Correspond to a mix of what Megas is asking:I was thinking more like an extra large and sleek (and angular) wedge like a Star Destroyer, something that looks like an Eagle, with similar weapons, but bigger, and with a bay on each side. Not a blocky T that could pass as a low-tech ship if recolored more brown.
Correspond to a mix of what Megas is asking:I was thinking more like an extra large and sleek (and angular) wedge like a Star Destroyer, something that looks like an Eagle, with similar weapons, but bigger, and with a bay on each side. Not a blocky T that could pass as a low-tech ship if recolored more brown.
That said, the Trajan looks something like a capital-sized Champion could be.
I was thinking more like an extra large and sleek (and angular) wedge like a Star Destroyer...Something like this?
I hope that whatever capital ship Alex and David make, it won't rely on fighters too much.No, given how it seems to be truly unique, it'll be a phaseship.
That's a little awkward right?Why?
That's a little awkward right?Why?
To call it awkward based on (particularly distateful) second-hand use of that art is not really fair to its creator.
After all, it's excellent art. And a very good example of a pointy wedge style of imaginary spaceship.
This is honestly one of the best ship suggestions seeing how you really described it in detail. I'm never gonna disagree with any midline capital suggestion because I just want something that can use Mjolnirs and Storm Needlers and it isn't Conquest. Anyways the ship system sounds cool but as someone else said, it's pretty similar to the Afflictor one. Not saying it's bad but maybe it wouldn't be super interesting to use. And I actually wouldn't be so crazy about Victory in vanilla because I think it's TOO similar to Conquest, I'm not a huge fan of "this but slightly stronger/better". I'd rather have something unique like what Foof suggested, and preferably something that could use high flux large ballistics.
I have just one complaint about its stats. Why does it have burn 8? It's not a battlecruiser from what I've read.
Of course, the question is: what would a new Midline Capital look like? We're not adding ships just to add ships: it needs to serve a distinct function that isn't already available. To be fair, I think most of the roles for Capitals are already handled. You have two battleships (Paragon & Onslaught), a pure carrier (Astral), a heavy battle carrier (Legion), two nimble battlecruisers that each have their own flavor (Conquest and Odyssey) and then the "chaff" capitals that the Pirates have. Both of these are paper tigers.
Just wanted to say that I've been thinking about what a midline capital might look like, and nothing too satisfying has come to mind, so: keeping an eye on this thread, with interest!There's another one http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17221.msg271574#msg271574
almost like an up-scaled MuleNot gonna lie, this is p. interesting.
So, my suggestion is to build on that and have another "balanced" Capital that is a bit of a jack-of-all-trades but has a little specialty: namely in acting as a force multiplier. I'm dubbing this a "Command" Capital because not only does it bring a generally "balanced" battle profile, it creates targets of opportunity.
Having converging large energy + large/medium ballistic is problematic.I understand your concerns but the new Champion will have exactly that, and it's only a cruiser. It doesn't seem that crazy on a capital with possibly slow speed. And you can always make it expensive to deploy to avoid cheese.
Also do we all keep forgetting that the Odyssey still exists? Or is it just me? This capital would also need to be different to that ship (which is also one of the most distinct ships in the game, what kinds of ship does it actually match as it's a hightech without looking like a hightech.)Odyssey is simply an extra large Shrike that is highly encouraged to constantly move and brawl up close thanks to Plasma Burn. For this updated playstyle, seems like escort fighters would be more useful than traditional roaming fighters. Odyssey does not need fighters to fight like a Shrike (although unlimited Sabots from escort Longbows are handy).
