Print

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

[Optymistyk]

In a 1v1 scenario:
vs Paragon: Paragon using Tachyon lances outranges Conquest because of Advanced Targetting Core, even if Conquest is using the Gauss Cannon build. Conquest gets outranged, outgunned and outsustained.
vs Onslaught: Onslaught can easily catch up to Conquest using the Burn Drive ability. Conquest's Manuevering Jets aren't enough to maintain distance. Forced to a close range fight conquest has no chance of winning against Onslaught's superior everything.

In a tactical scenario:
Conquest is sporting 4 large ballistic slots, but can never get to use more than 2 at once without getting in the middle of a fight - which it mustn't do due to it's weak armor and 90* shield with the worst flux/dmg ratio in the game. Resigned to a long-range support role it can never use more than half of it's weapon slots. An Onslaught would provide far more firepower and another body to tank the damage for the same Deployment Point cost while the Conquest is sitting 1000 miles away doing comparatively little.

In a strategic scenario:
I can't confirm this rn but I believe the conquest has a comparable or even higher price than the Onslaught. Also has the same maintenance of 40 supplies/mo. It has the same fuel consumption as a Paragon at 10 fuel/ly. It has 1 more maximum burn so there's at least that going for it.

All in all there seems to be no reason to buy a Conquest over Paragon/Onslaught right now.

[Megas]

Conquest can be built tough enough with a good configuration, enough that a brawl against Onslaught can go about 50/50 either way in a toe-to-toe slugfest.  Conquest needs either Hardened Shields or max caps.  Not every mount needs to be filled, although the heavies should.  Build for a range band.

Paragon is worth 60 DP - it better have an advantage over weaker capitals in a slugfest.  Otherwise, why use it instead of a cheaper capital plus a cruiser?

[Igncom1]

Man, how many conquest threats we up to now boyz?

Anyways in my mind it's well titled as a Battlecruiser. For a midline ship it's a specialist like most of the rest in that it provides a platform for large missiles and ballistics and not much else. It's not a durable capital, outside of freighters, but it's not supposed to be. Put one loadout on one side, and another on the other Like one for long range bombardment and the other for close range assaults (or accept that like most ships in the game it doesn't have the flux to use all it's weapons all the time. Onslaughts certainly can't.) It's a better player ship then an AI ship, but even then it's a fantastic weapons platform for deploying a lot of bang in a single package that only really matched by two dominator cruisers.

And if I recall the low tech capitals are the most expensive when you account for crew/fuel costs to operate them.

It's a controversial ship because it's not a fast space station like the paragon, nor a brick with BFG's like the onslaught.

[Grievous69]

It's a glass cannon which takes a while to "click" with new players (or even some old ones). It's easily the most controversial ship in the game since every thread gets huge and heated. Personally it's my favourite capital in the game, as it takes some skill to pilot properly.

[intrinsic_parity]

Oh boy, another conquest thread .

Paragon costs 60 DP to deploy while Conquest cost 40 so Paragon should be about 50% stronger.

I strongly disagree that the onslaught is superior to the conquest. I think in AI hands they are about equal, and in player hands, conquest is clearly superior because of mobility. The conquest has WAY better flux stats (double the dissipation!). Weapon slots really don't matter that much, dissipation/capacity is what limits how much damage you can do in most scenarios. The onslaught can mount a ton of guns, but it can only fire them for a few seconds before maxing out on flux. It also can't actually fire all its guns at the same thing (side large slots don't actually fire directly forward), and onslaught also has issues with its built in guns sucking up all its capacity so it really doesn't have that much better of a weapon setup IMO. The conquest can fire its guns for much longer because of its high dissipation and thus put out as much or more damage as the onslaught in my experience.

With regards to dueling an onslaught, the conquest may not be able to straight up run away from an onslaught, but it can easily out-maneuver it. Just wait for the onslaught to burn at you, activate maneuvering jets when it gets close and move to the side, and voila, the onslaught flies past you, you're behind it, you've knocked out its engines and are killing it with zero resistance.

I would recommend putting hardened shields and high capacitors on the conquest. That makes the shield much more manageable and lets it sit in the middle of a fight comfortably in my experience. I agree that gauss conquest is not really worth it.

[Megas]

For what it is worth, I use symmetrical loadouts, and I do make Conquest use both sides at the same time whenever I can get away with it.

The only loadouts AI has trouble with when I tried them are anything with Gauss Cannons, regardless of officer type.  AI cannot seem to maintain proper range.  Aside from that, Aggressive works with Storm Needlers, and Steady works for anything with 800-900 range ballistics.

[Optymistyk]

Man, how many conquest threats we up to now boyz?

Anyways in my mind it's well titled as a Battlecruiser. For a midline ship it's a specialist like most of the rest in that it provides a platform for large missiles and ballistics and not much else. It's not a durable capital, outside of freighters, but it's not supposed to be. Put one loadout on one side, and another on the other Like one for long range bombardment and the other for close range assaults (or accept that like most ships in the game it doesn't have the flux to use all it's weapons all the time. Onslaughts certainly can't.) It's a better player ship then an AI ship, but even then it's a fantastic weapons platform for deploying a lot of bang in a single package that only really matched by two dominator cruisers.

And if I recall the low tech capitals are the most expensive when you account for crew/fuel costs to operate them.

It's a controversial ship because it's not a fast space station like the paragon, nor a brick with BFG's like the onslaught.

