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)
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.
Have you ever seen an AI Odyssey? It's basically Onslaught but without the defense.Oh, yes. Odyssey is my least favorite capital because unless I give AI a beam-and-missiles loadout (that I do not want to use if I pilot it), it always burns into the middle of a mob and dies. Odyssey is too valuable to throw away like a Shrike.
Ion Beam is too inefficient on Conquest for what it does. It takes too long for Ion Beam to disable enemies given the firepower Conquest can bring. Better to put that flux toward a bigger gun (like upgrading from Hellbore to HAG or Mjolnir) or another kinetic to crush the enemy faster.
...
The result is a ship that reliably 1v1s any other 40FP unit in the whole game and is the only 40FP ship capable of clubbering a 4tach lance Paragon without taking a iota of damage when player controlled (since the AI is not reliable enough to stay at max range, eh)
Ion Beam is too inefficient on Conquest for what it does. It takes too long for Ion Beam to disable enemies given the firepower Conquest can bring. Better to put that flux toward a bigger gun (like upgrading from Hellbore to HAG or Mjolnir) or another kinetic to crush the enemy faster.
...
A Conquest has 1700 flux dissipation with no skills: 1920 with skills. Ships should always have a reasonable amount more guns than dissipation to avoid 'dead' dissipation.
2 Guass's, 2 heavy maulers, and an ion beam is 1700 flux (sniper build). Twin mjolnirs + 2x heavy needlers + ion beam is 1934 flux. Those are reasonably sensible loadouts in 2 range bands with flux intensive large mount guns, and both are in budget. Anything using HAGs/MkIXs in the largest or flaks in the mediums for extra PD is even cheaper.
The Conquest's biggest problem is its low defense. An Ion beam reliably and accurately lowers the offense of whatever its engaging. For a player that knows to keep it firing it also acts as a wall that flames out any fighter or missile that happens to fly through it (and the AI does this by accident on occasion too).
I might be a bit weird, but I most often leave a bunch of the small energy mounts empty, especially on the off side because that side has flak anyways. The PD benefit of small energy mounts is really marginal on a ship that can mount flak.
Twin mjolnirs + 2x heavy needlers + ion beam is 1934 flux. Those are reasonably sensible loadouts in 2 range bands with flux intensive large mount guns, and both are in budget. Anything using HAGs/MkIXs in the largest or flaks in the mediums for extra PD is even cheaper.I usually use Mjolnir + Heavy Needler + Mark IX on each side. Sometimes, when I do not have elite weapons, I use HAG + 2x Heavy Autocannon + Mark IX instead. If I use Ion Beam on top of that, not only extra flux use hurts when I want to use both sides at the same time, but I also need to give up Expanded Missile Racks to afford it, and that is a non-option if I want Locusts to last long enough in a fight.
The result is a ship that reliably 1v1s any other 40FP unit in the whole game and is the only 40FP ship capable of clubbering a 4tach lance Paragon without taking a iota of damage when player controlled (since the AI is not reliable enough to stay at max range, eh)
Odyssey is technically 45 FP, but a player controlled one can defeat any Paragon build without taking more than few armor scratches as well. Key is plasma burning to Paragon's side and sticking there, out of most of it's weapon arcs.
The AI will use maneuvering jets to get better position and save its life. It will use burn drives to dive stations and get itself killed. Also the thermal pulse cannons on an onslaught are fixed and so spread out its common for one stream to miss the target when firing both simultaneously, wasting a LOT of flux and time, whereas the conquest has large turrets that can properly focus fire. While the onslaught may have more total firepower, the conquest is much better at bringing a given quantity of guns to bear on one target with much better convergence--and if that side somehow gets knocked out by EMP or sheer damage it can flip over and fire the other broadside while the damaged guns repair themselves. If the conquest gets flanked, it hits the jets and flips--if the onslaught gets flanked, it dies.
For station sieges, the onslaught is probably a tougher, more forceful option but for fleet engagements, the conquest has distinct tactical advantages. The onslaught is simpler, as low tech ships are ostensibly meant to be, but the conquest can do things the onslaught simply cannot.
If you're running EMR you're probably better off with MIRV and ECCM. Its only 4 more OP but will hit a LOT harder in terms of killing enemy ships after you shred them of their shieldsIt costs much more than 4 OP. Locust is 18 OP, MIRV is 25? Then multiply by two for two mounts. ECCM costs additional OP on top of that. MIRVs and ECCM cost too much OP, much more than Locusts alone. Without Missile Spec., I do not even think about MIRVs (if I have Locusts available) unless loadout is primarily Gauss Cannons, and only because Locusts have less range than Gauss. However, I generally avoid Gauss loadouts for various reasons.
A cheeky AM blaster on the sides is nothing to sniffle at by the way! Midline has some hilarious potential for AM Blasters where they really don't belong!Huh, I've never tried that. Do you have any interesting setups involving AM blasters on midline ships to showcase? For science!
