I don't see the contradiction in the first one - the Onslaught is "before the development of advanced [...] fighter craft", there's just a comma where an "and" might provide more clarity. Similarly, that suggests that the Talon is not an advanced fighter craft, or a popular one, which, well, I think is honestly a pretty fair assessment.
For the second, well, huh. I'm not sure the swarmer is intended to do what you think it's intended to do? Admittedly, I don't use it much, but my general use-case for the things is supplemental HE damage on early-game frigates, intended for use against other frigates. I don't use it as anti-fighter, and in particular, it doesn't seem like it'd be well-suited for shooting down piranhas, since their bomb launches tend to shield them a bit. That said, a lot of this comes down to gameplay issues; from a "realism" perspective, you'd think that someone would take the salamander's auto-loader and develop something that could reload, say, hammer torpedos... but that'd be terrible for game balance, so it doesn't happen.
Low-tech - Onslaught - Domain Navy doesnt care about carriers and fighters whatsoever.
From Legion description.
Proponents of the 'Cruiser School' criticized the Legion for being insufficiently specialized in its role.
From Mora description.
This class of carrier was commissioned during the same period of carrier-centric Domain naval doctrine as the ubiquitous Talon fighter. Armored to withstand the fury of battle alongside the Onslaught, the Mora was nonetheless decommissioned en masse as doctrine shifted to favour heavier guns and capital ships flanked by line-cruisers.
From this we can see the Mora came before the Legion.
What Domain capitals other than the Onslaught can replace the Mora?
Your making a big leap suggesting the Legion was ever created without having fighters to begin with. The hybrid Legion is the result of combining the Onslaught and Mora doctrines.
Swarmer that fires a larger salvo size would be OP, the weapon is fine.
Just out of curiosity, was the domain-era a period of warfare and strife?
Typically we see massive innovation during periods of tension and conflicts. Seldom does new ship or weapon designs happen during peace times. Those that does occur are often over budget and delayed.
So it would make sense that large number of designs only enter service during crisis periods.
While I agree with you lucky the damage for swarmers is terrible especially with how armor calculations work there are a couple balancing points to consider.
Harpoon does 750 but only has 3 shots, swarmer has 75 damage but has 60 shots. Ignoring armor for a second we have 2250 total damage on harpoons. For swarmer we have 4500. This is almost enough to make up for the huge amount of damage that is lost after armor is factored in.
BUT we have to consider point defence as well. How many harpoons will get shot down vs swarmer? Wouldn't it be a good bet a lot more damage would be lost this way before we even consider armor? Is this enough reason to use both at once?
The best use of each of these weapons isn't dependent on whos shooting them or what their hitting. It's about every other part of your fleet as well. If your using bombers you can bet using swarmers to defeat point defence would help out a lot more than just having a more powerfull alpha strike.
If you have 7 legions all with with harpoons on the other hand. You have a seriously deadly loadout that will trounce any fleet.
I'm not trying to burst your bubble but there are just niche uses for each weapons. I can tell that's really what the developers wanted. Not an end all be all attitude but choices that if carefully chosen lead to many viable paths.
from a "realism" perspective, you'd think that someone would take the salamander's auto-loader and develop something that could reload, say, hammer torpedos... but that'd be terrible for game balance, so it doesn't happen.
but that'd be terrible for game balance
Iirc, David did mentioned that while low tech types of ships existed before high tech types, new designs fitting with any of the tech levels were still developped when the collapse occured. A bit like we have high tech turbine engines for planes but still create new propeller planes because they have their use.
-___-Swarmer that fires a larger salvo size would be OP, the weapon is fine.
8*75=600. Single Harpoon = 750.
I'd say it is the tech level, but tech levels are detached from their era since old techs don't die as long as they are competitive for a specific task.
-___-Swarmer that fires a larger salvo size would be OP, the weapon is fine.
8*75=600. Single Harpoon = 750.
Try comparing ammo pools too.
Bear in mind how armor works - many low damage hits are inferior to a single powerful hitWell, up to a point.
Technology is the same. Orbital Works, blueprints, common resources. Product is different. For all thing considered, difference between low tech and high tech is the same as machining several blades for an airscrew and order of magnitude more for a turbine's low pressure stage on the very same CNC lathe.You don't need the same industries to build a diesel tanker and a nuclear carrier. Some are common, but you better have a lot more specialized tools for the latter.
However if you are trying to say that there were some special industrial base for low (mid, high) tech ships when we back to "makes no sense" part.
Technology is the same. Orbital Works, blueprints, common resources. Product is different. For all thing considered, difference between low tech and high tech is the same as machining several blades for an airscrew and order of magnitude more for a turbine's low pressure stage on the very same CNC lathe.You don't need the same industries to build a diesel tanker and a nuclear carrier. Some are common, but you better have a lot more specialized tools for the latter.
However if you are trying to say that there were some special industrial base for low (mid, high) tech ships when we back to "makes no sense" part.
That says nothing about the skills and tools required to operate and maintain those ships.
Re: Mora
It did not exist until around 0.8, making it a relatively new ship compared to others, while codex and the like has not yet been overhauled.
Re: Swarmers
They are not good anti-fighter because they do not have enough ammo for the job. If they are supposed to be anti-fighter, they need unlimited or regenerating ammo, because ship needs unlimited shots against unlimited fighters. Fighters are similar enough to missiles as to be nearly indistinguishable from them. Current Swarmers are passable anti-frigate.
Its usage of a product. Technology is producing it.By that logic if I make a hammer myself it is low tech but if a nanoforge produces the exact same hammer it it is super high tech? Then all ships produced in the sector are high tech.
