Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21); Blog post: Skill Changes, Part 2 (07/15/21)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: More Carriers and Destroyers  (Read 19609 times)

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9515
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #45 on: December 15, 2015, 05:50:32 PM »

You mean max battle size?  Okay, that can a problem.  I set mine to the max (500) because I want entire fleets to be deployed, and the default settings do not always let the player do that, especially since 0.7+ raised the costs of bigger ships.
Logged

Pushover

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #46 on: December 15, 2015, 06:06:30 PM »

I think the issue is that the Hammerhead suffers from an identity crisis. The Sunder is all about it's Large Energy slot, and dishing the damage out against larger vessels. The Medusa has great mobility, amazing at picking engagements with the Phase Skimmer. The Enforcer is a brick of armor, tough to chew through, with reasonable firepower, aiming for sustained damage and out-tanking the enemy ships. The Hammerhead is under-armed compared to the Enforcer (5 mediums + 4 small missiles vs 2 mediums, 4 small universals + 2 small missiles), less well armored, does less burst than a Sunder, and is less mobile than a Medusa.

RE: Cruiser freighter, I think what I'd be looking for is something like a bigger version of the Buffalo Mk 2, where it provides missile support if you choose to deploy it. The Venture could also get more cargo space, and it would be useful because it has a flight deck.

The problem with the Buffalo (and Atlas) is that it tends to crowd out the other options. They are straight up +Cargo for -Supplies/mo. You will never deploy either in a fight, especially since the flight deck on the Atlas was removed. No one uses the Mule or the Tarsus, even though they are better armored/armed/faster than a Buffalo, because they cost too much in supplies and provide less cargo space, and they are ineffective as combat ships. It may be good for the freighters to become slightly better in combat to the point where you can consider deploying them. As is, the only freighter that you will deploy (excluding the Hound, which isn't really a freighter IMO) is the Gemini due to its flight deck. Without the Buffalo, would you take the Tarsus with its speed? Or would you take a Mule with its armor and guns? Or would you pick up some fighter wings and get a Gemini? I feel like there should be more incentives to deploy freighters in combat, or at least have defending freighters be more prominent than just 'smash all 10 ships with my 1 while the rest of the fleet sits back.'
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2015, 06:19:34 PM »

The problem with the Buffalo (and Atlas) is that it tends to crowd out the other options. They are straight up +Cargo for -Supplies/mo. You will never deploy either in a fight, especially since the flight deck on the Atlas was removed.

I am sorry but, with a mindset that is less of a fighter and of a trader, I am glad Atlas and Buffalo are not made for battle. When I see battle freighters I do not think they are made to enter a battle and fight. I see them created to withstand a battle when they end up being part of your fleet being chased. I would prefer my cargo to be stored in a ship that does not get hailed by missiles, laser beams and thousands of bullets. They are meant to be left behind, while the rest of the fleet shields them, so I can deliver my cargo safely.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

Pushover

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #48 on: December 15, 2015, 06:28:14 PM »

The problem with the Buffalo (and Atlas) is that it tends to crowd out the other options. They are straight up +Cargo for -Supplies/mo. You will never deploy either in a fight, especially since the flight deck on the Atlas was removed.

I am sorry but, with a mindset that is less of a fighter and of a trader, I am glad Atlas and Buffalo are not made for battle. When I see battle freighters I do not think they are made to enter a battle and fight. I see them created to withstand a battle when they end up being part of your fleet being chased. I would prefer my cargo to be stored in a ship that does not get hailed by missiles, laser beams and thousands of bullets. They are meant to be left behind, while the rest of the fleet shields them, so I can deliver my cargo safely.

My problem then comes from the fact that from the perspective of the player, it's not even worth considering a bunch of ships because another ship is cheaper and hauls more cargo. It doesn't make sense in a real life perspective that your lone Medusa can hold off 10 frigates while you have 5 juicy Buffaloes hiding from the pirates. The smart pirate would occupy your Medusa with 7 frigates while the other 3 have a good time with your Buffaloes. I don't like how there are no downsides for playing 'pick the highest ratio of supplies:cargo space.'
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #49 on: December 15, 2015, 06:38:59 PM »

My problem then comes from the fact that from the perspective of the player, it's not even worth considering a bunch of ships because another ship is cheaper and hauls more cargo. It doesn't make sense in a real life perspective that your lone Medusa can hold off 10 frigates while you have 5 juicy Buffaloes hiding from the pirates. The smart pirate would occupy your Medusa with 7 frigates while the other 3 have a good time with your Buffaloes. I don't like how there are no downsides for playing 'pick the highest ratio of supplies:cargo space.'

