Print

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

[Goumindong]

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.

Enhanced Optics is the one you’re looking for. UI is just going to get your dude closer to the enemy

[SafariJohn]

Making Talons 0 OP and giving them Swarmers on top of that immensely devalued all other fighters.

[TaLaR]

Enhanced Optics is the one you’re looking for. UI is just going to get your dude closer to the enemy

No, I meant Unstable Injector. Speed and range combination (vs enemy speed and range) is often deciding factor in combat, rather than just either of them separately. Which is why it makes sense to evaluate ITU vs UI.

[Goumindong]

Enhanced Optics is the one you’re looking for. UI is just going to get your dude closer to the enemy

No I meant  Unstable Injector. Speed and range combination (vs enemy speed and range) is often deciding factor in combat, rather than just either of them separately. Which is why it makes sense to evaluate ITU vs UI.

I know you meant Unstable Injector. I was saying that it was not a good option. Speed AND range is what matters and you're giving up the more important of the two, putting yourself within Sabot and Hypervelocity range. The Speed is minimal at that point.

Your missile spam setup is really inefficient you can almost certainly do it easier/better. Most small missiles when moving up to their "pod" version get about 4 times better. A Harpoon MRM launcher has 3 shots 1 at a time, a Pod has 12 shots, 4 at at time. 4 times the ammo, 4 times the volley.

The Salamander does not. The pod version launches 2 missiles at the same interval as the regular version. So a medium slot here doesn't give you any particular advantage. Rather you should be looking for getting the most of Small + medium x 2 for the lowest supply cost.

Brawlers are OK (2 for 4), Drams are similar (1 for 2), Hecates are good (2 for 3), Lashers are ok(2 for 4), Kites are Great(2 for 2). You could fit. You could fit 2.5 more salamanders per supply cost in your deployment by loading up on Kites! Vigilance is pretty good with the 2 for 5 plus a bonus.

Mercury Class Shuttles however, are king... with 3 universal slots for 2 supply/deployment. Granted they can't quite fit ECCM and ECM... but its still the top of the line. With Mercury Class Shuttles you could fit 15 Salamanders in the same space you're using for 4.

If you're willing to go up a class the Buffalo MK II is actually pretty efficient. At 5 Salamanders for 4 supply. It also has space for ECM and you can fit a tactical laser for rangefinding (and maybe some PD and other things so you don't get wrecked by Harpoons

Wanted to go back to this because i went and tested "Fast Missile Racks" with Salamanders and well, they're amazing. They quadruple the fire rate. The Vigiliance are the best for this indeed.

[TaLaR]

I know you meant Unstable Injector. I was saying that it was not a good option. Speed AND range is what matters and you're giving up the more important of the two, putting yourself within Sabot and Hypervelocity range. The Speed is minimal at that point.

In general:
Sabot are trivial to counter by bait + vent as long as you have speed advantage (like from UI).
HVD always loses to similar variant with Heavy Needlers, as long as Needler variant can close range gap within reasonable time (again, UI). Or Just armor tank on Zero Flux Boost, if you really have no other options, HVD is not that damaging. Plus AI is not good at exploiting narrow range advantage and often allows same speed enemy to approach. Which is why I don't consider HVD good option.

For beam Sunder specifically:
Without ITU and AO combination you don't outrange HVD reliably anyway. When ITU is unavailable (most of the campaign without salvage skills) using UI transforms definite loss (same speed, less range) scenario into at least a stalemate (more speed, much less range), that you can choose to resolve when enemy is distracted (as faster side).

[Goumindong]

The AI isn't going to bait Sabots and giving it more speed and less range will just shove it into the enemies guns faster

[PixiCode]

Making Talons 0 OP and giving them Swarmers on top of that immensely devalued all other fighters.

The primary issue with talons is you'll end up burning through your carrier readiness, slowing the reproduction of talons. Some fleets will just eat talons the second you use them. They are still extremely effective for their cost, as you say, however. Just don't write off all other fighters. Specifically, they can't fulfill heavy fighter or bomber roles, specifically broadswords which have a unique function.

[intrinsic_parity]

Speed is, in general, more advantageous than range. If you have more speed and less range, you can always leave the enemies weapon range, but if you have more range and less speed, you are betting that the extra damage you do while they close the range gap is enough to win the fight. In a 1v1 for ships of similar size, that range advantage is usually enough, but in a fleet context, you will often have to fight while at a flux disadvantage, in which case the extra flux you build up while they close the range gap may not be enough to win the flux war. Speed gives you control of the engagement and a way out, range just gives you a flux advantage.

[Megas]

With Talons, you want them to die as soon as they launch their two swarmers so that its replacement can arrive and unload two more swarmers instead of a surviving Talon waiting then launching only one missile eventually.  With boosted replacement rate (and Expanded Deck Crew slowing rate drain), Talons just keep coming.  Talons with only one swarmer at a time is nothing special.  Talons with two swarmers at a time are destructive, and they can only do that if they die and replenish quickly.

As for speed vs. range, I will save the OP and shot range by not wasting it on UI.  If I put UI on Hammerhead, I will need Mauler and HVD to do what a normal one can do with merely Heavy Mortar and Arbalest with less OP spent.  UI is not worth it for most ships.

