Print

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

[ChaseBears]

It is okay for ships to be bad as long as they still have a point.  The Venture's role as envisaged in its description - a cheap base ship - is kinda irrelevant in game the way the game mechanics and economics work.  Its role as a miner is also irrelevant.  So the Venture is just...bad.  I wish it wasnt, i have a soft spot for it.

Anyways now that that fun it over with.

A side note for next patch, Venture and Drone tender will be bad to have if you are specialized in fighters as their drones will count against the skills limit for fighters lowering the bonus on all your real fighters. I am genuinely unhappy that the Drone tender will lose some viability, the Venture is caught in the same issue.

Screws over Talon spam as well. Feh!

[Plantissue]

There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.

And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

[Goumindong]

There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.

And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

[Agile]

Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

[Innominandum]

Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.

[Plantissue]

There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.

And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

I was making fun of you, that whilst you insist something is a very real thing, you refuse to ascribe any defintion to it. So space infantry and space cavalry it is.

The AI do not flank. At least not in a purposeful way, more by accident by outnumbering and slow drifting.  You can try to flank, but the AI do not have discrete concept of "anvil". You might do, and you can go ahead with it. Ships can "anchor" themselves in space just fine by repeatedly retreating themselves behind another ship.

There is no need to throw other concepts from games or real tactical concepts if they do not fit into starsector. There needs not be a "centre". There is no "folding". It's a really inflexible way of thinking. Ships are more likely to get destroyed when outnumbered or concaved.  By way of example more useful concepts are those, because they describe what is actually occuring, than your own personal definitions that cannot be communicated.

________

Spoiler

Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.

[close]

The Venture already have a missile reloader system called Fast Missile Racks. It does have Surveying Equipment innately, but it does not have salvage gantry, so if it has both without being needed to be added, that is a mod thing.

[Goumindong]

not only do the AI flank, even if its a result of "other" AI behavior, but you can create that situation by giving orders.

The AI does not have to have a concept of an anvil in order for it to happen and be an effective tactic. Its not "concepts from other games". "Hammer and Anvil" is like... good lord the concept has been around forever. And its a concept that exists because of a combination of concave producing a higher surface area with lower return potential and directional attributes of ships. And since both of those things exist in starsector i will continue to exploit them.

[Igncom1]

I was going to say, it's a 2d game so stuff like this does exist. The AI isn't great at it but it does happen.

If anything it's the go to strategy for killing capital ships, just flank it while another ship is the bait.... or the anchor.

One strategy you can try at home is to deploy your heavy ships and rally them to the side of the map, when the enemy moves in for the surround bring your reserves in to hit them from the rear! Great for short lived frigates who shouldn't be out there for too long!

[Innominandum]

One strategy you can try at home is to deploy your heavy ships and rally them to the side of the map, when the enemy moves in for the surround bring your reserves in to hit them from the rear! Great for short lived frigates who shouldn't be out there for too long!

Sigh ... wish there was an option to have certain lanky ships join the fight from the sides of the map, or the enemy rear, or enemy ships joining from your rear ... sigh

[Plantissue]

Like I said, it's not a useful concept to apply to starsector. You can roleplay all you like, it doesn't change that you are trying to fit a squre peg into a round peg. "There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game" remains untrue, that even by your own definition. It doesn't really make sense in Starsector, a game with constantly shifting battle lines and even so a Venture wouldn't neccessarily be good at it.

Just look at Ingcom1. Isn't bait, or flank such a more useful description to strategic discussion? Don't be inflexible, use words to describe and communicate what can or is occuring than loanwords, that you have to make up personal definitions for? But well done, Goumindong, you've co-opted and is using better words like I do and you just have, at least you can describe and communicate concepts better.

One strategy you can try at home is to deploy your heavy ships and rally them to the side of the map, when the enemy moves in for the surround bring your reserves in to hit them from the rear! Great for short lived frigates who shouldn't be out there for too long!

Not as effective now that you can't place rally points so close to the edge of your own deployment and your ships now kind of bounce from the edge. Doesn't even have to be "heavy" and frigates either.

[Goumindong]

Just look at Ingcom1. Isn't bait, or flank such a more useful description to strategic discussion?

No. Because Ventures neither bait or flank. Frigates bait all the time (its the harass AI action) as an example. This keeps them busy and often draws them away from the rest of their fleet. Flank is the what its called when you get behind/to the side the units. Called thus because thats what a flank is. Ventures don't do that. They tank. Since there are different types of "tank" (A falcon can tank as an example. But it will not be the same strategic type as a Venture) its reasonable that there are different terms for different types.

Are you really getting this bent out of shape because you didn't like the term anvil even if you knew what it meant?

[Plantissue]

All ships can keep other ships "busy". A couple of tempests can usually keep any ship busy indefinitely as can a phase frigate till it runs out of CR. But you keep changing want you mean by anvil to whatever suits your purposes.

[SCC]

An anvil is a ship that's not particularly fast or damaging, but it can take a lot of punishment. They hold the line and prevent other ships (including themselves) from being flanked, and if the enemy is being flanked, they prevent him from paying full attention to flankers and becoming vulnerable in the process.
A hammer is typically a ship that's fast and focused on dealing damage, be it because of burst and mobility combo, or because of its innately good offensive stats.
A distraction ship's role is to distract the enemy. It does not have to be able to sustain damage, since it's role isn't maintaining a formation, but disrupting the enemy's. It's only requirement is that it's able to survive on its own for some time on its own.
A flanker is a ship that flanks. It can be a part of the hammer, it can just be a distraction ship. If you love high tech, you can even try to create tough flanker ships and try to trap the enemy in multiple "fronts".
An anchor is a ship that allows other ships to take a breath. It typically means ships that have lots of burst just to drive the enemy flux up (and make AI cowardly), or ones that can point their guns in all directions. Long range is recommended.

