Large missile slots are trash, there's no triple Salamander. Literally unplayable.Had me in the first half, Jesus don't scare me like that lol.
Jokes aside, I would love a large Salamander.I'm trying to think of how a large salamander would work, because it would pretty awkward if it was just the same but a volley of 4. Maybe stay at 2 per volley but cut the cooldown in half.
Larges aren't bad, but we all sure wish we had large harpoons and sabots. Gazers will only add to the medium slot envy next version.
but the larges have more base and tend to be limited by firing rate. +50% firing rate on the larges is _quite_ good!But certain missiles should only be fired at certain times. For example, reaper torpedoes are best fired when a target is close to their maximum flux or when they're overloaded/unshielded.
For example, reaper torpedoes are best fired when a target is close to their maximum flux or when they're overloaded/unshielded.Unless you're using a Cyclone Reaper Launcher, in which case you should be using the torpedoes to force low-flux targets into high-flux, high-flux targets into overload, and overloaded targets dead, dead, dead. Just watch out not to waste them on targets with strong enough PD to keep them from landing.
Basically, it feels like there's really good options in Medium class missiles for punching both above and below your weight class while everything in Large mounts is only suitable for barge-on-barge combatHonestly when you look at the kind of hulls with large missile slots, the current large options handle punching up just fine considering we're basically talking about capitals, while punching down can be handled satisfyingly by medium slots. The only kind of punching up where large missiles falter imo is sieging stations, but that's a special case that deserves considering special measures, i.e. bombers.
I'm trying to think of how a large salamander would workOne potential way is to have it two-stage, like a big chunky sabot/pilum.
Large Harpoon is pretty much the HurricaneKeep seeing folk saying this, and I don't see it at all.
Harpoon is an accurate ship-to-ship weapon with excellent guidance that is non-trivial to avoid.Bruh you literally described one single property 3 times in a row, accuracy.
Hurricane is an inaccurate area bombardment weapon with minimal guidance that is easy to avoid.
Bruh do people expect all large missiles to be like Locusts but do HE damage... You'd basically remove frigate from the game then. Also next patch the missiles lineup will have the most large options out of 3 weapon types, not sure where this "opposition to variety" is coming from.So 6 linked Harpoon pods on Retribution (24 burst size) don't remove frigates from the game, but a hypothetical large Harpoon (which doesn't even have to have larger burst size) would?
A large version of the proximity launcher would be interesting. I don't think it conflicts with the locust in its PD role, because they perform that role in different ways. Locust missiles seek and destroy fighters, and if there are no fighters they target ships. They're effective against frigates in addition to fighters. Proximity launchers fire mines that are relatively slow, no tracking, but explode when anything gets near them and deal a lot of high explosive damage. Enemy AI is terrified of them and it can be used outside of its PD role in an offensive manner.
I must be one of the few who doesn't favor missiles. Limited ammo weapons get a VERY scrutinizing eye from me because there's nothing quite as damaging to a fleet doctrine as seeing half your fleet suddenly doing nothing because they're out of missiles. That said, I don't think I'd mind if most/all small missiles did have larger variants with more tubes, more ammo, whatever. It seems fine to me that some missiles are only available on bigger mounts.
If some cheapo frigate with no officer or built-in hullmods can take out an enemy destroyer with a couple of 1-shot reaper torpedoes, then that frigate has paid for itself more than 2 times over.I keep seeing this argument in different places but it makes no sense to me. It's not too bad if you're running Hull Restoration, but if I have a ship that dies every fight then I don't want it. Campaign gives you unfair odds in tougher battles and in general you strive to be efficient, if you're losing half a fleet in fight you're doing something very wrong. The only time "ship is worth it if it can kill x DP by itself" makes sense is in a tournament setting. Only when two sides have a completely equal foot can you build ships to be kamikazes.
It's not too bad if you're running Hull Restoration, but if I have a ship that dies every fight then I don't want it.
But for 2 Kites I can have a real frigate that will actually do work.Once you get to late game 3 kites will get wasted long before they get in range while an omen or monitor will prove very useful, but are any of the 4 dp frigates really any good after the early game? Just curious, I haven't tried them much yet.
I agree on Centurions, they're underrated. I like to run mine withAlternatively, swap out front-left light AC with ion cannon, front-right vulcan for light MG, the swarmer for breacher SRM, and stabilized shields for shield conversion - front. I've been toying around with the Centurion some more since this conversation.