You can go 3x tachyon lance and mimic a paragon, or two autopulse and a hellbore to mimic a Onslaught, or 2x Hammer Barrage + Locust to mimic a Legion, or maximum defense with 2x Paladin + 1x Devastator, or go offensive with HIL + 2x Mark IX. Combine with 3 fighter bays or so and reserve deployment. Aim for 55-60 DP total package. You now have an end game capital that fulfill many different combat rolls (long range support via missile/Gauss, close range brawl with plasma cannons, long range soft flux, etc), but only one at any given time. 3 larges is roughly what an Onslaught has pointed forward, is less than the Paragon's 4 forward, is roughly what a Conquest can bring to bear on 1 ship, maybe a bit less.Assuming Alex did not change things about bays, giving the new capital at least three bays will make it cower like a dedicated carrier, which is not good if I want a brawler. It would also be counted as a carrier for fleet doctrine. If it gets three bays, might as well give it whatever it needs to play long-range support well, like more fighter bays and/or lots of large missile mounts for Hurricane MIRV spam.
if we're already allowing things like Large Energy + Large ballistics (High Intensity Laser + Mark IX or something)^^^
I know we've been talking about a rival to the Paragon but the Midline doctrine, according to the lore, is to get away from lumbering battleships. The Paragon really wasn't ever "supposed" to happen but is more of an engineer's fevered dream.
I just don't know if the new Champion is basically this already or if the roles would overlap too much.I was thinking of Prometheus Mk II. I thought it was 28 DP, too, until I checked it's actually 32.
It doesn't even really fit the doctrine of TT if I'm honest. It should probably be a SD or hell I'll go there, the Paragon should be a Hegemony ship!!Paragon uses energy weapons, has good shield and flux stats, but is slow and long ranged. It's an alternative to Onslaught, not Odyssey. So yeah, basically.
if we're already allowing things like Large Energy + Large ballistics (High Intensity Laser + Mark IX or something)^^^
I'm still wondering about this.
There are compromises to be found between flexible and constrained. We want fun, interesting and varied gameplay as long as it is not game breaking. Right?
3 large universal allows 3 large missile launchers, which is a lot of firepower (3*2*4000 = up to 24K HE per volley using 3 Cyclone Reaper Launchers).
Even with constrained weapon types, in the initial specs 2 large ballistic + 1 large energy allows:
- 2 Mark IX + 1 HIL
- 2 Mark IX + 1 Tachion Lance
- 1 Storm Needler + 1 other large ballistic + 1 Plasma Cannon
(+ medium ballistic guns on front facing hard points)
Are those OK?
As I understand the Midline doctrine, it's a heavy dose of Ballistic with a few Energy thrown in. There are a few exceptions (i.e. Sunder) but Midline tends to favor ballistic mounts. The Conquest is still, primarily, a ballistic gunboat.It's about even, really.
Since 0.8a, I would consider Conquest the same as Centurion, Hammerhead, and Eagle. A generalist. It is only a battlecruiser in terms of campaign stats. In combat, Conquest is more like a fast battleship.
What would I like to see for midline capital?
* A carrier (with five or six bays) that specializes into interceptors and fighters like Astral does for bombers.
* A missile boat designed to spam Hammer Barrage or Cyclone Reapers, sort of like the pre-0.7.2 Aurora reborn into Champion, but bigger.
* (EDIT) A bigger Eagle with more and/or bigger guns (and the stats to use them) and two fighter bays. Sort of like a Star Destroyer from Star Wars.
The proposed Aquila looks okay. At least it is another ship that can comfortably use high-end ballistics. As for that system, that looks like a weaker version of the Afflictor's system.
Another idea: The dreadnought. Nothing but large mounts. Ballistics and missiles for assault, energy for Paladin PD.
P.S. System could be anti-missile like active flares (or something better) so that any energy mounts it has can be used for assault weapons instead and/or ballistics used for Devastators.
I'm kind of keen on this, too, though with the caveat that there would be some token small mounts scattered throughout. If it was 4 Large Universals and 4 Small Energy on the sides/rear, you'd have a ship that is a Capital-Killer but has major drawbacks against smaller foes. Perhaps only 2 of the Large Mounts are turreted and the other two are hardpoints.The idea of all big mounts is mount more big guns than other capitals and to force choices. Use some of them for PD, or use all of them for assault and rely on shields and possible ship system for anti-missile. To make it more gimmicky, make all of the mounts Hybrid or Universal to force the ship to use those heavy weapons and not undergun them with various medium weapons.
Drones will still count as fighters in terms of skills, except you cannot choose what goes into the bays. Might as well use flight decks to let the player choose what he wants in his bays unless the drones are overpowered or otherwise special.That hullmod is for ships with built-in wings only, like Shepard and Sunder.
