Print

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

[Goumindong]

Re: Sunder being obsolete by the time you get it:

To make a Sunder useful early game, put a HIL on it. No need for ITU, Advanced Optics, rarer weapons like Tach Lance or Plasma or railguns/needlers in the ballistics. Bonus points for getting proper other weapons like gravitons to go along with, but pretty much the only thing that can make a HIL Sunder useless is to mess up the weapon groups so it doesn't fire the HIL.

It won't get through shields by itself, so make sure the fleet has sufficient kinetic and/or flanking and/or broadswords/longbows to help, and it will burn down armor and hull.

Not that a graviton/HIL ITU/Advanced Optics Sunderer isn't still good in the lategame. 1400 range is almost as good as base ballistic range on a battleship (900 x 1.6 = 1440, 1000 x 1.2 + 200 = 1400) and DPS is much higher per deployment point

[Igncom1]

It's unimaginable heresy to call the sunder obsolete by the time you can get it when it's no more difficult to acquire then the hammerhead.

It's essentially just an energy weapon version of the hammerhead! It also dunks on anything destroyer or frigate on it's own and with a little support can easily murder cruisers or swarm capital ships!

Outfitting one early, however, requires some work. Not that 3 phase lance builds are weak by any means as in an assault role they still kick ass.

[Megas]

Hammerhead is different because it is a possible starter ship, and it can use Open Market junk and function like an Enforcer.  There is also that SO chaingun loadout (but I do not use that one).  That said, I generally do not get more than one before my fleet outgrows them too as I find more and more cruisers and possibly my first capital.

Energy version of semi-common/heavy autocannon weapons is junk like pulse lasers and maybe HIL/autopulse.

[Goumindong]

I suppose a more succinct way of putting it would be

“It’s kind of weird calling the single best lategame capable destroyer ‘obsolete by the time you get it’”

[TaLaR]

Officer-less ships are hopeless fodder in late game and there are not enough officers to fully staff a DE-centric deployment. At best you can fit a few alongside capitals, but then they are weak links that risk dying on first mistake (especially with Sunders being the most glass cannon DEs) or run out of PPT long before capitals/cruisers. Soft flux weaponry also requires persistence that AI simply lacks, it lets enemies retreat too easily.

[Goumindong]

Hardened subsystems is a thing, 450 seconds of PPT is plenty. And well. So what if it needs allies, it’s a fleet ship in a fleet.

[intrinsic_parity]

I'm inclined to agree that the sunder (and destroyers in general) are a bit too squishy in the late game for my taste. They fly the wrong way in combat for 2 seconds and instantly explode when capitals are in play (same with frigates). Sunder is even more squishy than the average destroyers, so it really struggles with this in my experience. I've tried using sunders (and destroyers in general) a lot and I just can't accept the high chance of them randomly dying. Other strategies have just as much combat power with much lower chance of losses.

[Igncom1]

To be fair anything smaller then a cruiser I fit with Reinforced Bulkheads on the premise that it's probably going to die, but that's ok. Late capital ship fights have anything lesser acting as support, which the sunder does very well in my opinion.

In fact they pair very well with big ballistic spewing ships like, say.... the CONQUEST! (back on topic bby!)

Sunders get easily shredded by fighters, which is why I used to not like them, but these days I'm in a sunder craze with task groups of 8 of them escorting my late game capital fleets as they can easily catch and kill anything smaller then a capital ships notice.

They die pretty quick when shot, but what destroyer doesn't? The key is not to let them get shot by ships they aren't supposed to be fighting anyway.

And SO Sunders are the things of NIGHTMARES. If you thought SO hammerheads with chainguns were good at killing lowly armoured and defended targets, you ain't seen nothing yet!

[intrinsic_parity]

Not spending supplies to recover ships because they don't die seems better than spending supplies to recover ships to me. If I use escort destroyers, I prefer something like a medusa that can get away easily (and has a super good shield). Often times carriers are good enough at the escort and kill small ships roll that I don't bother with destroyers.

[Arcagnello]

To be fair anything smaller then a cruiser I fit with Reinforced Bulkheads on the premise that it's probably going to die, but that's ok. Late capital ship fights have anything lesser acting as support, which the sunder does very well in my opinion.

In fact they pair very well with big ballistic spewing ships like, say.... the CONQUEST! (back on topic bby!)

Sunders get easily shredded by fighters, which is why I used to not like them, but these days I'm in a sunder craze with task groups of 8 of them escorting my late game capital fleets as they can easily catch and kill anything smaller then a capital ships notice.



