Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic: LEAST Favorite Ship  (Read 37735 times)

MidnightSun

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
    • About Me
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2012, 11:48:19 PM »

How can the Onslaught have suckish firepower? It can mount some of the heaviest guns around; 5 Large and 9 medium slots, beating a Paragon, which is only outdone by a Conquest. And even then it has more Ordnance Points. The only shortage it has is large missile slots and small ballistic slots. There is no way that is suckish firepower.

Yeah, "sucky firepower" and Onslaught really can't be put together at all. Perhaps he was commenting more on the range, though. The reliance on ballistics does make the Onslaught's range rather meager compared to energy-weapon-utilizing ships.
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2012, 02:45:31 AM »

The Onslaughts torpedo launchers are pretty terrifying. Supposedly the Paragon can outgun and outlast the Onslaught, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if you can get an Onslaught's fat ass close enough, that would not be the case.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Acolnahuacatl

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #47 on: February 27, 2012, 10:17:03 AM »

The Brawler is just terrible, but there is one other ship that just outright irritates me: the Sunder-class. Not so much because it's bad, but because it feels as though it should be so much better. The large energy mount seems like something that would be genuinely valuable, but the complete lack of any fighter defence leaves it so vulnerable that it just can't be relied upon to stay alive even, with an escort.

As for the Conquest, though, in my opinion there's really only one problem with the ship: the default loadout is truly terrible, for two reasons. The first is that, as people have mentioned, terrible flux capacity and Mjolnir cannons do not go well together. In fact, terrible flux capacity and capital ships just plain don't go well together. The second is that it basically ignores fighter defence: really, those lasers aren't good enough to stop Pirahnas without moving your shields to deal with the threat - leaving you exposed elsewhere. My solution, therefore, is first to lose the Pilums entirely: as long-range artillery, the Conquest just doesn't have enough launchers to prevent its missiles being shot down by anything that's slow enough for them to catch. Replace the Railguns with Dual Flak Cannons (make sure to set them to another weapon group), which deal with bombers and missiles nicely; you really don't need the railguns' added firepower to back up an already impressive broadside. Finally, replace the Cyclone launchers with Typhoons - really, who needs *20* torpedoes more than a total of 32 extra OP? All this allows you to shove in capacitors and vents until you can support the Mjolnirs; or add in Gauss Cannons for their flux efficiency so you can add in a whole bunch of hullmods.

If I'm honest, though, even then it's still just not as good as an Elite Onslaught. But the much nicer aesthetics of the Conquest are usually enough to make me pick it instead.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 10:21:47 AM by Acolnahuacatl »
Logged

Tarran

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2012, 11:47:33 AM »

The Brawler is just terrible, but there is one other ship that just outright irritates me: the Sunder-class. Not so much because it's bad, but because it feels as though it should be so much better. The large energy mount seems like something that would be genuinely valuable, but the complete lack of any fighter defence leaves it so vulnerable that it just can't be relied upon to stay alive even, with an escort.
If you ever get your hands on a Tachyon lance, the Sunder becomes absurdly powerful for it's class in my experience as long as you pilot it (as the AI is an idiot and gets all up and close to the enemy). Not that it will be easy without mods, but if you ever get the chance...
Logged

Acolnahuacatl

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2012, 12:03:20 PM »

If you ever get your hands on a Tachyon lance, the Sunder becomes absurdly powerful for it's class in my experience as long as you pilot it (as the AI is an idiot and gets all up and close to the enemy). Not that it will be easy without mods, but if you ever get the chance...
Yeah... I've never been lucky enough to have my station stock a Tachyon Lance, and getting one second-hand from a Paragon at a point in the game where I'm still using a destroyer as my main ship sounds like a bit of a challenge. You're right though, that does sound like fun.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 12:05:48 PM by Acolnahuacatl »
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2012, 12:17:20 PM »


As for the Conquest, though, in my opinion there's really only one problem with the ship: the default loadout is truly terrible, for two reasons. The first is that, as people have mentioned, terrible flux capacity and Mjolnir cannons do not go well together. In fact, terrible flux capacity and capital ships just plain don't go well together. The second is that it basically ignores fighter defence: really, those lasers aren't good enough to stop Pirahnas without moving your shields to deal with the threat - leaving you exposed elsewhere. My solution, therefore, is first to lose the Pilums entirely: as long-range artillery, the Conquest just doesn't have enough launchers to prevent its missiles being shot down by anything that's slow enough for them to catch. Replace the Railguns with Dual Flak Cannons (make sure to set them to another weapon group), which deal with bombers and missiles nicely; you really don't need the railguns' added firepower to back up an already impressive broadside. Finally, replace the Cyclone launchers with Typhoons - really, who needs *20* torpedoes more than a total of 32 extra OP? All this allows you to shove in capacitors and vents until you can support the Mjolnirs; or add in Gauss Cannons for their flux efficiency so you can add in a whole bunch of hullmods.

If I'm honest, though, even then it's still just not as good as an Elite Onslaught. But the much nicer aesthetics of the Conquest are usually enough to make me pick it instead.


I agree that it's not quite as 'good' as the Onslaught, and that it looks better, but it is also more fun to fly than the Onslaught. The Onslaught is just far far too slow.