For some of the current ships, if I want carrier skills, I probably will end up putting that new hullmod that converts bays to storage on those ships where I do not care about their drones (Shepherd) or bays (Colossus 3, maybe double plasma Odyssey).
That hullmod is for ships with built-in wings only, like Shepard and Sunder.Re-read patch notes and I think "built-in fighter bays" means ships that come with a fighter bay and not one where it gains a bay through a hullmod. I guess that means Colossus 3 and ships with Converted Hangar cannot use it, but any ship with normal bays like any carrier can use the hullmod.
If I want to focus on interceptors or heavy fighters, I probably need to use Drover or Heron. I would like a capital-sized carrier for interceptors
I know. What I was meaning was that I don’t think you can make a 5-6 deck interceptor carrier with enough OP to do the job while not having it be better with bombers. 40 DP is 2 Herons so if it’s interceptor/fighter only it’s got to have at least 6 and be as fast as a Heron to be as good in a pure fighter role. Which is more or less impossible on a battleship frame.
So I don’t think that is reasonably possible.
The only way to get close would be to fix the fighter wings so nothing else could go in there. And I don’t think a lot of people would enjoy a carrier like that where they could not swap the wings out. Thus why I suggested the missile broadside/carrier ship.
The other side of a super-heavy battleship or carrier is that it would slow down a Midline fleet full of Conquests and below. That's why my initial idea was burn 8. Whereas Low-Tech was already plodding with fuel-guzzling Onslaughts and Legions and High-Tech already had slow Astrals and Paragons, Midline doesn't have a slow warship. I think it's fair to say that it should remain that way. That's why I'm still in favor of a smaller capital, like a command ship or logistic hybrid. The Conquest may very well be the "biggest gun" that Midline has to offer, and that's ok.
I really didn't come into this idea with the expectation to outgun the Conquest but rather to supplement it with an equal-but-different alternative.
Ship system deploys a drone to the target location where it becomes a gun emplacement with regular or twin railguns and a beefy shield. Alternatively, deploys a drone to the target location where it becomes a hard-to-kill EMP emitter for X seconds. A different take on the new Doom ship system mechanic that uses the mouse cursor to place stuff.Nice idea. I just thought about the same but instead of turret we create energy shield bubble. Just an obstacle in space. But such system looks like high tech, so, for midline ship yours look better.
I really didn't come into this idea with the expectation to outgun the Conquest but rather to supplement it with an equal-but-different alternative.That would mean one that favors energy weapons (Sunder vs. Hammerhead), missiles (bigger Champion), or some fighters (few like Odyssey or many like Astral). For swift, ballistic power, Conquest is already good enough for what it does.
I enjoy the idea of a "Command" battleship because we don't really have one of those yet. Nav, ECM, and Command Center is is a LOT of OP that can usually be better spent, but could be fun built in.
In terms of balance, I think 40 OP is a good spot to aim for. It should (slowly) lose a 1v1 duel against other battleships, but win if it and the enemy have the same escorting force nearby.
To enable that, what if its ship system was an active buff to all allied fighters and/or ships in the fleet in a decent sized radius? Or an active debuff that stops the Command ship from firing, but also reduces the damage output of a single target by a lot (the idea being that it makes the target much more susceptible to fighter/frigate/destroyer attacks because it can't shoot them down as easily). "Lockdown Jammer" or something.
A thing I think would be an interesting trick for a command ship / light battleship? Having a larger-than-normal zero-flux speed boost (presumably from built-in hullmod).
One of the important things (for me) for a player ship is having the mobility to get to the right part of the fight; it's one of the reasons I tend to end up favoring cruisers with mobility systems. And while in the current game this sort of boost to zero-flux speed might lead to problematic beam-kiting loadouts, I believe the ability to maintain zero flux boost at low flux levels is going away...
I like that idea, too, as long as we're not talking about a ship that's Paragon-tier doing it. It begs the question why other ships can't seem to duplicate the system (is there a malus attached?)
