Print

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

[Thaago]

Based on my previous suggestion, I propose a fleet support carrier.

• Poor hull, armor, shield. Good burn, maneuverability and speed, on par with a cruiser
• Less weapons than Astral. 5-6 hangers. System is Apogee's Active Flares but launches far more flares over a wider area
• Low DP and maintenence. Fuel efficient.
• Plenty of built-in hullmods. Recovery Shuttles, ECM, Nav Relay, Operations Center are mandatory. May also possess Salvage Gantry and/or Ground Support Package

I think this could work. In terms of role, there's a pretty big hole in the carrier lineup between the Heron and the Astral, especially as the Astral is very bomber inclined. The Legion is definitively a Battlecarrier considering it can run good guns and a full fighter/missile load, so this one would need to fall into the more lightly armed 'carrier' role.

With no fighter boosting system, at 6 wings it is directly competing with 3 Condors in terms of fighter effectiveness (with an inherent boost from the wings staying/repairing as one, and only taking 1 officer), so it has to be a 'light' unit in terms of DP.

Important Stats:
Burn 8: this is a light capital that fits with the midline "theme" of "cruiser school" and can keep up with the Conquest.

35 DP/maintenance: it has superior fighter count to the Legion, but worse armament and defense.

Built in hullmods: As in the quote.

Armament: Light, but on 'theme'. I'm thinking a gun package similar in strength to the Falcon in terms of balance, but using a Large ballistic. So, how about 1 large ballistic hardpoint, 2 medium energy turrets, a ring of small energy (6?), and a few small missile mounts (2?). Lack of medium/larger missiles is a distinct disadvantage for a carrier that wants to hang back, but this level of armament at least lets it kill lone destroyers that go after it. Some builds probably won't use all the mounts but thats ok.

OP: (20+2*10+8*5+6*15 + bonus)~ 200 OP? Distinctly less than a Legion at 260, but its also only 35DP and has fewer (and smaller) weapon mounts. This would def need play/build testing to really work out.

Speed: 40. Equivalent to a Conquest but no mobility system and slower than an Onslaught + burn drive. I disagree with the quote on this, because I strongly feel that carriers have to be catchable by things that can kill them.

Fuel use: Applying the harsh capital class penalty to the light role and DP count, I think 8 F/LY puts it in the right ballpark. If more of an exploration theme, lower the cost.

[intrinsic_parity]

I think 40 speed is too low for a ship with weak weapons and weak defenses. It either needs higher speed (than 40) and bad defenses, or average defenses and low speed.

[Retry]

I don’t like this on a new midline capital because like... it’s a midline Capital we are designing and they already have the mobility focused conquest. It doesn’t make sense from a fleet design perspective. (And neither does a capital command ship).

Very strongly disagree.  From an in-game perspective, Capital-grade ships receive the largest bonus from ECM and Nav Relays, and Capital Ships also have the greatest PPT of all the classes, all of which are ideal characteristics for a command flagship.  (If the Operations Center is not built-in, then Caps tend to make the best flagships anyways, both due to PPT issues and that Caps have the highest OP available, while Operations Center costs a flat 30 regardless of size).

It wouldn't be hard at all to write some fluff as to why cruiser-doctrine school of thought came up with a Command Battlecruiser, no more so than the Conquest.

[FooF]

You could still have a command capital smaller than a Conquest, yet still put up a fight against Cruisers. Combine the "Command" aspect with the Logistic portion of an earlier idea of mine and you'd really have a jack-of-all-trades. It could fight, command, and haul supplies/fuel (and probably getting into Galaxy-Class Enterprise territory).

[SonnaBanana]

I think this could work. In terms of role, there's a pretty big hole in the carrier lineup between the Heron and the Astral, especially as the Astral is very bomber inclined. The Legion is definitively a Battlecarrier considering it can run good guns and a full fighter/missile load, so this one would need to fall into the more lightly armed 'carrier' role.

With no fighter boosting system, at 6 wings it is directly competing with 3 Condors in terms of fighter effectiveness (with an inherent boost from the wings staying/repairing as one, and only taking 1 officer), so it has to be a 'light' unit in terms of DP.

Important Stats:
Burn 8: this is a light capital that fits with the midline "theme" of "cruiser school" and can keep up with the Conquest.

35 DP/maintenance: it has superior fighter count to the Legion, but worse armament and defense.

Built in hullmods: As in the quote.

Armament: Light, but on 'theme'. I'm thinking a gun package similar in strength to the Falcon in terms of balance, but using a Large ballistic. So, how about 1 large ballistic hardpoint, 2 medium energy turrets, a ring of small energy (6?), and a few small missile mounts (2?). Lack of medium/larger missiles is a distinct disadvantage for a carrier that wants to hang back, but this level of armament at least lets it kill lone destroyers that go after it. Some builds probably won't use all the mounts but thats ok.

OP: (20+2*10+8*5+6*15 + bonus)~ 200 OP? Distinctly less than a Legion at 260, but its also only 35DP and has fewer (and smaller) weapon mounts. This would def need play/build testing to really work out.