I actually messed with the Conquest earlier and replaced all the burst PDs with LR PDs to help the flux, dropped the Mjolnir cannons for Hellbores, the burst lasers for Heavy Blasters, the railguns for dual flak guns. That actually gives enough points left over for quite a few in capacitors, and augmented engines as well, which turns the Conquest from a midline battleship with no staying to a pretty powerful battlecruiser. It's broadside is frag and explosive, unfortunately, which means its forward Heavy blasters and torpedoes have to do the work on the shields to optimize effectiveness, but really, if you land those torpedoes, enemy shields shouldn't be an issue.

If you ever get your hands on a Tachyon lance, the Sunder becomes absurdly powerful for it's class in my experience as long as you pilot it (as the AI is an idiot and gets all up and close to the enemy). Not that it will be easy without mods, but if you ever get the chance...

The Sunder with the Tachyon Lance actually works alright-- if you assign it to a fire support waypoint with other LRM platforms like Buffalos, Condors, whatnot. My main issue with using it in campaign is wasting a 30,000 credit weapon on the SUNDER, and risking it in combat. It literally costs more than the ship.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Tarran

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2012, 01:01:50 PM »

The Sunder with the Tachyon Lance actually works alright-- if you assign it to a fire support waypoint with other LRM platforms like Buffalos, Condors, whatnot. My main issue with using it in campaign is wasting a 30,000 credit weapon on the SUNDER, and risking it in combat. It literally costs more than the ship.
But consider what it does for you: It allows you to effectively have a hand of god, without having to bring up a big, slow battleship. It allows you to take out or damage whoever you want, whenever you want. And the speed of the destroyer lets you keep up or stay away from the enemies.

Think of it as a sniper with extremely expensive equipment looking over a giant plain: He's fragile, and losing him would be a serious loss, but until then no enemy is safe.
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2012, 01:06:12 PM »

I understand the point, but if a mobile Tachyon platform is what you want, I feel like the Odyssey serves your purposes better. Not only can it carry two, it's also a carrier, which easily justifies it's support role. The Sunder is a suboptimal solution to a tactical niche-- there's much better out there.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Tarran

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2012, 01:11:00 PM »

But it's still a Battleship. The Sunder is a Destroyer. It costs much less to get it on the battlefield, and it's much faster. And it's a much smaller target.
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2012, 01:13:54 PM »

*Shrug*

Actually it's a battlecruiser, but these days people don't make much of a distinction. Point taken though. Personally, I still wouldn't commit a tachyon lance to the field in campaign unless it costed a bit and had a bit of protection.

EDIT: Also, I usually put carriers in the field pretty early. If not the first wave, the second.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Kommodore Krieg

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #55 on: February 27, 2012, 02:16:04 PM »

I've been trying the Conquest but I can't seem to get it to work.  I lost a 1v1 with a DAMAGED aurora because even upgraded to 19000 flux capacity I maxxed flux way to quickly, and was then smashed by his MIRV and Heavy Blasters.  If you take the hypervelocity drivers off you can't get through shields, if you leave them on, along with all your PD lasers and 2x large ballistic gun ( I was using hellbores) firing from broadside you max flux almost instantly.  If you raise shields it's even worse.  If it made up for this with good maneuverability it would be fine, but it turns as slowly as an Onslaught  does unless you get augmented thrusters, which eats up points for flux capacity.  Onslaught doesn't need to turn much because nearly everything is turreted, and you can have so much flak coverage you really don't need to put shields up much.
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2012, 02:27:53 PM »

The torpedo strike is key. Also, I would think about changing the Burst PD turrets to either tactical lasers or LR PD turrets. Also, I think heavy blasters are pretty necessary. I've gone 3v1, an Onslaught, a Dominator, and a Condor all at once and I've managed to kill the Dominator and Condor and survive against the Onslaught long enough to get reinforced by my fleet.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

chesealot

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2012, 02:31:06 PM »

mine is the warthog destroyer no shields , bad point defnce slow , can be taken out by a wing of anthing expete intercepters and no real money for selling if i ever get the change to borade one i scrape it nothieng else
Logged

Tarran

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2012, 02:44:51 PM »

Aren't Warthogs fighter wings?
Logged

Icelom

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: LEAST Favorite Ship
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2012, 02:53:12 PM »

I've been trying the Conquest but I can't seem to get it to work.  I lost a 1v1 with a DAMAGED aurora because even upgraded to 19000 flux capacity I maxxed flux way to quickly, and was then smashed by his MIRV and Heavy Blasters.  If you take the hypervelocity drivers off you can't get through shields, if you leave them on, along with all your PD lasers and 2x large ballistic gun ( I was using hellbores) firing from broadside you max flux almost instantly.  If you raise shields it's even worse.  If it made up for this with good maneuverability it would be fine, but it turns as slowly as an Onslaught  does unless you get augmented thrusters, which eats up points for flux capacity.  Onslaught doesn't need to turn much because nearly everything is turreted, and you can have so much flak coverage you really don't need to put shields up much.

When i capture a conquest i ended up changing hte torpedos to the mirv kind the missiles that track targets then split into a ton of small missiles... this way i could still use my big launcher points while hitting with my broad side.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7