But, hmm - the Navigation skill has an elite effect where you get the zero-flux bonus so long as the ship isn't generating flux, so, it can be non-zero, and that might be too powerful combined with this. Perhaps the bonus could depend on the flux level - maxed out a flux 0, and none at 50%+ or thereabouts. Frame it as "diverting all power to engines" or some such...Generating flux is everything that is not moving. Player cannot shoot, cannot raise shields, cannot send fighters. All that does is save the player the need to vent first before charging forward. Seems more like a convenience power to get to the fight faster.
I really like the idea of a proper command ship, too. It's hard to make it lead to fun gameplay, though. Shooting things directly will just always be more fun than making others better at shooting things, imo.To my knowledge, the idea of command ship is that you put it on autopilot and open the tactical map. So long it provides the correct bonuses, it's of no importance what that ship is exactly. I can one issue of making that ship come with built-in Operation Command and the like, though, that being that people who like that style of gameplay will feel that using anything but that command ship suboptimal, since it's the only ship they don't have to waste OPs on getting Operation Command on. I'm not sure how much worth is my opinion, letting someone else do the krumpin' is not my cup of tea.
A thing I think would be an interesting trick for a command ship / light battleship? Having a larger-than-normal zero-flux speed boost (presumably from built-in hullmod).I find this thought bizarre. Command ship, of all ships, is the ship that doesn't have to go anywhere, because its primary purpose is to make the player less concerned about what's happening to his ship and more what's happening to his fleet, and the flagship is not the entirety of the fleet. It will help stand the ship out nevertheless.
But, hmm - the Navigation skill has an elite effect where you get the zero-flux bonus so long as the ship isn't generating flux, so, it can be non-zero, and that might be too powerful combined with this.Huh. I did not know about that, and yeah, having that work in tandem with a significant increase to the zero-flux boost would be potentially problematic.
I find this thought bizarre. Command ship, of all ships, is the ship that doesn't have to go anywhere, because its primary purpose is to make the player less concerned about what's happening to his ship and more what's happening to his fleet, and the flagship is not the entirety of the fleet. It will help stand the ship out nevertheless.Huh. I guess that is a valid definition of a 'command ship', but it doesn't fit the definition I was going for. I see a 'Command Ship' as something that's meant to, one, be more fleet support than direct front-line slug-it-out battleship... and, two, is meant to be a good player ship. The ability to get around the battlefield quickly is useful for both of those roles; hard to support other ships if you can't get to where they are fast enough.
I really like the idea of a proper command ship, too. It's hard to make it lead to fun gameplay, though. Shooting things directly will just always be more fun than making others better at shooting things, imo.Well, a command capital ship would still be armed, even if not to the extent of a Paragon. We're still talking about a presumably 35-45 DP warship, investing all that DP into one vessel just to have it sit back away from the action is unlikely to be optimal, or even a good idea. (Also, some of us do enjoy playing in a "support" role...)
Mh. How about a special ability "Synchronized Battle Line":Honestly, sounds excessively complex, both for the player to understand and manage (and the AI, presumably), and just to code in general. You'd need to burn a Command Point on an escort order for it to even work (even if the tactical circumstances don't warrant it), you'd almost certainly have to design your designated escorts from the ground up to work well with the system, there's a ton of room for the AI (or player) to mess up and get one of their escorts destroyed instead of doing whatever they're trying to do thanks to the escort's limited mobility and even more limited firing targets... I just don't see it working very well.
Ships that escort you line up to both your sides and follow your movements as best they can, like drones with fixed positions. They get a huge range bonus to their non-pd weapons, but can only fire them when you fire, and only aim them at your target.
A thing I think would be an interesting trick for a command ship / light battleship? Having a larger-than-normal zero-flux speed boost (presumably from built-in hullmod).
One of the important things (for me) for a player ship is having the mobility to get to the right part of the fight; it's one of the reasons I tend to end up favoring cruisers with mobility systems. And while in the current game this sort of boost to zero-flux speed might lead to problematic beam-kiting loadouts, I believe the ability to maintain zero flux boost at low flux levels is going away...
Ohhh, this is a very solid idea! For example, the Paragon's range boost is less to do with making it difficult to kite (it's already got the capital-grade bonus to range, anyway), but more about increasing its effective influence on the battle - it's slow, but with extra range, it needs to go less far. So, yeah, "being able to get around" is a key concern for battleships.
