Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Goumindong]

The Sunder really doesn’t need tachyon, autopulse, or plasma and really doesn’t do best with them. It’s failing is largly that players don’t protect them with orders, and that they do not stack ITU and advanced Optics.

[TaLaR]

The Sunder really doesn’t need tachyon, autopulse, or plasma and really doesn’t do best with them. It’s failing is largly that players don’t protect them with orders, and that they do not stack ITU and advanced Optics.

Yeah... ITU and Advanced Optics are problematic in campaign. Especially ITU - not having it seriously limits usefulness of DEs overall. Player piloted UI Medusa is fine without it and UI Hammerhead is at least usable, but Sunder and Enforcer are pretty much unviable without it.

By the point I have both hullmods, I'm likely to be using Capital-centered fleet.

[Null Ganymede]

Explorer runs (salvage rigs + skills) should get 'em from science stations and whatnot, along with a bunch of rare weaponry.

[TaLaR]

Explorer runs (salvage rigs + skills) should get 'em from science stations and whatnot, along with a bunch of rare weaponry.

This reduces endgame power by taking eventually obsolete skills. Big Nope in my book.

[Megas]

The biggest problem with Sunder is energy weapons are not Open Market common.  If I want a disposable Sunder, it probably gets three medium pulse lasers (from black market or pirate loot), missile racks (from loot), and LMGs or light autocannons in the turrets (Open Market junk).  I doubt it is as effective as Enforcer or Hammerhead, but... it is built to fight and die like a disposable hero.  It is expected to lose.

As for Salvaging, I would not want to spend six to nine points on crutch skills.  It is a shame that the exploration game is mutually exclusive with optimal endgame combat power.  If I want the goodies badly, I will farm cores and juggle commissions and get everything in the long run.  The only hullmod that might not be bought from anywhere (in unmodded game, due to no variant using it) is Converted Hangar, which is in the universal near-must-have skill Fighter Doctrine.

[Null Ganymede]

Carriers and hangar bays aren't must-haves. They're good, but you can do fine without them.

[Thaago]

I find Sunders are quite effective in AI hands - as long as you are using a HIL/graviton loadout. Even without ITU/Optics it is effective enough (though of course they make it better). It wants steady/cautious officers (or no officers), vulcans in the ballistics, and no missiles to foul up its range calculations. If you have plentiful light needlers or railguns those do help, but they are both rare and they will make the AI close to 700/800 range instead of 1000. The OP savings from not having found ITU/optics can be put into hardened shields, auxiliary thrusters, or a hanger bay.

The AI is not competent with the plasma cannon or the autopulse on the Sunder (Especially not the autopulse! It will fire off the majority of the shots at max range, miss all of them due to target motion, and then be stuck with self-raised flux and poor dps). Tachyon lances are fun, but each costs more than the ship and is incredibly rare.

[Igncom1]

I've been running my current Hammerheads with two rail guns in the forward facing medium mounts and four light assault guns on the turrets.

She can't shoot down missiles this way, but the amount of dakka it brings at close range with the ammo feeder is impressive. Not too shabby at killing fighters with it either.

[Thaago]

I've been running my current Hammerheads with two rail guns in the forward facing medium mounts and four light assault guns on the turrets.

She can't shoot down missiles this way, but the amount of dakka it brings at close range with the ammo feeder is impressive. Not too shabby at killing fighters with it either.

Why not use mediums on the mediums? Can't find any Heavy Autocannons or Heavy Needlers?

[Igncom1]

I find that the rail guns are great for the flux and op cost, highly reccormend. The cost saved in flux makes them a lot more defensible and if I'm mostly fighting frigates with them, the heavier guns are unneeded.

Two Heavy Needlers wouldn't really need any assistance against frigates and I've been finding that Heavy Autocannons are flux cost inefficient for their DPS which isn't much higher then railguns anyway. Might as well save on the OP for other stuff.

Under gunning is very fun, i'd reccormend it espically on Eagle cruisers and Falcon cruisers who can then fund the saved points elsewhere.

[Goumindong]

I find Sunders are quite effective in AI hands - as long as you are using a HIL/graviton loadout. Even without ITU/Optics it is effective enough (though of course they make it better). It wants steady/cautious officers (or no officers), vulcans in the ballistics, and no missiles to foul up its range calculations. If you have plentiful light needlers or railguns those do help, but they are both rare and they will make the AI close to 700/800 range instead of 1000. The OP savings from not having found ITU/optics can be put into hardened shields, auxiliary thrusters, or a hanger bay.

The AI is not competent with the plasma cannon or the autopulse on the Sunder (Especially not the autopulse! It will fire off the majority of the shots at max range, miss all of them due to target motion, and then be stuck with self-raised flux and poor dps). Tachyon lances are fun, but each costs more than the ship and is incredibly rare.