If you're running EMR you're probably better off with MIRV and ECCM. Its only 4 more OP but will hit a LOT harder in terms of killing enemy ships after you shred them of their shieldsIt costs much more than 4 OP. Locust is 18 OP, MIRV is 25? Then multiply by two for two mounts. ECCM costs additional OP on top of that. MIRVs and ECCM cost too much OP, much more than Locusts alone. Without Missile Spec., I do not even think about MIRVs (if I have Locusts available) unless loadout is primarily Gauss Cannons, and only because Locusts have less range than Gauss. However, I generally avoid Gauss loadouts for various reasons.
I use EMR on anything that relies on missiles (except plasma Apogee due to lack of OP) because missile ammo runs out too quickly, even Locusts. Any high-tech ship with Sabots? EMR. Low-tech ship with Annihilators? EMR. Starter Apogee with Locusts but no PC? EMR. Conquest with Locusts or any other missile? EMR.
Also, two Locusts is practically an unavoidable auto-kill against enemy frigates (eats shields, armor, and hull - everything). Destroyers will be severely hurt too. Others need armor stripped first, but that is okay.
@ Thaago: If I can afford Ion Beam, then I can also afford better firepower to kill things faster, or not and let the Conquest attack both sides at the same time without maxing flux too fast (which is nice against a mob of smaller ships).
its more than 4 OPLocust x 2 : 36 OP
Ion beam has the best flux/EMP damage ratio in vanilla at 0.5. It's also the only vanilla weapon that can flameout an enemy ship's engines despite said ship giving you the front/having shields raised. It's basically a direct fire Salamander that you can't shoot down provided you've got plenty of kinetic firepower and as people said before it's not only good at preventing the enemy from running away but it's also perfect for preventing the enemy to fire back at you once it starts working, wich is also really good when facing multiple, smaller opponents since they'll get paralyzed and allow the COnquest to face them mostly one by one.I already wrote above, Ion Beam does not work fast enough (on something that can make things dead fast). I tried Ion Beam on Conquest (with 800-900 range ballistics) but was disappointed with the results. I had better results re-allocating the OP and/or flux elsewhere.
I also do not want AI firing Ion Beam when none of its ballistics are in range.
its almost 2021 and modders STILL haven't made the ConSlaught, which is an Onslaught Conquest hybrid, smh my headDoes the Victory-class Battleship from the Ship/Weapon Pack count?
That's more of an OnQuest IMO :Pits almost 2021 and modders STILL haven't made the ConSlaught, which is an Onslaught Conquest hybrid, smh my headDoes the Victory-class Battleship from the Ship/Weapon Pack count?
20 is a lot of MIRV. I think it takes 2 minutes to launch the entire compliment of 10 MIRV from a regular launcher that or its 100 seconds. (1 minute 40 seconds). That is a pretty decent amount of time. If you're concerned about duration then 1 MIRV, EMR, ECCM is only 9 more OP for the long duration/less waste version.
Why? Its not like it costs you anythingThat assumes AI Conquest began fighting at zero flux.
essentially hopeless for the AI to use effectively unless it somehow manages to circle with the broadside correctly without over committing and dying which is extremely rare.It helps if the main guns share the same range (maybe within 100 units) and the officer has the proper behavior. AI can handle medium-range brawler loadouts just fine, at least symmetrical loadouts. Storm Needler needs Aggressive+. The only loadouts I had problems with AI are those with Gauss Cannons. Problems include AI driving beyond Gauss range and unable to fire, AI unable to keep target within Gauss' firing arcs, or driving too close to the enemy (i.e., within range of 900 range ballistics).
In a 1v1 scenario:A paragon is 60 DP to the Conquest's 40 DP, so I'd certainly hope that engagement would be in favor of the Paragon. In this case, the comparison should really be a Conquest + 20 DP of whatever vs Paragon, or 3 Conquests vs 2 Paragons.
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:The Onslaught's big gun arrays is deceiving, as it doesn't actually have the flux to operate them. The Onslaught's flux throttling issues essentially force the vast majority of the guns to be less effective flux-sipping versions, and even then it falters in sustained fights if more than one firing arc is active. Conquests on the other hand have far more flux and make great and sustainable fire-support platforms with advanced weapons like Mjolnirs. This doesn't even get into the utility of the 2 Large missile mounts that can be trained on either broadside.
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:Paragon is something of an anomaly as it has Battlecruiser-grade fuel consumption, despite being a Battleship. The Legion battlecarrier and Onslaught battleship both eat 15 fuel/LY, so I wouldn't be surprised if Tri-Tachyon's pet project eventually gets its logistical stats hammered to match accordingly.