Its usage of a product. Technology is producing it.By that logic if I make a hammer myself it is low tech but if a nanoforge produces the exact same hammer it it is super high tech? Then all ships produced in the sector are high tech.
By your logic then, everything is low tech. After all, if A is low tech because it was made by B and B is low tech, then since everything was originally made by bashing two rocks together...Its usage of a product. Technology is producing it.By that logic if I make a hammer myself it is low tech but if a nanoforge produces the exact same hammer it it is super high tech? Then all ships produced in the sector are high tech.
Yes. Technology is a sum of certain skills and methods of using the certain tools to transform certain resources into the desired product. Handmaid hammer is a product of low tech. Nanoforged - high tech. Just as ships are.
And this is exactly why I said:
"So the "tech" is not the actual design's tech level but any implementation of typical solutions optimized for given tasks."
Fo example, in-game "low tech" = usage of low powered - low thrust engines which doesnt require powerfull reactors but make the ship fuel hungry due to low specific impulse and on the other hand provide robustness and easy of maintance to the equipment. Its more of the "heavy duty - low performance - cheap to run" versus "delicate - high performance - expensive" choice. Not how to do it since its already in the blueprint library.
By your logic then, everything is low tech. After all, if A is low tech because it was made by B and B is low tech, then since everything was originally made by bashing two rocks together...Its usage of a product. Technology is producing it.By that logic if I make a hammer myself it is low tech but if a nanoforge produces the exact same hammer it it is super high tech? Then all ships produced in the sector are high tech.
Yes. Technology is a sum of certain skills and methods of using the certain tools to transform certain resources into the desired product. Handmaid hammer is a product of low tech. Nanoforged - high tech. Just as ships are.
And this is exactly why I said:
"So the "tech" is not the actual design's tech level but any implementation of typical solutions optimized for given tasks."
Fo example, in-game "low tech" = usage of low powered - low thrust engines which doesnt require powerfull reactors but make the ship fuel hungry due to low specific impulse and on the other hand provide robustness and easy of maintance to the equipment. Its more of the "heavy duty - low performance - cheap to run" versus "delicate - high performance - expensive" choice. Not how to do it since its already in the blueprint library.
Swarmers used to do 300 or so fragmentation damage. Like Locusts, they wrecked big ships that lost armor. Old Swarmers were lethal like today's Locusts, when old Broadswords launched them. (Old Broadswords were nearly identical to modern Talons except for LMG replacing Vulcan.) Swarmer were changed to low HE damage we see today.I checked that out a bit. The SRM change happened in 0.65a. The permanent 5% armor value happened in 0.8a, around 2 years later. A hard set armor minimum changes fragmentation damage in a huge way.
Swarmers are great. They dont have to be faster than fighters because fighters do not kite like frigates do. They are one of the strongest anti-fighter weapons until they run out of ammo and are a strong contender for missile fill slots (especially on ships that arent front line)
And as they are HE damage, they strip the armor from fighters allowing low penetration weapons like lmgs, vulcans, and pd beams damage hull faster.Fighter armor already gets shredded in short order. Even if they have a very high armor rating, the extremely small ship size wouldn't give them enough armor tiles to provide actual armor HP. That is, if I'm understanding this tile system correctly. 30 points of armor HP is still a drop in the water against their hull points, so getting double damage against a tiny number doesn't do anything. The concept of HE weaponry is completely wasted against strike craft in this game.
QuoteAnd as they are HE damage, they strip the armor from fighters allowing low penetration weapons like lmgs, vulcans, and pd beams damage hull faster.Fighter armor already gets shredded in short order. Even if they have a very high armor rating, the extremely small ship size wouldn't give them enough armor tiles to provide actual armor HP. That is, if I'm understanding this tile system correctly. 30 points of armor HP is still a drop in the water against their hull points, so getting double damage against a tiny number doesn't do anything. The concept of HE weaponry is completely wasted against strike craft in this game.
LaGs (5 op, 160 flux/second) plus IPDAI (4/8/12/20 OP) is indeed better at shooting down fighters than swarmers (4 OP, 0 flux/second)
It should be... you know, given the differences in OP and flux usage.
LaGs (5 op, 160 flux/second) plus IPDAI (4/8/12/20 OP) is indeed better at shooting down fighters than swarmers (4 OP, 0 flux/second)
It should be... you know, given the differences in OP and flux usage.
Thats typical Lasher build. The only special anti-fighter thing in it is IPDAI. For 4 OP. And it works. Compared to that, effect of Swarmers is negligible. There is exactly zero reasons to mount them in place of Sabots of this very build.
LaGs (5 op, 160 flux/second) plus IPDAI (4/8/12/20 OP) is indeed better at shooting down fighters than swarmers (4 OP, 0 flux/second)
It should be... you know, given the differences in OP and flux usage.
Thats typical Lasher build. The only special anti-fighter thing in it is IPDAI. For 4 OP. And it works. Compared to that, effect of Swarmers is negligible. There is exactly zero reasons to mount them in place of Sabots of this very build.
Sure but not every ship is a lasher and 5+ OP and 160 flux/second is a large investment. Your post more or less confirms that you do not understand their purpose.
Swarmers are best on second line ships rather than front line ships. They let you get zero flux, 1000 range, anti fighter and missile cover that extends over friendly allies in exchange for minor OP. You can stack them like you stack salamanders.
They are locusts (which, i might remind you, are awesome) except in HE instead of frag and in a smaller size. Locusts do 900 DPS but this is frag, so 225 vs shields and 225 @ 50 vs armor. Swarmers do 26 dps vs shields and 106 @ 150 vs armor. So 18 DP worth of swarmers does 117 vs shields, and 477 vs armor @ 150 and 238 vs hull @ 150.
Which is a not so bad tradeoff especially considering the power of large missile slots.