Speed: 40. Equivalent to a Conquest but no mobility system and slower than an Onslaught + burn drive. I disagree with the quote on this, because I strongly feel that carriers have to be catchable by things that can kill them.

Fuel use: Applying the harsh capital class penalty to the light role and DP count, I think 8 F/LY puts it in the right ballpark. If more of an exploration theme, lower the cost.

Agree with most of what you say but 35DP for 5-6 hangars is too cheap. It should at least be 40.

[DatonKallandor]

Well if active flares an option for mid-line systems now, then clearly the most supporty Ship System is this:

Mine Strike, but you deploy bursts of active flares with it.

[Goumindong]

I don’t like this on a new midline capital because like... it’s a midline Capital we are designing and they already have the mobility focused conquest. It doesn’t make sense from a fleet design perspective. (And neither does a capital command ship).

Very strongly disagree.  From an in-game perspective, Capital-grade ships receive the largest bonus from ECM and Nav Relays, and Capital Ships also have the greatest PPT of all the classes, all of which are ideal characteristics for a command flagship.  (If the Operations Center is not built-in, then Caps tend to make the best flagships anyways, both due to PPT issues and that Caps have the highest OP available, while Operations Center costs a flat 30 regardless of size).

It wouldn't be hard at all to write some fluff as to why cruiser-doctrine school of thought came up with a Command Battlecruiser, no more so than the Conquest.

My point was mainly related to mobility/defense/damage. You could always make a ship be treated as a capital for the purpose of ECM/Nav relay.(and even then its only what, 1%?) And PPT while it tends to get higher for larger ships doesn't have to be. The "capital" designation is just a descriptor that can be set and does not really enforce anything about the ship except how it treats different hull mods. The main issue is that a command ship kind of has to be... uhh weaker? than a similar ship of its deployment points in terms of raw DPS/defense. And as a result would be very vulnerable in a mobile cruiser focused fleet doctrine if it were a "true battleship" or "true battlecruiser" in terms of mobility/damage/defense. At least thematically imagine you have a ship that is roughly as maneuverable as a conquest but hits and defends like a 30 DP ship, what happens to that ship when the cruiser line of eagles responds by backing up because that is what the eagles are supposed to do as a stronger enemy advances? Well the command ship dies. And thematically if this is our command ship... we have lost the engagement regardless of whether or not we "win" in the end because all our important people bit it because they were on the command ship that exploded. And as a result we need our command ship to be at least as mobile as those eagles.

So i would not be opposed to say a 25 or 30 DP "capital" that had the exact same mobility/defensive stats as an eagle with the same weapon profile as a falcon at 155+ Ordinance Points(and we could make all the slots universal or do other things to give it a bit more unique-ness to it like give it an omni shield or a 360 degree shield or make it have a phase system for mobility or what not.). This is a capital in function for ECM/Nav/ppt but is otherwise a cruiser in terms of the mobility stats we care about. And we can give it those mobility stats because its not bringing capital level firepower (though it would have capital level range!). And were likely to only ever bring one because the extra DP cost is significantly higher than the firepower it does bring.

Does this make sense?

[Hiruma Kai]

While a ship in the 30-35 DP range could be made interesting, its not the most pressing concern for the midline group of ships, and harder to differentiate from current cruisers.  They've already got the most combat cruisers of any tech level at 5. Falcon, Heron, Gryphon, Eagle, Champion.  High tech has 4 (Fury, Apogee, Aurora, Doom) and low tech only 3 (Dominator, Mora, Venture?). Midline doesn't need another sub-capital or light capital right now.  Low tech does.  Midline already has  a lock on mobile cruiser doctrine with its current ships.  And if you really want a command midline light capital/cruiser, you can do that with hull mods.  Take a Conquest, put Nav Relay and ECM package.  That makes it slightly weaker 1 on 1 compared to other Conquests and boosts your entire fleet.  Or slap them on a Heron.

The current build space above 40 DP is completely high tech.  Odyssey, Astral, Paragon.  I really feel if you're going to add another midline ship, it clearly be well into the capital category and gives a little balance between the current fleet line ups, as opposed to having all the heavy weights in one faction and the majority of mid weights in another faction.

[Goumindong]

But like... that is what the fleet doctrine and role structure demand?

I am fine with another capital for mid line but why would midline design a super ship? What does it do for them? How does it fit into their fleet doctrine?

Its totally fine that the 40DP+ set is entirely high tech. It makes perfect sense that TT would be building expensive passion projects with weird uses cases so that their CEOs could go fly around in the biggest baddest/fastest thing in the galaxy as an ego boost. High tech also has the most expensive DP cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. Its not a mistake its a design philosophy. What would cause the Persean league to adopt that?

[Igncom1]

I could see the PL adopting a defensive tank ship to shield their carriers, but can't necessarily deal much damage on it's own.

Like some older dreadnought or reverse/german battle-cruiser design that has a cruiser levels of fire power with a lot of mediums, but battleship levels of armour/hull/shields defensive capability. Possibly even decently fast too if it's fire power is just sub-par.