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.I'm curious, let's flip this on its head. Let's say you're right and the Conquest is bad. What changes, specifically, would you make to the Conquest that would make it be a worthwhile option in your opinion? (Specific numbers would be preferred, if possible)
Unless you want to see how to solo ordos, this video is boring more than anything else.Well there ya go, it's not my video btw. I could also post my usual build here if you want but I don't think that alone would prove much as you said.Spoilerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SecJjpCirtg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SecJjpCirtg)[close]
The main weakness of gauss cannons is due to talents. The combination of Advanced Countermeasures 1 (-50% KEpwr/dmg), impact mitigation (+150armor, 90% DR, -20% armor dmg) and evasive action 3 (+50% armor 'weight') is a triple threat of armor bonuses vs. a gun weak against armor. It is several times more difficult to punch through talents, and HE weapons don't suffer half as badly. That makes it a rough against high level enemy officers, but their talent choices tend to be more random and it's not too common to see all the defense talents stacked up.
The main weakness of gauss cannons is due to talents. The combination of Advanced Countermeasures 1 (-50% KEpwr/dmg), impact mitigation (+150armor, 90% DR, -20% armor dmg) and evasive action 3 (+50% armor 'weight') is a triple threat of armor bonuses vs. a gun weak against armor. It is several times more difficult to punch through talents, and HE weapons don't suffer half as badly. That makes it a rough against high level enemy officers, but their talent choices tend to be more random and it's not too common to see all the defense talents stacked up.
A gauss vs all of those talents has a hit strength of 175. This is almost as much as a Heavy Mortar (220). Without AC1 its got one of the higher hit strengths in the game, at 350 almost as much as the Heavy Mauler (400... which we have discussed is a good weapon). If we add this to its 480 range advantage over other large mounted weapons should find that its weakness is not that.
Its efficiency (7/6 vs shields!), raw flux cost(600, its hard to shoot more than one on most ships and any other weapons), and fitting cost (25!)
Congrats on the powerful troll, OP.
If LowT is slowish with linear movement abilities and good armor, and HighT is fastish with precise agile movement abilities and good shields, does that mean Midline has medium speed, a mix of armor and shields, and movement abilities that are mixed too?Sure this is a general idea but obviously exceptions exist. Also midline is hardest to describe clearly since they're somewhere in the middle, duh. If every ship followed the doctrine faithfully, it would make for a very boring roster of ships.
My biggest immediate problem with the Conquest is its hilariously bad shields. Like why? Would it be be overpowered with better shields?Conquest has second best flux stats in the game (excluding ships you can't use). It's similar to Sunder, in that better shields would make it too good at tanking, in addition to being excellent at dealing damage.
One final consideration because I'm sure someone is thinking it right now. If Midline is bad, why is the Eagle so good? Honestly I think Midline ships are little confused about their identity sometimes, the biggest problem being shields.I think of midline as mostly specialists. Brawler — anti-big ship frigate. Centurion — brick. Vigilance — there to give you that medium missile. Hammerhead? I'd say it's a generalist, actually, but that's because shooting things is so handy. Sunder — glass cannon. Drover, Heron — dedicated carriers (though this is cheating a bit, since you don't have much of a choice when it comes to carriers). Gryphon spews missiles. Conquest combines good flux stats, good mobility, good weapons with bad shields. It's just Falcon and Eagle that are straightforward generalists (and Hammerhead, as I mentioned).
Their shields are supposed to be mediocre, if they weren't, they'd just be better high tech.Midline and high-tech have many ships with the same 0.8 efficiency shields, but high-tech can tank more due to superior flux stats (or not so superior, as is the case with Aurora).
Well, no, being midline has nothing to do with its "problems". In fact, the majority of midline ships perform well under AI control (except maybe Gryphon) since their systems are very forgiving and they have decent flux stats. I don't know what are you on about midline being bad, it's the one tech type which doesn't have many weak ships. Their shields are supposed to be mediocre, if they weren't, they'd just be better high tech.I really don't agree with that, the ONLY thing forgiving about Midlines is their systems. Notice how the Sunder is one of the worst ships in vanilla, backed by tier lists of the forums and most players. It lacks a mobility system, and like the conquest has bad shields and paper thin armor. The actually good Midline ships either have forgiving systems and/or 0.8 shields.
Sure this is a general idea but obviously exceptions exist. Also midline is hardest to describe clearly since they're somewhere in the middle, duh. If every ship followed the doctrine faithfully, it would make for a very boring roster of ships.This just feels like a cop out to me honestly. Most of the good Midline ships follow a doctrine, and the most questionable ones don't, like the Sunder and Conquest. Nearly every HighT and LowT ships follow their doctrine in the ways that matter.
Conquest having bad shields is the whole idea behind it, it's not made to go in and brawl like a battleship. Not even mentioning that the combo of speed + firepower + defense would be hilariously broken.Again, this doesn't make much sense. You don't have to go in to get annihilated for having THAT bad of shields. If the average shield strength of Midline is either 0.8 or 1.0, the Conquest has nearly half the shield strength, and I'm pretty sure its actually the worst ratio in vanilla at 1.4. This isn't mechwarrior, you can't outrange by that wide of a margin for that to be acceptable especially with equally bad armor and hull. Not to mention the Paragon already has its own range mod built in. The built in mod for the Conquest facilities more guns not more range, which you HAVE to get close enough to actually use or there is no point mounting them all, hence all the people talking about asymmetric builds or it being player only because of the finesse required to do so without dying.