[intrinsic_parity]

I agree that UI is not worth it on most ships, because you lose range and gain speed. It's too much of a penalty. I would more say, abstractly I would rather gain some speed than gain some range, but all the methods of gaining top speed in this game balanced with drawbacks while there are hull mods that give a range boost with no penalty. I think that's more evidence that speed is a bit stronger, but I think the drawbacks keep things fairly balanced, maybe a bit balanced against the top speed boosting hull mods.

[Goumindong]

Speed is, in general, more advantageous than range. If you have more speed and less range, you can always leave the enemies weapon range, but if you have more range and less speed, you are betting that the extra damage you do while they close the range gap is enough to win the fight. In a 1v1 for ships of similar size, that range advantage is usually enough, but in a fleet context, you will often have to fight while at a flux disadvantage, in which case the extra flux you build up while they close the range gap may not be enough to win the flux war. Speed gives you control of the engagement and a way out, range just gives you a flux advantage.

No. On HIL sunders range is everything. You cannot win the “flux war” at lower range all you do is risk overloading and dying.

[intrinsic_parity]

I was talking abstractly, certainly there particular situations where range is preferable

[Thaago]

I consider no-UI, no-ITU variants to be automatically unusable. ...

Very much disagree. ITU is an automatic hullmod for all non-SO ships because it is deliberately overpowered and balanced by rarity. UI however is a judgement call and it depends on the rest of the fleet composition and expected enemies. Between the range and OP costs, UI sacrifices a lot of combat power for speed. Sometimes that trade is worth it, sometimes not.

Frigates almost always should have UI because, with a few exceptions, their only defense against fighters is speed.

Against early game fleets with frigate spam? UI on everything because the player's ships need to be able to avoid flanking by enemies.

Player has lots of fighter cover? No UI on destroyers - flanking/interception/harassment work are covered by other elements and they are free to become more dedicated gunships.

Fighting capitals/stations? Cruisers and Destroyers should not have UI because they are already faster, but the speed increase does not overcome the lost range in terms of approaching a target to firing range without being overloaded.

In the case of beam sunders, UI is almost always worse than UI because the base range is so long - the speed increase is not close to making up for the damage lost on approach. Same with HVD/Mauler Hammerheads to be honest. Railgun/Heavy mortar hammerheads do great with UI however.

[TaLaR]

I consider no-UI, no-ITU variants to be automatically unusable. ...

Very much disagree. ITU is an automatic hullmod for all non-SO ships because it is deliberately overpowered and balanced by rarity. UI however is a judgement call and it depends on the rest of the fleet composition and expected enemies. Between the range and OP costs, UI sacrifices a lot of combat power for speed. Sometimes that trade is worth it, sometimes not.

Frigates almost always should have UI because, with a few exceptions, their only defense against fighters is speed.

Against early game fleets with frigate spam? UI on everything because the player's ships need to be able to avoid flanking by enemies.

Player has lots of fighter cover? No UI on destroyers - flanking/interception/harassment work are covered by other elements and they are free to become more dedicated gunships.

Fighting capitals/stations? Cruisers and Destroyers should not have UI because they are already faster, but the speed increase does not overcome the lost range in terms of approaching a target to firing range without being overloaded.

In the case of beam sunders, UI is almost always worse than UI because the base range is so long - the speed increase is not close to making up for the damage lost on approach. Same with HVD/Mauler Hammerheads to be honest. Railgun/Heavy mortar hammerheads do great with UI however.

On otherwise similar variants ITU vs no-UI, no-ITU is absolute advantage for ITU side. AI may be not quite there, but assuming AI was as good as player at flux management, did not make range management mistakes and no piloting tricks by player this would be an unwinnable scenario (you can approach by armor tanking on zero flux boost, but doing so stacks some disadvantage, so this alone is unlikely to bring victory).
Or at least this is the logic for player-piloted engagements. In AI vs AI duel both cases are definite loss for non-ITU AI.
Might as well simplify my rule to: don't use AI-piloted DEs if ITU is unavailable.

I don't agree with Capitals part too. Extreme example - vs a Paragon UI would reduce approach time (their range - your range/ speed difference) much more than a bit of range.

Beam Sunder without both ITU and AO is a too flawed variant to be practical, so I guess whether it has UI or not is a moot point.

... In fact, after extensive testing I see no reason to use AI Sunders ever. All strong variants rely on fine range control, flux management and HEF syncing - things that AI can not do well enough. Any Sunder gets stomped by same optimal Hammerhead variant in AI vs AI, because it's win tactic is as simple as "activate AAF and enjoy the fireworks".
Pity, considering that TL + ITU + Optics Sunder beats any Hammerhead completely one-sidedly when piloted properly.

[Thaago]

You misread my post (ITU is mandatory on all non-SO ships - it is a stupidly strong hullmod balanced by rarity). Ships with elite hullmods are better than ships without them is an obviously true statement.

HIL/Graviton Sunders without ITU or AO are less powerful than with, but still just fine ships more than capable of holding their own in fleet combat. If not the case for you, I suggest you adjust your tactics.