As a player that plays with reloading and all relaxed, indeed I do not care for anything than cargo and speed. Thus a lot of freighters become redundant. But for someone that play ironman, I doubt cargo size is the ONLY thing they will look at. There is no reloading if you did the wrong thing in battle, or try agian because you decided to do something stupid. If you lose, you retreat with all you have and try to keep what you can alive. That is when the current battle freighters and more robust than buffalo freighters become not just an option, but what people would prefer.  So the other freighters by no means lose their value. If anything the weak buffalo and ultra slow Atlas become bad choices.

I do not think though hiding your cargo freighters a bit away with transponders off and keeping your ships on high profile ot interfere with pirates lookign for your cargo ships is impossible.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

Aeson

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2015, 07:42:23 PM »

Quote
it could be that the Medusa has an obscene amount of spare OP though.
If you take the four frontline destroyers without any skills increasing ordnance points, assume that small mount weapons consume 5 OP, medium mount weapons consume 10 OP, and large mount weapons consume 20 OP, then the Medusa has 35 OP left over after filling all its weapon mounts while the Enforcer, Sunder, and Hammerhead each have 30 OP left over. From Computer Systems, Mechanical Engineering, and Technology Aptitude, a Medusa can gain up to 27 OP, an Enforcer can gain up to 30 OP, a Sunder can gain up to 28 OP, and a Hammerhead can gain up to 24 OP; under the above assumptions about the armament, that would leave the Medusa with 62 spare OP, the Enforcer with 60, the Sunder with 58, and the Hammerhead with 54. From Optimized Assembly (Ordnance Expertise 10), a Medusa can gain up to 11 OP, an Enforcer can gain 14 OP, a Sunder can gain 13 OP, and a Hammerhead can gain 10 OP. Assuming that Optimized Assembly is the only OP bonus in effect, a Medusa would have 46 spare OP, an Enforcer would have 44, a Sunder would have 43, and a Hammerhead would have 40; if both Optimized Assembly and the full OP bonus from Technology Aptitude, Mechanical Engineering, and Computer Systems are in play, then this would leave the Medusa with 73 spare OP, the Enforcer with 74, the Sunder with 71, and the Hammerhead with 64.

Without looking at specific variants of the ships, then, it would appear as though the Medusa does not have a significant advantage in OP over the other combat destroyers under any set of skills you choose; only the Hammerhead lags behind to any significant degree. I certainly wouldn't say from these numbers that the Medusa has anything like an 'obscene' amount of spare OP, at least not by comparison with the other frontline combat destroyers.


If, as suggested, the Hammerhead is given an additional 5 OP, then under the above set of assumptions about the cost of the armament, a fully-armed Hammerhead with no skill bonuses has 35 spare OP (same as the Medusa, 5 more than the Enforcer or Sunder), 45 with Optimized Assembly only, 60 with Tech 10 + ME 10 + CS 10 but no Optimized Assembly, or 70 with both Optimized Assembly and full OP bonuses.


Regarding the comments about the Venture:
I don't really see any good reason to improve it. For a "civilian" ship, it's already quite well armed (armament is roughly equivalent to that of the Falcon, and then you get to add in a flight deck on top of that) and extraordinarily resilient (between a shield generator which, at 1 flux/damage, is fairly efficient for a low-tech ship, a rather deep flux pool for a ship with only 3 flux-generating weapons, and the second-best hull strength and armor rating of any cruiser, a Venture can take quite a beating). On top of that, it has the greatest cargo capacity of any cruiser (though the Apogee and Starliner are close seconds, at 450 to the Venture's 500), it's tied for greatest fuel capacity among cruisers with the Apogee (300 each; Starliner at 250 is the only real second-place option due to the Dominator's higher fuel consumption), and it's a more efficient freighter in cargo*ly/fuel1 than any of the destroyer-scale freighters or any other cruiser (167 cargo*ly/fuel for the Venture as compared to 150 cargo*ly/fuel for the most efficient cruisers and destroyer-scale freighters).

The Venture may not have any one outstanding aspect, but it's a reasonably good all-around ship whose only major weaknesses are its civilian-grade hull, its reliance on missiles and its relatively low speed.

