Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6

Author Topic: More Carriers and Destroyers  (Read 18357 times)

ANGRYABOUTELVES

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • AE ALTADOON GHARTOK PADHOME
    • View Profile
More Carriers and Destroyers
« on: December 12, 2015, 03:17:55 PM »

Currently there are only five ships with flight-decks in the game. The Condor, the Gemini, the Heron, the Astral, and the Odyssey. Of those, the Condor and the Gemini are refitted freighters, the Heron is a "fast carrier" which implies the existence of "slow carriers" of similar size, the Astral is exceedingly rare and only sold by Tri-Tach markets, and the Odyssey is similarly exceedingly rare and only sold by Tri-Tach but it's also a battlecruiser with a single flight-deck tacked on the back. We're missing military-spec destroyer-size carriers, military-spec slow carriers in the cruiser size, and something in the capital-size for people who don't join up with Tri-Tach. For the destroyer size, I'm thinking something mid-tech, with two flight decks and slower than the Condor or Gemini. For the cruiser size, something that can be the slow-carrier to the Heron's fast-carrier and as such was developed before the Heron, so low-tech, three flight decks, more armor and weapons, and yes, slow. For the capital size, 4 flight decks maybe 5, maybe 1 large missile slot and 2 mediums? Could be either low-tech or mid-tech.

Destroyer variety isn't very good either. There's the Enforcer, the Medusa, the Hammerhead, the Sunder, and the Buffalo Mark II. The Hammerhead isn't great; it doesn't have high enough armor or flux stats to be very tanky, and doesn't have enough weapon slots to really take advantage of Accelerated Ammo Feeds. It's at least cheap, both in initial cost and in maintenance costs, but it needs a bit of a buff. The Buffalo Mark II is kind of hilariously useless. The Sunder is a good ship; it's a glass cannon, and it does that very well, but it's too fragile to be the backbone of your fleet. That leaves the majority of the player's destroyer numbers to be made up of either Enforcers or Medusas, which are both great ships, but there only being two viable line destroyers isn't great for the game. We don't have a phase cloak equipped destroyer either, and a destroyer along the lines of the Medusa would probably have the perfect mix of firepower and mobility to really take advantage of the phase cloak system. It'd also open up the possibility of Tri-Tachyon fast pickets made entirely of phase cloak equipped ships, which would be quite a scary surprise indeed. I'd suggest giving the Hammerhead a buff, maybe moving the missile slots to the sides and adding small ballistic hard-points in their place as well as increasing its flux stats a tad, and adding another low-tech destroyer and a phase cloak equipped high-tech destroyer.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9166
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2015, 03:57:48 PM »

There is also the Venture, but now it is slow (needs both tug and AE to get burn 9) and civilian.  It is also more of a missile boat than a gunship.

I like to see a cruiser-sized mini-Odyssey.  Something that is a faster hybrid gunship/carrier, with at least destroyer-grade firepower.

Another ship that could be fun to see is a super Conquest that is essentially the battlestar Galactica - a big (midline) battleship plus two flight decks.

More destroyers would be good.  As for Hammerhead, all it needs to be better is probably +5 more OP.  I like to see a phase destroyer too.
Logged

Aeson

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2015, 03:58:23 PM »

For what it's worth, the Gemini is about what I'd expect a military-grade destroyer-scale carrier to look like. It's armed about as well as the Mule is (arguably better, if you include the drones), has a shield generator which is as efficient as most midline combat ships, and has flux capacity and dissipation which are about as good relative to its armament as what the combat destroyers have. The only things that say that the Gemini isn't a military-grade ship are the built-in hull mod, the description, and the low burn speed for a destroyer; the rest of it looks like it should be a military-grade ship. I also don't feel that there's really room for a two-deck destroyer-scale carrier that won't really cut into the Heron's niche (the Heron is already an extremely light cruiser whose only selling points are speed and flight decks), and there's not really a lot of room below the Gemini and Condor speed-wise either (at speed 40 for the Condor and 50 for the Gemini, the destroyer-scale carriers are already slower than most cruisers; drop to 30 and you're as slow as a Paragon).
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2015, 11:08:41 PM »

a more dedicated cruiser carrier might be neat. the speed is really almost irrelevant to me, it just needs to be relatively durable. the heron is alright but it doesn't really carry enough decks to effect the field much with just it's wings, and it's gun are not awful, but not heavy enough to where i could commit it to a fight without worrying greatly about whether it will survive.

the astral is a good carrier, but you're right in that something older might be nice to have, something with plenty of medium ballistics for a potent flak envelope and an older, rustier look.

in fact, just make the galactica :^)
Logged

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2015, 02:02:26 AM »

Yeah the lore seems messed up on carriers.