Unless you provide better terms for hammer and anvil, that's what I'm going to use. It's not perfectly accurate, but when has ever warfare stopped changing?

[Agile]

There is no anvil in this game. There is no infantry moral system. You will care for any ship that dies if you are before the point where you don't need to care about money.

There absolutely is such thing as an anvil in this game.

And yet curiously enough, there appears to be a lack of space cavalry charging into space infantry in the game so far.

And yet curiously enough that doesn't mean there aren't anvils. An anvil is just a unit that can anchor the center and won't fold when the flanks are pushed. Do you just... not flank enemies when you play?

I was making fun of you, that whilst you insist something is a very real thing, you refuse to ascribe any defintion to it. So space infantry and space cavalry it is.

The AI do not flank. At least not in a purposeful way, more by accident by outnumbering and slow drifting.  You can try to flank, but the AI do not have discrete concept of "anvil". You might do, and you can go ahead with it. Ships can "anchor" themselves in space just fine by repeatedly retreating themselves behind another ship.

There is no need to throw other concepts from games or real tactical concepts if they do not fit into starsector. There needs not be a "centre". There is no "folding". It's a really inflexible way of thinking. Ships are more likely to get destroyed when outnumbered or concaved.  By way of example more useful concepts are those, because they describe what is actually occuring, than your own personal definitions that cannot be communicated.

________

Spoiler

Yeah I usually never take the Venture because when I can start affording cruisers, I have a decent enough revenue stream that I never really consider the Venture. Its such a poor man's choice that its only good as a ship you salvage from a pirate bounty, from a killed off scavanger fleet, or if you find it out in space. And this is also if you have NOTHING ELSE and its your BEST ship.

I second that.

If it either got the Missile Reloader system, and/or got more logistics hull mods built in (salvage gantry + surveying equipment), it would make it worth it even with its abysmal stats + civillian hull. Yet it doesn't come with either of these built in, despite it being totted as a exploration ship, so its basically bad.

Curious, my Ventures have surveying equipment ... would be rly flabbergasted if this is a mod thing.

[close]

The Venture already have a missile reloader system called Fast Missile Racks. It does have Surveying Equipment innately, but it does not have salvage gantry, so if it has both without being needed to be added, that is a mod thing.

Fast Missile Racks is a terrible ability due to how fast it makes you use up all your limited ammunition, and considering the Venture's limited mounts, it becomes completely useless after firing a few intense volleys. Instead, it should become a dedicated and affordable missile cruiser that even a civillian can afford by getting the Reloader system instead.

It has surveying equipment but Surveying by itself isn't enough to make the Venture worth its credits; it needs both Surveying and Salvage Gantry built in to offset the fact that it has a civillian hull and bad burn + its other bad stats.

[Locklave]

It is okay for ships to be bad as long as they still have a point.  The Venture's role as envisaged in its description - a cheap base ship - is kinda irrelevant in game the way the game mechanics and economics work.  Its role as a miner is also irrelevant.  So the Venture is just...bad.  I wish it wasnt, i have a soft spot for it.

Anyways now that that fun it over with.

A side note for next patch, Venture and Drone tender will be bad to have if you are specialized in fighters as their drones will count against the skills limit for fighters lowering the bonus on all your real fighters. I am genuinely unhappy that the Drone tender will lose some viability, the Venture is caught in the same issue.

Screws over Talon spam as well. Feh!

Indeed, it is described in a way that is highly appealing to me. Like a workhorse civilian cruisers with poor fighting ability but excellent support ability. I just find that the reality of the game mechanics don't fit the description at all.

It's cost in credits/supplies/fuel are all in line with other cruisers that are faster and fight better. I mean slap surveying equipment on any cruiser and you have have a better ship.

For example

Better replacements
Gryphon only 5 more supplies for a real missile cruiser, same fuel. Initial cost is higher.
Falcon (which is lack luster) cost the same supplies and fuel. About the same initial cost.
Apogee (who people oddly like to compare to it) is only 3 more supplies and 1 LESS FUEL. Initial cost is higher.

Stand outs
Colossus Mk II/III (yep that LP/pirate fodder) are cheaper and fight better supplies 9(II)/8(III), fuel 3(II)/3(III) (Venture is 15 supplies, 3 fuel). Basic costs are vastly cheaper in credits and have better defined roles. These are cruiser you can afford to use as fodder. They are common both in Black Market and the battle field. Mk III's fighter slots mean it's a threat to far better enemy ships. Both of these ships have 300 cargo space almost matching the Venture with 50 more for that utility. Mk III also comes with Ground support package which only comes on the Valkyrie (non combat troop transport).

And before someone says all carriers pose a threat to better ships I point out that Mk III is the most common carrier in the game followed by condor which is slower in combat/costs more supplies/less hull/less armor, 1 more fuel is the only downside. I had no clue it was slower and cost more supplies till now. Seems like the Colossus is a direct upgrade on the condor, but that's a different matter.

Seems like Colossus Mk III is worth another look in my future plays.

As far as talon spam being nerfed.
Yep that sucks and it makes the Hanger ship mod garbage, basic OP for the mod and increase OP cost fighters decrease long term effectiveness of replacement in addition only to weaken specialization bonus. I'll likely be avoiding specializations if they have restrictions that screw with my general fleet strategy, I use Talons on nearly all non carrier/capital ships. Anyone trying to max the fighter bonus would be avoiding this ship mod and all mining drone ships like the plague.