But, hmm - the Navigation skill has an elite effect where you get the zero-flux bonus so long as the ship isn't generating flux, so, it can be non-zero, and that might be too powerful combined with this. Perhaps the bonus could depend on the flux level - maxed out a flux 0, and none at 50%+ or thereabouts. Frame it as "diverting all power to engines" or some such...
Hmm. In my mind, having a built-in hullmod that provides out-of-immediate-combat mobility to the ship does not make it compete with the Conquest, whose mobility system is on-demand and quite useful in direct combat - to turn quickly, back off, etc. It's still useful outside combat too, of course, but for a battlecruiser, the defining feature of the ability is its in-combat use, which lets it dictate engagements.
For example, if you had this kind of hullmod on an Onslaught, would that make it into a battlecruiser, mobility-wise? And would that make the Conquest obsolete? It doesn't seem like it - the kind of run-and-gun you can do with the Conquest just doesn't seem possible with this hullmod alone.
For example, the Paragon's range boost is less to do with making it difficult to kite (it's already got the capital-grade bonus to range, anyway)...
Another theme that would be interesting and very fitting with the upcoming changes: A planetary invasion capital ship for performing big scale raids. It would have a (capital grade!) ground support package, large crew compartments and fuel tanks and a hullmod that increases planetary bombardment efficiency. It would also be relatively sneaky, i.e. have a low sensor profile to reach planets without having to fight all its patrols. In combat there would be different options, but a long range bombardment vessel that's good against stations would make a lot of thematic sense.Onslaught and Legion are halfway there already, with plenty of extra personnel capacity. Just give them the raider hullmods and a bit more fuel capacity, and call it a day. (I already use Onslaughts as troop transports when I bring thousands of marines to steal items from Sindria.)
Based on my previous suggestion, I propose a fleet support carrier.
- Poor hull, armor, shield. Good burn, maneuverability and speed, on par with a cruiser
- Less weapons than Astral. 5-6 hangers. System is Apogee's Active Flares but launches far more flares over a wider area
- Low DP and maintenence. Fuel efficient.
- Plenty of built-in hullmods. Recovery Shuttles, ECM, Nav Relay, Operations Center are mandatory. May also possess Salvage Gantry and/or Ground Support Package
I don’t like this on a new midline capital because like... it’s a midline Capital we are designing and they already have the mobility focused conquest. It doesn’t make sense from a fleet design perspective. (And neither does a capital command ship).Very strongly disagree. From an in-game perspective, Capital-grade ships receive the largest bonus from ECM and Nav Relays, and Capital Ships also have the greatest PPT of all the classes, all of which are ideal characteristics for a command flagship. (If the Operations Center is not built-in, then Caps tend to make the best flagships anyways, both due to PPT issues and that Caps have the highest OP available, while Operations Center costs a flat 30 regardless of size).
Agree with most of what you say but 35DP for 5-6 hangars is too cheap. It should at least be 40.
I think this could work. In terms of role, there's a pretty big hole in the carrier lineup between the Heron and the Astral, especially as the Astral is very bomber inclined. The Legion is definitively a Battlecarrier considering it can run good guns and a full fighter/missile load, so this one would need to fall into the more lightly armed 'carrier' role.
With no fighter boosting system, at 6 wings it is directly competing with 3 Condors in terms of fighter effectiveness (with an inherent boost from the wings staying/repairing as one, and only taking 1 officer), so it has to be a 'light' unit in terms of DP.
Important Stats:
Burn 8: this is a light capital that fits with the midline "theme" of "cruiser school" and can keep up with the Conquest.
35 DP/maintenance: it has superior fighter count to the Legion, but worse armament and defense.
Built in hullmods: As in the quote.
Armament: Light, but on 'theme'. I'm thinking a gun package similar in strength to the Falcon in terms of balance, but using a Large ballistic. So, how about 1 large ballistic hardpoint, 2 medium energy turrets, a ring of small energy (6?), and a few small missile mounts (2?). Lack of medium/larger missiles is a distinct disadvantage for a carrier that wants to hang back, but this level of armament at least lets it kill lone destroyers that go after it. Some builds probably won't use all the mounts but thats ok.