It's similar to Sunder, in that better shields would make it too good at tanking, in addition to being excellent at dealing damage.This is probably the crux of it. Like I speculated, the Conquest would probably go from bad to insane if it was buffed in the wrong way. Its probably one of those things that's always going to be on the razors edge (if it ever does get changed, which I doubt) between amazing and awful. I imagine it was nerfed during its creation into its current state to avoid being too good.
I think of midline as mostly specialists. Brawler %u2014 anti-big ship frigate. Centurion %u2014 brick. Vigilance %u2014 there to give you that medium missile. Hammerhead? I'd say it's a generalist, actually, but that's because shooting things is so handy. Sunder %u2014 glass cannon. Drover, Heron %u2014 dedicated carriers (though this is cheating a bit, since you don't have much of a choice when it comes to carriers). Gryphon spews missiles. Conquest combines good flux stats, good mobility, good weapons with bad shields. It's just Falcon and Eagle that are straightforward generalists (and Hammerhead, as I mentioned).This is how I feel too, and its probably part of why Midline seems to be confusing to me. I've also wondered if it couldn't do with some more ships being added in vanilla to round it out a little. Probably unnecessary but its the category I'd like to see expanded on more. What I'm assuming the problem is is that because each ship is a generalist, the statline works better or worse differently in every case. It just so happens to be weird on some of them and great on others, and some of them even have to be tweaked quite a bit.
Who has said this? I've never seen anyone rank sunder as one of the worst ships in vanilla. The only forum tier list on a recent patch that I'm aware of is this one: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=18707.0. The OP had some questionable choices, but pretty much everyone in the thread who gave a tier list has sunder as either top tier or mid tier.Well, no, being midline has nothing to do with its "problems". In fact, the majority of midline ships perform well under AI control (except maybe Gryphon) since their systems are very forgiving and they have decent flux stats. I don't know what are you on about midline being bad, it's the one tech type which doesn't have many weak ships. Their shields are supposed to be mediocre, if they weren't, they'd just be better high tech.Notice how the Sunder is one of the worst ships in vanilla, backed by tier lists of the forums and most players. It lacks a mobility system, and like the conquest has bad shields and paper thin armor.
I don't understand the whole fixation on 'ship doctrine'. It's like 80% aesthetic. Themes are cute, but there's no law that ships have to follow rules, and variation away from a theme is what makes for interesting and diverse ships. Also the other techs definitely have ships that don't all of the trends. Lasher is not much of a low tech ship with average speed and armor and a damage boosting ships system, apogee and paragon are both slow, odyssey has a mediocre-bad shield off the top of my head.Sure this is a general idea but obviously exceptions exist. Also midline is hardest to describe clearly since they're somewhere in the middle, duh. If every ship followed the doctrine faithfully, it would make for a very boring roster of ships.This just feels like a cop out to me honestly. Most of the good Midline ships follow a doctrine, and the most questionable ones don't, like the Sunder and Conquest. Nearly every HighT and LowT ships follow their doctrine in the ways that matter.
You know why the Paragon fairs so much better in AI hands? While it is worth more DP, consider how slow and tanky it is. Its essentially mistake proof. The AI can't "stage dive" with it and die instantly.
...Definitely true. Stuff like this is probably why so many people are willing to throw down in favor of the Conquest, myself included. While it has a lot more pitfalls to get caught in, it avoids the common ones capitals have.
Also I don't get your examples at all, the lasher is perfectly fine in LowT, its a brawler with a damage boost and well above average armor. HighT ships aren't supposed to be fast, isn't that Midlines thing? The odyssey I'll give you, and its weird because of its extreme speed.To me, low tech is slow and high armor with mediocre-bad flux stats and a weak shield (almost every ship fits that description except lasher), and high tech is fast/maneuverable, excellent flux stats and a good shield (most of the high tech ships ships follow like 2 out of 3 of these actually). Mid-tech is very nebulous, some people say its for specialized ships, some people say its for generalist ships. To me, it's just the 'miscellaneous' category for all the ships that don't quite fit. The fact that people don't even agree on these definitions demonstrates that the 'doctrine rules' aren't clearly defined and don't really mean anything. If something goes against them, that doesn't mean its bad, and if something follows them, that doesn't mean it's good. Doctrine is a just an aesthetic/fluff thing, not a serious set of rules for balance.