Like a paragon, but with half the fire power.

[Grievous69]

While a ship in the 30-35 DP range could be made interesting, its not the most pressing concern for the midline group of ships, and harder to differentiate from current cruisers.  They've already got the most combat cruisers of any tech level at 5. Falcon, Heron, Gryphon, Eagle, Champion.  High tech has 4 (Fury, Apogee, Aurora, Doom) and low tech only 3 (Dominator, Mora, Venture?). Midline doesn't need another sub-capital or light capital right now.  Low tech does.  Midline already has  a lock on mobile cruiser doctrine with its current ships.  And if you really want a command midline light capital/cruiser, you can do that with hull mods.  Take a Conquest, put Nav Relay and ECM package.  That makes it slightly weaker 1 on 1 compared to other Conquests and boosts your entire fleet.  Or slap them on a Heron.

The current build space above 40 DP is completely high tech.  Odyssey, Astral, Paragon.  I really feel if you're going to add another midline ship, it clearly be well into the capital category and gives a little balance between the current fleet line ups, as opposed to having all the heavy weights in one faction and the majority of mid weights in another faction.

Agree with everything here. And actually I wouldn't even count Venture as a proper combat cruiser, so low tech progression basically goes from 9 DP Enforcer straight to tough cruisers at 20-25 DP and then another 15 DP gap until you get to capitals. Midline truly has enough ships that aren't capitals.

I apologise since this isn't the thread for it but it would be nice to have a low tech ship that doesn't have Burn drive, Luddic Church could use something unique for example. It's the only gap I truly feel is lacking. More capitals is always nice tho. And if it's really going to be a midline one, I really don't think another 40 DP ship would shake things up all that much, unless it's wildly unique. Paragon needs competition.

[SafariJohn]

45-50 DP frontline carrier could be interesting. Tough shields, weak armor, 4-5 wings, 35-40 base speed, and 2-3 large mounts. Maybe a Romulan warbird-style shape. Basically an Eagle-like Legion evolution.

[Hiruma Kai]

But like... that is what the fleet doctrine and role structure demand?

I am fine with another capital for mid line but why would midline design a super ship? What does it do for them? How does it fit into their fleet doctrine?

Its totally fine that the 40DP+ set is entirely high tech. It makes perfect sense that TT would be building expensive passion projects with weird uses cases so that their CEOs could go fly around in the biggest baddest/fastest thing in the galaxy as an ego boost. High tech also has the most expensive DP cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. Its not a mistake its a design philosophy. What would cause the Persean league to adopt that?

I guess I'm looking at it from a game play perspective instead of a lore or fleet doctrine perspective.  Lore exists to support game play, not the other way around.  The game isn't out, and the cruiser lore can be changed by editing the flavor text on some ships (with appropriate apologizes to David and Alex).  I know writing isn't easy, but I believe it is easier than designing a balanced and fun gameplay experience.  Or it can be a Sindrian Diktat fever dream perhaps, with plans stolen by the League.  Who knows.

And if 40+ DP capital is a super ship, then so be it, although I'd argue in the case of the Odyssey that it is not quite true.  The reason we're discussing this at all is because midline has a single 40 DP ship.  So the entire discussion is predicated on the fact midline doesn't have enough high DP ships.  Its swimming in cruisers already, which makes it hard to differentiate from yet another cruiser-ish ship you'll see in Persian League or Sindrian Diktat fleet lineups.  For me, an expensive ship is going to likely be different and thus potentially more interesting to fly with or against. 

A Tri-tach fleet with two paragons is a different experience from two Dooms, two Odysseys or two Astrals.  Whats the difference for the player fighting another new midline cruiser compared to the current cruiser lineup?  What is going to make the player think this is a different situation than just facing Eagles, Herons and Conquests?

[Igncom1]

Give it a big old tractor beam!

That'll be a new experience in hell when you can't run away!

[Megas]

Agree with everything here. And actually I wouldn't even count Venture as a proper combat cruiser, so low tech progression basically goes from 9 DP Enforcer straight to tough cruisers at 20-25 DP and then another 15 DP gap until you get to capitals. Midline truly has enough ships that aren't capitals.

I apologise since this isn't the thread for it but it would be nice to have a low tech ship that doesn't have Burn drive, Luddic Church could use something unique for example. It's the only gap I truly feel is lacking. More capitals is always nice tho. And if it's really going to be a midline one, I really don't think another 40 DP ship would shake things up all that much, unless it's wildly unique. Paragon needs competition.

Maybe a light cruiser for low-tech, which probably means Dominator gets moved from low-tech pack to an elite singleton.  Maybe an extra large Mudskipper 2 or half Dominator.

I just want another ship besides Conquest, preferably one that is not broadside, that has the dissipation to properly support high-end ballistics.  A big ship with lots of big guns (maybe on par with a battlestation), or an overpowered 60 DP battlestar that has full battleship stats (like a 40 DP capital) plus some fighters (at least two bays, probably more) or something else special and powerful that is useful at making things dead.