OP: (20+2*10+8*5+6*15 + bonus)~ 200 OP? Distinctly less than a Legion at 260, but its also only 35DP and has fewer (and smaller) weapon mounts. This would def need play/build testing to really work out.
Speed: 40. Equivalent to a Conquest but no mobility system and slower than an Onslaught + burn drive. I disagree with the quote on this, because I strongly feel that carriers have to be catchable by things that can kill them.
Fuel use: Applying the harsh capital class penalty to the light role and DP count, I think 8 F/LY puts it in the right ballpark. If more of an exploration theme, lower the cost.
My point was mainly related to mobility/defense/damage. You could always make a ship be treated as a capital for the purpose of ECM/Nav relay.(and even then its only what, 1%?) And PPT while it tends to get higher for larger ships doesn't have to be. The "capital" designation is just a descriptor that can be set and does not really enforce anything about the ship except how it treats different hull mods. The main issue is that a command ship kind of has to be... uhh weaker? than a similar ship of its deployment points in terms of raw DPS/defense. And as a result would be very vulnerable in a mobile cruiser focused fleet doctrine if it were a "true battleship" or "true battlecruiser" in terms of mobility/damage/defense. At least thematically imagine you have a ship that is roughly as maneuverable as a conquest but hits and defends like a 30 DP ship, what happens to that ship when the cruiser line of eagles responds by backing up because that is what the eagles are supposed to do as a stronger enemy advances? Well the command ship dies. And thematically if this is our command ship... we have lost the engagement regardless of whether or not we "win" in the end because all our important people bit it because they were on the command ship that exploded. And as a result we need our command ship to be at least as mobile as those eagles.I don’t like this on a new midline capital because like... it’s a midline Capital we are designing and they already have the mobility focused conquest. It doesn’t make sense from a fleet design perspective. (And neither does a capital command ship).Very strongly disagree. From an in-game perspective, Capital-grade ships receive the largest bonus from ECM and Nav Relays, and Capital Ships also have the greatest PPT of all the classes, all of which are ideal characteristics for a command flagship. (If the Operations Center is not built-in, then Caps tend to make the best flagships anyways, both due to PPT issues and that Caps have the highest OP available, while Operations Center costs a flat 30 regardless of size).
It wouldn't be hard at all to write some fluff as to why cruiser-doctrine school of thought came up with a Command Battlecruiser, no more so than the Conquest.
While a ship in the 30-35 DP range could be made interesting, its not the most pressing concern for the midline group of ships, and harder to differentiate from current cruisers. They've already got the most combat cruisers of any tech level at 5. Falcon, Heron, Gryphon, Eagle, Champion. High tech has 4 (Fury, Apogee, Aurora, Doom) and low tech only 3 (Dominator, Mora, Venture?). Midline doesn't need another sub-capital or light capital right now. Low tech does. Midline already has a lock on mobile cruiser doctrine with its current ships. And if you really want a command midline light capital/cruiser, you can do that with hull mods. Take a Conquest, put Nav Relay and ECM package. That makes it slightly weaker 1 on 1 compared to other Conquests and boosts your entire fleet. Or slap them on a Heron.
The current build space above 40 DP is completely high tech. Odyssey, Astral, Paragon. I really feel if you're going to add another midline ship, it clearly be well into the capital category and gives a little balance between the current fleet line ups, as opposed to having all the heavy weights in one faction and the majority of mid weights in another faction.
But like... that is what the fleet doctrine and role structure demand?
I am fine with another capital for mid line but why would midline design a super ship? What does it do for them? How does it fit into their fleet doctrine?
Its totally fine that the 40DP+ set is entirely high tech. It makes perfect sense that TT would be building expensive passion projects with weird uses cases so that their CEOs could go fly around in the biggest baddest/fastest thing in the galaxy as an ego boost. High tech also has the most expensive DP cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. Its not a mistake its a design philosophy. What would cause the Persean league to adopt that?
