally overwhelm any ship shielding then drop a load of bombs against the side.

Basically, zerg-rushing is extremely effective right now.  Only a few cap ships have enough anti-fighter fire power to be much of a concern.  Sure I may lose a fighter in the conflict, but seeing the tachyon forces lose two cap ships, an apogee, medusa and the rest all to my swarming bombers, broadswords and thunders is rather satisfying.  And a really cheap move on my part.

[YAZF]

The only advantages heavy blaster have is higher damage against armour (not hull!) and infinite ammo.

While I agree with the idea that high tech weapons aren't automatically better than low tech ones, you completely missed out on the BIGGEST and MOST IMPORTANT advantage energy weapons have: The ability to become supercharged. Yes their OP requirements are normally much higher and often times this doesn't justify their increased flux output or the small increase in DPS or range, but that's because what you are really paying for with all that OP is an energy weapon's (often overlooked ability) to become supercharged. If you make a ship with a high enough flux pool and flux vent rate so that you can be supercharged frequently without risk of overloading, then each of your weapons has effectively become two. Twice as powerful and twice as efficient.

Does this automatically make energy weapons better in all circumstances?

Not at all, but it is something that can't be ignored and you didn't even mention it.

[Iscariot]

Good to know, as I can't stand piloting a cap ship, way too close and clunky.  

Psssssssshh. I got my Conquest up to 177 speed yesterday. That's without Augmented Engines.

[Nanostrike]

Good to know, as I can't stand piloting a cap ship, way too close and clunky.  Usually let the AI have it and designate a small fighter (Hyperion) as my flag to dance around and disable ships tiers above it.  Majority of my fleets are usually fighter swarms due to their cheap deploy costs, ability to repair mid-battle, and totally overwhelm any ship shielding then drop a load of bombs against the side.

Basically, zerg-rushing is extremely effective right now.  Only a few cap ships have enough anti-fighter fire power to be much of a concern.  Sure I may lose a fighter in the conflict, but seeing the tachyon forces lose two cap ships, an apogee, medusa and the rest all to my swarming bombers, broadswords and thunders is rather satisfying.  And a really cheap move on my part.

The problem with fighters is the damn Broadswords overloading the shields and/or wearing down the armor extremely fast due to their rate of fire.  Besides Broadswords, I rarely have problems with fighters.

Anyway...I'm starting to definitely like the low-tech and midline Destroyers and Cruisers a bit more.  The Enforcer is probably the most versatile Destroyer I've seen, even though it's slow as molasses.  It can easily be a heavy slugger, a point-defense BEAST (Try 3 hardpoints of Dual Flak with 4 missile racks of Swarmers and see how much trouble fighters give you...), or a long-range gunboat.  Hell, I usually balance mine as a hybrid of those roles and it works out well.

It's not great on it's own, but as part of a fleet, it really shines.  It can go toe-to-toe with any non-medusa Destroyer, is amazing at protecting carriers, and although slow, is still fast enough to blitz and destroy missileboats/carriers.  I usually end up telling my Frigates to "Escort" it so that they stay near it's awesome PD systems and don't get out-muscled by other frigates and fighters.

The same is almost true for the Dominator, though it has too many Small and not enough Medium hardpoints for my liking (And it's SLOWER!  Ugh!).  Still can't really use the Onslaught much.  Unless it's countering another Onslaught, it's just so slow that it's almost unusable.

And for Carriers, it's hard to beat the Gemini.  Give it Pilums and either Flak + Augmented Engines for a speedy carrier or Dual Flak for a point-defense beast.  Keep it away from gunships and frigates, but it can easily push your fighters through missileboat/carrier missile barrages with it's Flak PD to let them engage at point blank range.



Anyway...that's kinda the problem with Low-Tech, though.  They're ships that have to work together with other types of Low-Tech and Midline ships to really shine.  While High-tech ships can easily solo or work in small packs and get the same or better results.

And there's the issue of low-tech and high-tech ships having similar FP values, so low-tech fleets end up with fewer, faster ships and low FP values.  They can literally fly circles around low-tech fleets and use a fraction of the supplies/fuel/crew.

[Thaago]

While I agree with the idea that high tech weapons aren't automatically better than low tech ones, you completely missed out on the BIGGEST and MOST IMPORTANT advantage energy weapons have: The ability to become supercharged. Yes their OP requirements are normally much higher and often times this doesn't justify their increased flux output or the small increase in DPS or range, but that's because what you are really paying for with all that OP is an energy weapon's (often overlooked ability) to become supercharged. If you make a ship with a high enough flux pool and flux vent rate so that you can be supercharged frequently without risk of overloading, then each of your weapons has effectively become two. Twice as powerful and twice as efficient.

Is the supercharged twice damage? For some reason I thought it was 1.5x damage (which is still very significant, I agree).

Anyway...I'm starting to definitely like the low-tech and midline Destroyers and Cruisers a bit more.  The Enforcer is probably the most versatile Destroyer I've seen, even though it's slow as molasses.  It can easily be a heavy slugger, a point-defense BEAST (Try 3 hardpoints of Dual Flak with 4 missile racks of Swarmers and see how much trouble fighters give you...), or a long-range gunboat.  Hell, I usually balance mine as a hybrid of those roles and it works out well.

It's not great on it's own, but as part of a fleet, it really shines.  It can go toe-to-toe with any non-medusa Destroyer, is amazing at protecting carriers, and although slow, is still fast enough to blitz and destroy missileboats/carriers.  I usually end up telling my Frigates to "Escort" it so that they stay near it's awesome PD systems and don't get out-muscled by other frigates and fighters.

I also have a lot of love for the Enforcer - probably my favorite low tech ship, although the Lasher is a very close second (you can give it the perfect loadout for pretty much any situation). Perhaps it was just because I was running an anti-high tech Enforcer with a Heavy needler and dual Thumpers, but I found that it was a very effective Medusa repellent - sure I couldn't catch one, but they certainly couldn't close with me and expect to survive.

[Alex]

Is the supercharged twice damage? For some reason I thought it was 1.5x damage (which is still very significant, I agree).

It goes from 1x to 1.5x as flux goes from 0 to 100%.