Isn't the point of a battlecruiser that it's faster and cheaper than a battleship? Cuz Conquest is neither. Onslaught provides the same or better firepower at the same deployment cost and a comparable credit cost AND is faster than Conquest thanks to the Burn Drive while being straight up better at everything else (except flux dissipation but it doesn't make much of a difference when you factor in Conquest's horrible flux/dmg shield ratio and Onslaught's build in flux-efficient laser weapons)

[Igncom1]

The onslaught is really good. In one direction. 

Better install those manoeuvring thrusters because one bad burn as you'll be spending half the battle turning to even use half your guns.

Ultimately your argument sounds like you are trying to fit a square into a round hole, and are then calling the square a bad shape.

[pairedeciseaux]

Isn't the point of a battlecruiser that it's faster and cheaper than a battleship? Cuz Conquest is neither. Onslaught provides the same or better firepower at the same deployment cost and a comparable credit cost AND is faster than Conquest thanks to the Burn Drive while being straight up better at everything else (except flux dissipation but it doesn't make much of a difference when you factor in Conquest's horrible flux/dmg shield ratio and Onslaught's build in flux-efficient laser weapons)

As others have alluded to, there are regular "Conquest is bad" threads on this forum. Have some fun reading those previous conversations.

Replying to the specific point above comparing Conquest and Onslaught: it is a fact, Conquest has a much higher sustained firepower and lower defence. If you use Hardened Shields as suggested by Megas in his first reply you get acceptable defence.

Also I feel like your assessment of Conquest mobility is incomplete. It is able to outmanoeuvre many ships. And this mobility is handy against station too.

[SCC]

Onslaught provides about 2/3rds of the firepower that Conquest brings against a single target, purely because Conquest has monstrous flux stats and Onslaught does not (though even Conquest wants as much dissipation as possible, those mjolnirs aren't going to shoot themselves). Mobility isn't really a good comparison point, because in a straight line, they are probably tied, but Conquest can move sideways or backwards, unlike Onslaught. Onslaught also has to commit with its burn drive, whereas Conquest can use its manoeuvrability to kite enemies that are too strong to take head on.

And if I recall the low tech capitals are the most expensive when you account for crew/fuel costs to operate them.

About 150% to 200% as expensive in maintenance, I don't remember exactly anymore.

[Thaago]

Conquests have superior mobility, firepower, and missile burst than an Onslaught, at burn 8 instead of 7. They can bring an Ion Beam alongside heavy kinetics (that might sound like a small thing, but its really not). In exchange, they have inferior armor, hull, shields, straight line speed, and point defense coverage. Both ships have their strengths and weaknesses.

Its easy to build a conquest that 1v1's any other capital. Its also easy to build a conquest that loses to everything.

[TaLaR]

Do you pilot, bro?

Paragon outranges only in soft flux (and a very little amount of hard flux from 2 HVDs). A player piloted Conquest can tank 4 alternating Tachyon Lances + 2 HVD + 2 Gravitons build (anything less is trivial) by proper use of shield flicker and short venting and kill the Paragon with Gauss cannons. In fact, a Conquest designed for sole task of countering Paragon can win even on autopilot (key is 2 Squalls in different groups, they pretty much choke Paragon in constant stream of hard flux. AI is too stupid to mini-vent early).

Onslaught: AI piloted ones are easy, they'll only use Burn drive if you let your own flux go high. Just keep max distance and pound away. A better piloted Onslaught could be more problematic, but that's not what we get in actual game. It's also possible to do a corrida maneuver and get behind Onslaught while it burn drives, but that would cost quite a bit of armor. Plus as I said, current Onslaught AI is too passive for that.

Odyssey is not even a contestant. AI is bad at piloting these, so Conquest wins by default. Plus it is genuinely hard (but possible) for Odyssey to win against a properly built Conquest, even if Odyssey is the one player-piloted.

[Schwartz]

Ion Beam sounds like a fun idea.

So you're saying it makes a great flagship, okay. In the hands of AI it is IMO the least competent capital because it requires a match trigger pilot.

The thing is.. any ship gets quite a bit better when you "twitch pilot" it. Conquest is just the ship that requires it the most, especially because of the kind of shield it has, and the trifecta of range / mobility system / bad armor. I am not convinced that it is as good as it needs to be for its capital position, even at 40 OP. I'd rather see it cost 45 and be made better than continue its life as a paper tiger.

However I will let the arguments sink in a bit. It never felt like a flux beast to me because I actually take a hit or two on shields. Maybe the idea for this ship is that you're doing it wrong if you get hit. I dunno.

[Grievous69]

What did I tell ya, some experienced folks also find it weak.

@Schwartz
Have you ever seen an AI Odyssey? It's basically Onslaught but without the defense.

I really don't see why you think it's not worth 40 DP, it was appropriately buffed before, now it's perfectly fine. And you definitely don't need twitchy skills, just a decent loadout coupled with good positioning in battles. You should never tank damage you absolutely don't need to, you have your fleet for that.

Re: Ion beams

Why tho? It's such a waste of flux on Conquest, your role is to flank and kill, not tickle their weapons and engines. I've found most success leaving medium energies completely empty, or just putting token PD. You could also put Phase lances for those pesky fast frigates, but again, not worth too much.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I've probably spent most time in this game piloting a Conquest, I don't think anything else comes close.

[Tempest]

It would be nice if everyone that defends one thing or the other, posted some videos that show how that actually works.