Agree with everything here. And actually I wouldn't even count Venture as a proper combat cruiser, so low tech progression basically goes from 9 DP Enforcer straight to tough cruisers at 20-25 DP and then another 15 DP gap until you get to capitals. Midline truly has enough ships that aren't capitals.Maybe a light cruiser for low-tech, which probably means Dominator gets moved from low-tech pack to an elite singleton. Maybe an extra large Mudskipper 2 or half Dominator.
I apologise since this isn't the thread for it but it would be nice to have a low tech ship that doesn't have Burn drive, Luddic Church could use something unique for example. It's the only gap I truly feel is lacking. More capitals is always nice tho. And if it's really going to be a midline one, I really don't think another 40 DP ship would shake things up all that much, unless it's wildly unique. Paragon needs competition.
Potentially terrible idea: Have absolutely no missile slots on the Command Ship and generally limited firepower, but give it Quantum Disruptor (like on the Harbinger). No missiles to fully exploit the one-second vulnerability gap it can create, but with others in its fleet, especially those with a good chunk of missile slots themselves (like a Gryphon, or a Conquest), can make massive holes with that opening.
Also would have a secondary function as a sort of anti-Phase cap, since Quantum Disruptor can pull them out of Phase. It'd be nice to have an anti-phase ship that isn't itself a phase ship.
We'll probably not agree on this case; that sort of ship sounds both unique and fun for me. Given that I often play with fairly sizeable battle sizes (and wouldn't really deploy capital-grade ships if the opposing fleet was trivially small), A and C aren't really a problem for me. (On B, think you have the order flipped here, AI seems trigger-happy enough that you can kinda pick "when" to disrupt such that their outgoing fire has the greatest effect. The time frame is a bit narrow for the ships to fire after the disruption, in general)Potentially terrible idea: Have absolutely no missile slots on the Command Ship and generally limited firepower, but give it Quantum Disruptor (like on the Harbinger). No missiles to fully exploit the one-second vulnerability gap it can create, but with others in its fleet, especially those with a good chunk of missile slots themselves (like a Gryphon, or a Conquest), can make massive holes with that opening.
Also would have a secondary function as a sort of anti-Phase cap, since Quantum Disruptor can pull them out of Phase. It'd be nice to have an anti-phase ship that isn't itself a phase ship.
The only thing I don't particularly like about this (and was a problem with my original ship system idea) is that I don't think it would be particularly fun to be able to create an opening for allied ships that a.) may or may not be there, b.) may or may not have an AI that recognizes the opening and/or, c.) have a capital-grade ship be almost completely reliant on support to get kills.
If we're spending the credits, logistics, and DP to field a capital (especially with the new fleet-weightings next patch), I think it should stand to reason that an expensive ship that can create openings like that ought to also be able to capitalize on them: i.e. it isn't terribly undergunned relative to its equal weight in DP. If we had a command ship of 40 DP, I'm not saying it should be the equivalent of a Conquest in firepower but it should have other attributes that make it roughly equivalent. Also remember that if a capital ship has a Quantum Disrupter-esque system, it doesn't have a mobility system, defensive system, fighter system, etc. It's going to be a sitting duck in most circumstances so a Quantum Disruptor, in addition to its own firepower, needs to give it some kind edge over the other capitals that can turtle up, burn drive/maneuvering jet out, etc. A ship with that kind of system will have to be either naturally tough, naturally fast, or naturally hard-hitting so it can punch its way out. Otherwise, it would simply be too vulnerable and not "worth it" to field.I was attempting to be conservative in my suggestion. The reason I prefaced it with "potentially a terrible idea" is because giving another ship the Quantum Disruptor ship system comes with a lot of implications.
Also remember that if a capital ship has a Quantum Disrupter-esque system, it doesn't have a mobility system, defensive system, fighter system, etc. It's going to be a sitting duck in most circumstances so a Quantum Disruptor, in addition to its own firepower, needs to give it some kind edge over the other capitals that can turtle up, burn drive/maneuvering jet out, etc.I think you're severely under-estimating the utility of the Quantum Disruptor here. It isn't a mobility system, it's an anti-mobility system. In the right circumstances it is a defensive system. In the right circumstances it's also an offensive system.