The Heron's lore implies that it was new pre-collapse, although it doesn't share the ultra-modern look of such ships. It certainly looks older than the Astral or Odyssey.  It specifically says the Hegemony is wary of using it but it's in their list and their only other options are the civilian conversions.  Either the lore should change or there should be a new Hegemony-tech carrier.

I think you are being a little unfair to the Hammerhead, it trades 250 armor for a way better shield vs the Enforcer in terms of survivability.  It seems let down by its default variant more than anything, the standard version is built for close assault and it is unquestionably worse at that than the Enforcer.
Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2015, 02:11:41 AM »

hammerhead is an okay platform for hypervelocity drivers or maulers. though it's shield isn't nearly strong enough to really take damage. apply an ITU and slap on tactical lasers/hypervelocity and it's a competent standoff platform, though.
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1137
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2015, 04:04:03 AM »

a new Hegemony-tech carrier.

A stripped out Dominator.
2 flight decks running down the middle from front to back. So it loses it's central engines, two rear small mounts, one forward small mount, and the middle missile mount.
Should probably take the large guns off it as well, and a lower speed because less engines.

A converted Onslaught.
Remove the large mounts from the wings, the smalls immediately aft of them, and the outermost missile mounts from either side.
In thier place have 4 flight decks, two each side.

Two slow tanky carriers made from what are probably the most prevalent ships in Hegemony space.
Logged

ANGRYABOUTELVES

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • AE ALTADOON GHARTOK PADHOME
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2015, 07:55:30 AM »

The point about a 2-deck destroyer-size carrier eating too much into the Heron's niche is a good one, as is the point about the Gemini being almost what you'd expect out of a military-spec destroyer-size carrier. Perhaps a Hegemony militarized Gemini variant could be created? A Gemini (A)?
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9166
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2015, 07:59:43 AM »

For a destroyer-sized carrier with two decks to be balanced (on paper), it would have no weapons at all.  One flight deck is worth about six small weapon mounts.

Funny how Gemini is faster than Condor in combat, but slower in the campaign.
Logged

Clockwork Owl

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
    • Starsector South Korean Community
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2015, 08:08:52 AM »

Beause thruster output doesn't contribute to sub-lightspeed drive maybe.

Geminis' flight deck is described as a small drone bay that can be used as a flight deck. It is current fighter replacement system -which makes a hangar bay behave like a blue police phone box - that makes Gemini a competent carrier.
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2015, 08:18:56 AM »

2 deck carriers edging out the heron could be fixed just by giving the heron more decks

in fact, there's a whole thread i made about this very topic, opinions are opinions but i don't think buffing flight decks is going to make fighters suddenly overpowered or anything, they already suffer from a myriad problems including no officers, low range, low survivability, low speed etc. being able to re-arm slightly more of them while they are being slaughtered with marginal effect on the battlespace isn't something that's going to make the game into fightersector.
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1245
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2015, 08:31:13 AM »

Heron would be fine with 3 decks, since it's overall short on OP and not the most offensive platform - though you can try to gear it that way. It could be balanced through CR.

The problem is that the current fleet limits already make 2 flight decks worth of fighters (~10 wings) difficult if you also want to be competitive within those limits. Officer skills will see a revamp towards defensive skills at some point, which should give fighters their speed edge back. Until then (or until we have fleet size exceptions for fighters), I don't really see anything with more decks than a Heron to be useful.

I'd also like to see another carrier cruiser with a different focus - maybe a slower 2-deck missile boat with built-in Flaks from late Core epoch. Maybe a militarized version of the Venture, since it's a cool ship that's now been graded down to a civilian craft. A phase destroyer would also be fun.
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2015, 08:37:14 AM »


The problem is that the current fleet limits already make 2 flight decks worth of fighters (~10 wings)

i agree with the rest of your post but

que? 10 wings? two decks? HOW

i need like 2 wings per deck MAXIMUM to retain any of the things on the field for T+20 seconds first enemy contact. if there were a supercarrier with 12 decks i would use the thing!

what kind of battles are you fighting, man!

i'm derailing the thread but i'm very curious as to what the average enemy force you are facing is, because my experience is totally different!
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9166
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2015, 09:06:13 AM »

What kills Venture for me is default burn of 7, and civilian grade does it no favors.  Burn 9 is the slowest I tolerate, and if I need to include a fuel-chugging tug in my fleet, that slow poke had better be an overpowered battleship, and the Venture does not make the cut.

Lately, I see plenty of enemy fleets with about 40 ships, with non-fighters exceeding 25 ships.  The 25 ship limit for players is too low.
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1137
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2015, 11:29:42 AM »

Lately, I see plenty of enemy fleets with about 40 ships, with non-fighters exceeding 25 ships.  The 25 ship limit for players is too low.
Personally, I preferred the logistics pool which grew with your character skills.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6