They die pretty quick when shot, but what destroyer doesn't? The key is not to let them get shot by ships they aren't supposed to be fighting anyway.

And SO Sunders are the things of NIGHTMARES. If you thought SO hammerheads with chainguns were good at killing lowly armoured and defended targets, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I will second this. Sunders using High Intensity Lasers fit into Conquest-focused fleets like a glove, although their relatively low mobility can get them in trouble when the rest of your fleet is lighter on it's feet, wich is why I usually deploy falcons/eagles instead as they're much, much more survivable and mobile than Sunders, wich guarantees their survival in a kiting scenario against a bigger fleet than your own.

P.S: there's a mod ship from Hazard Mining Incorporated called the Scarecrow that is basically a cross between an Eagle and a Dominator wich brings 2 large ballistics, 2 medium ballistics (both on hardpoints), 2 medium missiles on hardpoints, 4 medium energy on turrets and 6 smalls. It also gets manouvering thursters instead of Burn drive and it's worth 26fP (wich I'd raise to 28 or even 30 since it's really, really good). It's the one I'm currently using in my campaign along my HMI Junker ships.

[Megas]

Hardened subsystems is a thing, 450 seconds of PPT is plenty. And well. So what if it needs allies, it’s a fleet ship in a fleet.

That is generally a cost many ships cannot afford, especially if I want campaign mods, better combat power, or Reinforced Bulkheads (on officer-less ships).  The only destroyer I can afford it on is Drover, and only because it can do naked hull cheese.  I want late-game ships to have at least cruiser-level PPT.  I might make some exceptions here and there.  Aside from Drover, the only other destroyer I bring late in the game is Harbinger (as a budget Aurora to sweep small fry), but I rarely use it.  I want high PPT so that if the cowardly AI plays the stall game, it loses!

I use mostly junk ships early because ships die in battle, and if a junk ship dies, I do not care and play on.  If I lose a pristine ship early (like my starter flagship), it is an immediate game reload (and replay).  Only by endgame do I consider losing pristine ships in battle an acceptable loss (because I can build more cheaply with Orbital Works).

[Igncom1]

Not spending supplies to recover ships because they don't die seems better than spending supplies to recover ships to me. If I use escort destroyers, I prefer something like a medusa that can get away easily (and has a super good shield). Often times carriers are good enough at the escort and kill small ships roll that I don't bother with destroyers.

I mean, by the time you are even IN fights like that supplies have stopped being an issue, right?

[intrinsic_parity]

Not spending supplies to recover ships because they don't die seems better than spending supplies to recover ships to me. If I use escort destroyers, I prefer something like a medusa that can get away easily (and has a super good shield). Often times carriers are good enough at the escort and kill small ships roll that I don't bother with destroyers.

I mean, by the time you are even IN fights like that supplies have stopped being an issue, right?

Supplies are still relevant through the cruiser and early capital portion of the game. I imagine in future releases with more endgame content/threats, the whole 'I'm so rich nothing matters' portion of the game will go away and there will still be logistical issues later on in the game. Also, dmods suck unless you take the skills to mitigate them which I don't.

My point is more that I can achieve all the same combat results with much lower chance of losing ships, so why would I take that risk? There's no benefit beyond gameplay variety which I don't find particularly compelling.

[Igncom1]

Not spending supplies to recover ships because they don't die seems better than spending supplies to recover ships to me. If I use escort destroyers, I prefer something like a medusa that can get away easily (and has a super good shield). Often times carriers are good enough at the escort and kill small ships roll that I don't bother with destroyers.

I mean, by the time you are even IN fights like that supplies have stopped being an issue, right?

Supplies are still relevant through the cruiser and early capital portion of the game. I imagine in future releases with more endgame content/threats, the whole 'I'm so rich nothing matters' portion of the game will go away and there will still be logistical issues later on in the game. Also, dmods suck unless you take the skills to mitigate them which I don't.

My point is more that I can achieve all the same combat results with much lower chance of losing ships, so why would I take that risk? There's no benefit beyond gameplay variety which I don't find particularly compelling.

I guess? But then why use anything BUT carriers, if game play verity isn't compelling enough of a reason?

(I would suppose I am on the other end of most players, as I generally play whatever the meta of a game isn't. For the most part.)

[SCC]

(I would suppose I am on the other end of most players, as I generally play whatever the meta of a game isn't. For the most part.)

Well, from my perspective, everyone else isn't playing meta, because you people aren't soloing everything you can, so don't feel so special.