1I care far more about cargo*ly/fuel than I do about cargo*months/supply when looking at freighter efficiency. Burn speeds appear to have changed so that a ship moves at 0.1*(burn level) light years per day, so a Venture moving at rated speed in hyperspace is consuming 0.7*3 = 2.1 fuel per day, as opposed to just 15/30 = 0.5 supplies per day when not recovering CR; unless my activities lead me to spend considerably more time idle or in system than in hyperspace, or unless supplies are considerably more expensive than fuel, the greater part of the travel expenses for my fleet's freighters are going to come from fuel costs.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 07:46:33 PM by Aeson »
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5766
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #51 on: December 16, 2015, 12:03:46 AM »

I'm a Venture fan boy, but I haven't used any yet this version because they are slow and 'loud'.

I would be very happy if they lost the Civilian tag and went up to burn 8. That would keep them in line with the Mule - a cruiser sized combat freighter. In combat they are just fine.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2551
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #52 on: December 16, 2015, 12:25:04 AM »

Maybe civilians should lose -1 burn penalty? Currently they have pretty much same penalties as (D) ships (bad sensor stats, low burn, low combat ability), and as we know (D) ships are intended to be useless to player.
Logged

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #53 on: December 16, 2015, 02:34:52 AM »

i think there should actually be a lot slower ships, if AI fleets didn't bottom out at burn 7-8 then maybe players wouldn't feel forced to have burn 8-9+ always

i.e. onslaughts burn 5 or 6.

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!

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9515
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #54 on: December 16, 2015, 05:48:24 AM »

I would use Venture if it had base burn of 8.  It is not overpowered enough justify the tug.  Civilian hull is an annoyance when trying to sneak into markets undetected.

Actually, civilian hull is most annoying for blocking Safety Override.  If I want a frigate-sized freighter, I use Wolves, Hounds, and Cerberus because they can stack speed mods and flee from any pursuit with ease.

Re: Hammerhead analysis
Hammerhead has fewer weapons than its peers, yet the hull costs more than an Enforcer at a market.  If I have a choice between Enforcer and Hammerhead, I pick Enforcer every time.  Hammerhead could make up for lack of weapons with either superior stats (more OP or other stats) or cheaper price tag at the market.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 05:57:21 AM by Megas »
Logged

harrumph

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #55 on: December 16, 2015, 06:52:01 AM »

How about just adding a Venture (A)? Give it Militarized Hegemony Auxiliary instead of Civilian-grade Hull, burn 8, a couple more small turret points, and a new paint job.
Logged

Clockwork Owl

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
    • Starsector South Korean Community
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #56 on: December 16, 2015, 06:58:23 AM »

Re: Hammerhead analysis
Hammerhead has fewer weapons than its peers
And main cannon mounts are hardpoints.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5766
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #57 on: December 16, 2015, 10:32:19 AM »

At high tech levels the Hammerhead has some really cool potential configurations, but just lacks the OP to do them. For example, an Area Denial build with 4 Tacs, 2 HVDs, Advanced Optics, ITU, point defense targetting (thats the wrong name, but you know what I mean), extended shields, unstable injector... That would fill a niche that none of the other destroyers can match - long range, kinetic + beam. Essentially the same role that the Eagle excels at, only with some added oomph from the ammo feeder. It just doesn't have the OP's for it.

I vote for +10 OP rather than 5 - it is neither the fastest, nor the toughest, nor the most powerful, so let it have the most configurable options or mount the most elite weaponry.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9515
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #58 on: December 16, 2015, 10:44:47 AM »

I tried Mauler + HVD + Tactical Lasers on Hammerhead.  It lacks the OP to do that well, namely having no OP left for missiles or capacitors (or additional hullmods beyond engines and ITU), and not enough flux capacity for its shields to withstand much of a beating.  Like the Enforcer, Hammerhead needs about 10 capacitors to have enough flux to absorb damage on shields and fight back.
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: More Carriers and Destroyers
« Reply #59 on: December 16, 2015, 10:57:29 AM »

I still find hammerhead the awesome cheap support fighters with a cool looking design. I have had many times hammerheads in my team, but never enforcers. But still no matter what, I hope instead of buffing the hammerhead, there will appear another variant. It adds to the immersion to see weak, cheap machines in the world, meant to be there as quantity vs quality. But indeed I would love to see a strong version of the hammerhead, but that is because I find it's look really awesome. The Tiandong variant is one of my favorite ships for sure, at least when playing a modded game.
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6