This whole thing about "just use a good loadout" seems to go in circles in this thread, but you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Obviously hitting random is bad, that doesn't need to be said. My point is that any polarizing ship needs a polarizing loadout, and the Conquest is one of them, much like a lot of the Midline doctrine. I definitely don't think it works well with generic loadouts because it gets crushed in trades due to its terrible shield like I talked about. I guess like the rest of this thread, everyone is going to think something different from their own experiences.
Doctrine is a just an aesthetic/fluff thing, not a serious set of rules for balance.Doctrine isn't just fluff and its not a set of balancing rules either, its a win condition. Also I don't understand whats so confusing about comparing a ship to its doctrine. If its not going to follow it why have it at all even if its only lore. Every vanilla doctrine and modded faction is based around some kind of idea, something specific their ships do better than others they rely on to win fights. Again, you are welcome to just hand wave it all if it makes you feel better but it sounds more like you don't think they should exist at all.
HighT ships aren't supposed to be fast, isn't that Midlines thing? The odyssey I'll give you, and its weird because of its extreme speed.So long you ignore Wolf, Scarab, Tempest, Hyperion, Omen, Shrike, Medusa, Aurora and Odyssey (9 of 12 high-tech combat ships, excluding phase ships), then yeah, midline is more about speed than high-tech.
I don't get why people use Haephestus on Conquest. It has enough flux to fire Mjolnir instead, which is better than Haephestus in almost all regards, except for efficiency — which isn't that much better against big boy armour, which is when you are most likely to care about efficiency, because you're fighting other capitals.Unofficered AI is not good at managing Mjolnir in my experience. I was trying to keep it flux neutral for the AI and haephestus costs almost 200 less flux/sec. On a player ship or an officered ship with flux skills, I would use Mjolnir for sure. Maybe it would have worked with a mjolnir here too, I was just throwing something together quickly to prove my point that conquest under AI control is not weak or excessively frail and can brawl reasonably well against other capital ships.
Yes it absolutely is a polarizing loadout lol, thats exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Thats what people have been saying to do to make it hold up for most of the thread. Its very similar to what I've used in the past, tailor made to fight other capitals. I'm not saying its a bad thing to make inventive builds but how many other ships in the game use less than half of their weapon mounts to invest everything in shield strength and max vents and caps.I don't consider this ship specialized for killing capitals, it might struggle a little to hit frigates, but the locusts would make up for that, and certainly an officer that improves accuracy would make it a non-issue. I wouldn't leave as many mounts empty if I was using all the OP. I generally leave some mounts empty on a lot of ships because they perform better if I do.
Thats what polarizing means, its minmaxed to fit a specific purpose. You don't have to go that far with the other capitals or other Midlines.
There are definitely themes that span between ships of the same doctrine in terms of what they are good at and bad at, but they definitely don't all win in the same way which is what makes them unique and interesting. High tech has phase ships, the paragon, the astral, ships with teleports, ships with damage boosting systems etc. All those ships do significantly different things to win. They have some underlying similarities like using energy weapons and having good flux stats (mostly), but they're not obligated to do the same thing because they're in the same tech. I'm just saying that ships not following every theme of their doctrine is not a problem.Doctrine is a just an aesthetic/fluff thing, not a serious set of rules for balance.Doctrine isn't just fluff and its not a set of balancing rules either, its a win condition. Also I don't understand whats so confusing about comparing a ship to its doctrine. If its not going to follow it why have it at all even if its only lore. Every vanilla doctrine and modded faction is based around some kind of idea, something specific their ships do better than others they rely on to win fights. Again, you are welcome to just hand wave it all if it makes you feel better but it sounds more like you don't think they should exist at all.
I KNOW there's exceptions, no need to reiterate this again. My point about the Conquest is that if you were to make a Midline ship right now, most people would compare it to other Midline ships, use their basic statline, then make changes. There have clearly been some serious changes made to make the Conquest not OP, and IMO the Midline ships are already pretty individualized as SCC mentioned so its harder to gauge.
1. Remove most energy mounts as they do not fit Conquest's new role. Leave some for point defense. change one large hardpoint on both sides to a medium hardpoint1. The medium energy is bleh (I put more burst PD if I have OP to spare, which is rare), but the small ones are fine. I fill all of the small ones with burst PD, which helps mitigate its bad shields.
2.Replace Heavy Ballistics Integration with a new unique hullmod(name it whatever) - increases 0-flux speed bonus by 50%(+25 top speed). - this is to improve Conquest's ability of picking fights at a cost of about 20-30 OPs(caused by not having HBI). Currently it's not any faster than an Onslaught anyway
1. The medium energy is bleh (I put more burst PD if I have OP to spare, which is rare), but the small ones are fine. I fill all of the small ones with burst PD, which helps mitigate its bad shields.
2. Not a good idea. That would encourage Conquest to use medium ballistics in the heavy ones (Maybe Maulers and HVDs, or Hellbore and 2-3 Heavy Needlers). Conquest does not have much OP, and Heavy Ballistics Integration helps. It was one of the buffs that pushed Conquest from battlecruiser to fast battleship territory.