You can use salamanders and swarmers in the missiles  if you have spare OP. This is because the salamander is a support missile and has very long range; it will not significantly affect the AI. The swarmer is an anti-fighter missile and like point defense systems is not considered by the AI for optimal range calculations

[Megas]

The nice thing about Fighter Doctrine is primarily the fleet boost (although Converted Hangar at 2 is great).  Even if your flagship is not a carrier, if the player has multiple carriers in the fleet, the boosts their fighters get are nice, or at least keep up with enemy fleets with Fighter Doctrine.

Under gunning is very fun, i'd reccormend it espically on Eagle cruisers and Falcon cruisers who can then fund the saved points elsewhere.

If weapons were more common, I would do it more.  Generally, my under-gunning, if I do not leave mounts empty, is generally replacing Graviton Beam with Tactical Laser, any heavy energy with Heavy Blaster, or medium missiles for 1 or 2 OP one-shots.  Railguns in mediums would be nice, except they are in hot demand by ships who cannot mount medium ballistics but can use light ballistics.  Thus, Hammerheads, Eagles, and the like get Arbalests instead of Railguns because other ships that want Railguns but cannot use Arbalest (like Medusa) get the Railguns.

[TaLaR]

After a bit of testing with Converted Hangars I kind of see why Megas considers them indispensable. D-ships lose a lot of stats, but they have full OP, and most (or all?) D-mods do not affect fighters. D-ships also cost less to deploy. => CH naturally stacks with clunker fleet approach.

It's also quite a powerful hullmod, considering that AI is not very good against fighters. Normally I consider Enforcer to be the weakest DE, but when you add CH it finally becomes decent match for the others. Why? => With most OP of all DEs, it is cheapest for Enforcer. And having 2 Flaks easily counters enemy CH even if they also had it.

I find Sunders are quite effective in AI hands - as long as you are using a HIL/graviton loadout. Even without ITU/Optics it is effective enough (though of course they make it better).

I consider no-UI, no-ITU variants to be automatically unusable. Nearly same variant with ITU is almost guaranteed to slaughter them without a chance to fight back (same slow-ish speed, yet more range). With UI you could at least get a stalemate due to speed advantage (and charge in when enemy becomes vulnerable).
UI vs UI+ITU is also a better situation than none vs ITU - there is smaller approach window to be exploited which AI would often fail to exploit (it's not nearly as precise at range management as player).
Exception: Hyperion, since it's system allows to mostly ignore range and normal movement.

ITU, no-UI is also a kind of bet. If you can't get enough flux advantage during approach of faster and stronger enemy, you are done. Most notable case - being charged by Aurora (hard flux equipped).
- A Hammerhead needs to use all it's firepower under AAF in optimal manner or it's dead. Overall, it has easiest victory against Aurora amongst all DEs.
- Medusa can win if player controlled. But it's all about skimmer and finer piloting, and is not easy.
- Enforcer is dead unless it uses ridiculous variant like 4x Heavy Needlers, 1x Mauler to imitate Hammerhead. But such build is relatively useless outside this specific situation.
- Sunder is just dead - it's not effective enough against shield to repel Aurora and not fast enough to run.

[Megas]

I generally do not use Converted Hangar on destroyers because the -75% penalty - and no Expanded Deck Crew - is too much of a penalty, not to mention that the destroyers do not have much OP.  Fighters will be at 30% replacement before long, and your fighters are effectively out of ammo for the rest of the fight because they replenish too slowly (and what few replacements you get before peak performance times out will be easily munched by the enemy).

Cruisers can use them, if the fighters replenish fast enough (like Talons or Claws), but they are mostly useful either as scouts or get things off your back like Salamanders do (except more effectively).  Loadout Design 3 is practically required to get enough OP to fit Converted Hangar and fighters on cruisers, and still have enough OP left to get everything else your ship needs.

Capitals can use Converted Hangar and fighters as a superior substitute to Salamanders or Pilums.  Lack of Expanded Deck Crew and no quick bomber refit are bigger penalties than -25% to replacement.

However, if player is desperate or into challenge fleets, Converted Hangar is great on the likes of Buffalo and Tarsus freighters if you want to force a fleet of them to fight.  Yes, they are not as effective as proper carriers or warships, but with a CP build (like HELMUT's vs. the Dickersons or Approlight bosses), those freighters can abuse Fighter Strike and pick off fleets no bigger than it, especially if your flagship is a cruiser (or maybe capital) warship that tanks for all of your civilians-turned-carriers.

[TaLaR]

I generally do not use Converted Hangar on destroyers because the -75% penalty - and no Expanded Deck Crew - is too much of a penalty, not to mention that the destroyers do not have much OP.

Even at 75% penalty and without Fighter Doctrine, Talons from DE converted hangar spawn at decent enough rate to be worth 10 OP. Especially if used on d-ships, that do not have much in terms of base stats.
As far as sim duels go, CH+Talons is single best way to spent 10 OP on Enforcer at least.

Of course other fighters wouldn't work very well, but who cares? Frankly, beside dedicated carriers with fighter-related systems or ships like Odyssey with special requirements (Longbow for kinetics), I don't see much sense in using other fighters over Talons.