The point is, I think Conquests design screams "Use both sides!". For that to work reliably it either needs very good defensive stats or a better ability to pick fights.It can use both sides and make it work. Of course, player cannot use the biggest guns in every mount on both sides - not enough OP or flux for that.
Conquest has better dmg than Onslaught: False - Conquest has 2 large ballistics on one side, Onslaught has one large ballistic in the front but it also has two built -in thermal pulse cannons that together provide as much dps as an average large ballistic weapon, while having much higher alpha damage of 2500 dmg/second for a total of up to 10 000 upfront damage before reloading.Against shields, TPCs deal need 0.8 flux to deal 1 point of damage, and the most inefficient kinetic in the game, Gauss Cannon, needs barely more, 0.86. Mark IX needs just 0.57 flux. TPCs seem efficient, but because their direct competitors are ballistic weapons, they really aren't efficient enough. There's a reason they're getting buffed to 0.6 flux/damage ratio. Against armour, TPCs only falter against Hellbore, though Mjolnirs are competitive with them against armour of about 1000 or more, because Mjolnirs hit harder than TPCs.
Add to that Onslaught's Thermal Pulse Cannons which are extremely flux-efficient at 1.25 dmg/flux while very few Large Ballistics can even reach 1 dmg/flux (certainly not the ones you'd put on a Conquest).
Conquest has better sustained fire: True, however it's not quite as substantial as you say it is . Yeah with no flux vents the Conquest has twice as much dissipation as the Onslaught. However, that is an unfair comparison. With 50 flux vents Conquest has 1700 to Onslaughts 1100(54% better, less with flux distributors). Add to that Onslaught's Thermal Pulse Cannons which are extremely flux-efficient at 1.25 dmg/flux while very few Large Ballistics can even reach 1 dmg/flux (certainly not the ones you'd put on a Conquest). Comparing 2 TPCs to a Conquest's Gauss Cannon TPCs have 50 more dps at 200 less flux/sec. What you get is let's say 30-40% more flux dissipation for the Conquest. However due to Conquests terrible 1.4 flux/dmg shield ratio it is ONLY when the enemy is not firing back. In the most common scenario where the enemy will be firing back, the Conquest may actually have worse fluxFirstly, Conquest-Onslaught duels are not the only fights these two ship classes get into. You can compare them like that, sure, but it's worth noting that Conquest is a battlecruiser and it's made more to capitalise on openings, than create them.dissipationeconomy than the Onslaught.
Just put all the cannons on one side: That's like flying half a shipMissiles and flux dissipation is still there.
3. Replace Manuevering Jets active ability with Accelerated Ammo Feeder -How to make Conquest the best ship in the game in a single step: one simple trick that game developers don't want you to know!
"The Accelerated Ammo Feeder (AAF) doubles the rate of fire of ballistic weapons, and reduces their flux generation by 50%". This is to give Conquest unpararelled firepower in skirmishing when it uses both broadsides as designed. It's as if firing 4 large and 12 medium ballistics - but only when using both sides and only for a short time.
Against shields, TPCs deal need 0.8 flux to deal 1 point of damage, and the most inefficient kinetic in the game, Gauss Cannon, needs barely more, 0.86. Mark IX needs just 0.57 flux. TPCs seem efficient, but because their direct competitors are ballistic weapons, they really aren't efficient enough. There's a reason they're getting buffed to 0.6 flux/damage ratio. Against armour, TPCs only falter against Hellbore, though Mjolnirs are competitive with them against armour of about 1000 or more, because Mjolnirs hit harder than TPCs.Also because AI loves to dump two whole clips of TPCs (and other guns if in range too) and be at max flux. AI cannot help themselves fluxing itself out by being too trigger-happy with TPCs. It is a bit better if TPCs are in separate groups, but not when grouped together as done by default.
Yeah, duh, a dedicated kinetic weapon will do more damage to shields with it's 2x damage multiplier. However TPCs will do much more damage to armor than the kinetic weapon. Against a ship with equally good armor and shields this basically cancels out. I never said TPCs or the Onslaught are OP, I said Conquest is bad. If Onslaught needs buffs then Conquest even more so, but the current iteration is difficult to balance because of it's potential sustained dps
Against shields, TPCs deal need 0.8 flux to deal 1 point of damage, and the most inefficient kinetic in the game, Gauss Cannon, needs barely more, 0.86. Mark IX needs just 0.57 flux. TPCs seem efficient, but because their direct competitors are ballistic weapons, they really aren't efficient enough. There's a reason they're getting buffed to 0.6 flux/damage ratio. Against armour, TPCs only falter against Hellbore, though Mjolnirs are competitive with them against armour of about 1000 or more, because Mjolnirs hit harder than TPCs.
Firstly, Conquest-Onslaught duels are not the only fights these two ship classes get into. You can compare them like that, sure, but it's worth noting that Conquest is a battlecruiser and it's made more to capitalise on openings, than create them.I didn't compare them in a 1v1 against each other. I just said whatever Conquest can do Onslaught can do better. I stand by that.
In a similar fashion, I can say that Onslaught's weapons exist only when it's not firing — after it fires for a while, then it either gets fluxed out or has its mounts disabled, then you can't do much but hope you have support. Conquest can go backwards.
Conquest's 1700 dissipation against Onslaught's 1100 is still a massive advantage, since it effectively has 54% more firepower, as you mentioned, in addition to a mobility system that isn't a suicide most of the time and similar missile firepower (less burst, because torpedoes aren't viable, but better sustained, with Hurricanes, Locusts or Squalls). If it chooses to kite other capitals to death, they either have to retreat (if they can) or rush in and hope Conquest doesn't have enough support, because that capital is encircled now.
Missiles and flux dissipation is still there.As an april fools joke I want Alex to literalry remove one half of Conquest and see if people notice any difference
How to make Conquest the best ship in the game in a single step: one simple trick that game developers don't want you to know!
As an april fools joke I want Alex to literalry remove one half of Conquest and see if people notice any differenceIt would be inconvenient. If I do use one side in a duel, having an identical backup side to spin around and fire at the enemy is convenient.
Re: Sunder being obsolete by the time you get it:
To make a Sunder useful early game, put a HIL on it. No need for ITU, Advanced Optics, rarer weapons like Tach Lance or Plasma or railguns/needlers in the ballistics. Bonus points for getting proper other weapons like gravitons to go along with, but pretty much the only thing that can make a HIL Sunder useless is to mess up the weapon groups so it doesn't fire the HIL.
It won't get through shields by itself, so make sure the fleet has sufficient kinetic and/or flanking and/or broadswords/longbows to help, and it will burn down armor and hull.
To be fair anything smaller then a cruiser I fit with Reinforced Bulkheads on the premise that it's probably going to die, but that's ok. Late capital ship fights have anything lesser acting as support, which the sunder does very well in my opinion.
In fact they pair very well with big ballistic spewing ships like, say.... the CONQUEST! (back on topic bby!)
Sunders get easily shredded by fighters, which is why I used to not like them, but these days I'm in a sunder craze with task groups of 8 of them escorting my late game capital fleets as they can easily catch and kill anything smaller then a capital ships notice.
They die pretty quick when shot, but what destroyer doesn't? The key is not to let them get shot by ships they aren't supposed to be fighting anyway.
And SO Sunders are the things of NIGHTMARES. If you thought SO hammerheads with chainguns were good at killing lowly armoured and defended targets, you ain't seen nothing yet!
Hardened subsystems is a thing, 450 seconds of PPT is plenty. And well. So what if it needs allies, it’s a fleet ship in a fleet.That is generally a cost many ships cannot afford, especially if I want campaign mods, better combat power, or Reinforced Bulkheads (on officer-less ships). The only destroyer I can afford it on is Drover, and only because it can do naked hull cheese. I want late-game ships to have at least cruiser-level PPT. I might make some exceptions here and there. Aside from Drover, the only other destroyer I bring late in the game is Harbinger (as a budget Aurora to sweep small fry), but I rarely use it. I want high PPT so that if the cowardly AI plays the stall game, it loses!
Not spending supplies to recover ships because they don't die seems better than spending supplies to recover ships to me. If I use escort destroyers, I prefer something like a medusa that can get away easily (and has a super good shield). Often times carriers are good enough at the escort and kill small ships roll that I don't bother with destroyers.
Supplies are still relevant through the cruiser and early capital portion of the game. I imagine in future releases with more endgame content/threats, the whole 'I'm so rich nothing matters' portion of the game will go away and there will still be logistical issues later on in the game. Also, dmods suck unless you take the skills to mitigate them which I don't.Not spending supplies to recover ships because they don't die seems better than spending supplies to recover ships to me. If I use escort destroyers, I prefer something like a medusa that can get away easily (and has a super good shield). Often times carriers are good enough at the escort and kill small ships roll that I don't bother with destroyers.
I mean, by the time you are even IN fights like that supplies have stopped being an issue, right?
Supplies are still relevant through the cruiser and early capital portion of the game. I imagine in future releases with more endgame content/threats, the whole 'I'm so rich nothing matters' portion of the game will go away and there will still be logistical issues later on in the game. Also, dmods suck unless you take the skills to mitigate them which I don't.Not spending supplies to recover ships because they don't die seems better than spending supplies to recover ships to me. If I use escort destroyers, I prefer something like a medusa that can get away easily (and has a super good shield). Often times carriers are good enough at the escort and kill small ships roll that I don't bother with destroyers.
I mean, by the time you are even IN fights like that supplies have stopped being an issue, right?
My point is more that I can achieve all the same combat results with much lower chance of losing ships, so why would I take that risk? There's no benefit beyond gameplay variety which I don't find particularly compelling.
(I would suppose I am on the other end of most players, as I generally play whatever the meta of a game isn't. For the most part.)Well, from my perspective, everyone else isn't playing meta, because you people aren't soloing everything you can, so don't feel so special.
(I would suppose I am on the other end of most players, as I generally play whatever the meta of a game isn't. For the most part.)Well, from my perspective, everyone else isn't playing meta, because you people aren't soloing everything you can, so don't feel so special.
(I would suppose I am on the other end of most players, as I generally play whatever the meta of a game isn't. For the most part.)Well, from my perspective, everyone else isn't playing meta, because you people aren't soloing everything you can, so don't feel so special.
I really don't agree with that, the ONLY thing forgiving about Midlines is their systems. Notice how the Sunder is one of the worst ships in vanilla, backed by tier lists of the forums and most players. It lacks a mobility system, and like the conquest has bad shields and paper thin armor. The actually good Midline ships either have forgiving systems and/or 0.8 shields.
Sunder is powerful per DP, yet almost unusable in campaign. By the time you can outfit proper AI-compatible Sunders with ITU+Adv Optics, destroyers just aren't core of the fleet anymore due to officer limit. It needs ITU even for player plasma cannon build, unlike Medusa(agile close combat can be done without ITU), Hammerhead (SO build) or Falcon(P)[just uses DTC].
AI seems to handle Conquest passably well, except for Gauss Cannon loadouts. It will maintain sufficient distance and bombard the enemy with heavy gunfire. I trust the AI to pilot Conquest competently enough (as long as it does not have Gauss Cannons).
The one ship that I see AI cannot handle is Odyssey with mostly hard-flux energy weapons. That will imitate Onslaught burn stupidity but with much worse defenses.
Player controlled everything is strong. It doesn't matter what ship player pilots, I'm fairly sure if someone is skillful enough they can solo Paragon in a Hound. Saying "But I did X with Y ship!" is not an argument towards one ship being better than others.
Both builds appear to be quasi-missile boats and heavily rely on their triple Sabot Pods, Hurricane launchers, and EMRs. Nearly no guns in the small slots.
The twin Autopulse build doesn't even have vents, which makes me irrationally sad.
That's not really surprising, it's well known Autopulses aren't great vs armour. This is why most builds either have HIL or a Tach lance, or just good ol' double Plasma. Honestly with that build, I'd scrap the Hurricane and get some torpedoes, and might even swap out that back Sabot for a Harpoon pod.
Both builds appear to be quasi-missile boats and heavily rely on their triple Sabot Pods, Hurricane launchers, and EMRs. Nearly no guns in the small slots.
The twin Autopulse build doesn't even have vents, which makes me irrationally sad.
That's not really surprising, it's well known Autopulses aren't great vs armour. This is why most builds either have HIL or a Tach lance, or just good ol' double Plasma. Honestly with that build, I'd scrap the Hurricane and get some torpedoes, and might even swap out that back Sabot for a Harpoon pod.
I do not comprehend why anyone would axe a Hurricane Mirv out of a ship that's capable of fielding it alongside Expanded Missile Racks(unless it's for a Squall MLRS on some ships or peculiar cases like the Gryphon). It's probably the best anti-armor weapon in Vanilla Starsector, not to mention its damage potential AND ammo capacity makes it a more than competent pressure tool and hull deleter.Because AI is horrendous with it, attacks random small ships it can't ever hope to hit. AI just spams it like it's a suppression weapon, and wastes half of its ammo. It's a good weapon otherwise, with one thing that bothers me a bit and that's the uselessness without ECCM.
I do not comprehend why anyone would axe a Hurricane Mirv out of a ship that's capable of fielding it alongside Expanded Missile Racks(unless it's for a Squall MLRS on some ships or peculiar cases like the Gryphon). It's probably the best anti-armor weapon in Vanilla Starsector, not to mention its damage potential AND ammo capacity makes it a more than competent pressure tool and hull deleter.Because AI is horrendous with it, attacks random small ships it can't ever hope to hit. AI just spams it like it's a suppression weapon, and wastes half of its ammo. It's a good weapon otherwise, with one thing that bothers me a bit and that's the uselessness without ECCM.
These days I value putting ECCM on any ship with decent missile mounts. Sometimes even if it means not having a range booster if the ship is a bad gunboat otherwise.
ECCM missiles are great, but with a pilot with the missile skills? They are almost broken!
I wouldn't be sad considering the base Odissey dissipation is high enough to reasonably field them anyway if you've invested in flux capacity instead. The ship will comfortably be able to take the flux generated by both Autopulses dumping their while 45 shot clips due to its amazing flux capacity and steadily dissipate it once they're empty or the ship itself backs off to vent, also allowing the missile weapons to be ready again when it goes back on the offensive.It makes me sad because it's a waste of the Odyssey's potential.