Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Low tech doctrine play through comments  (Read 4883 times)

Arcagnello

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Arguably Heretical, Definetly Insane
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2021, 03:20:28 AM »

fighting doritos be like
Spoiler
[close]

Realizes he's also approaching the Doritos in his own, low tech oriented campaign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdKqAVpUOwI

I'm going to try it with just these puppies, eventually, when I get them all to have 3 integrated hullmods, get all the right officers to level 6 and finish the rest of the story missions. I've got 5 officers on the capitals, 5 on the superfrigades and the 6th one I'm driving myself.
Spoiler
[close]


The Big Asteroid Chungus is a Pebble Battlecarrier from the Asteroid Ship Pack (which you can find here https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=17871.0 ) . It's what happens when Pirates hit the offspring of a Paragon and a Legion until it's malformed enough to call it one of their own. It's a battlecarrier with Fortress shield, 35.000 hullpoints (that's before hullmods), 13 Salamanders with ECCM, 3 Khopesh Rocket Bombers and an admittedly trivial level of firepower. It's there to eat damage and just be annoying as hell.

The bootleg hyperfrigades are Venom-Xs from the Underworld mod (which you can find here https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11002.0 ) that I named after Predator memes despite their name (don't take the last name the wrong way, I'm driving that one myself  8)). They're worth 10FP each, are not overridden, have as much hull hitpoints as wet toilet paper but I've managed to cram 1 Heavy machinegun, 1 Assault chaingun and a fully functionalTM 360 shield. The ship itself has a great peak performance time and all officers with Systems expertise since it has Temporal Shell as a ship ability.

That aggressive looking battlecruiser is the Tyrant from Vayra's ship pack. It does not really belong to this fleet comp but I just love it. It's fast, has a much better forward moving skill than burn drive, can have 3 large weapons pointing forward (take that, Horse Shoe) and even gets 2 fighter bays! I'll probably replace it with the Dragon (also from Underworld) whenever I get the blueprint for it.

Wish me luck  ;)
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 05:15:17 AM by Arcagnello »
Logged
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.
The therapist removed my F5 key.

WeiTuLo

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2021, 07:48:25 AM »

Legion generally doesn't do much against the tesseracts, it's too slow. Might be good for shooting down fighters and bomber harassment though.
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2021, 09:55:27 AM »

Excellent write-up. You articulated well what I've been feeling in my low-tech play-through (thou I've found no less than 4 Legion XIVs this run!)

I think you nailed the overall movement of the metagame in regards to Low-Tech: it moved but Low-Tech really didn't. Smaller/faster doesn't play well into Low-Tech's strengths and Armor skills have been reduced across the board.

To some of your more specific points:

The Dominator lost a lot with the addition of the Champion. The Champion is only slightly less tough but noticeably faster and vastly more versatile. As both are Heavy Cruisers, there are few reasons why I would take a Dominator over a Champion, given equal availability. You know, Heavy Ballistics Integration on the Dominator would be a nice little buff to it, just to save some OP and reinforce that this is supposed to be heavy-hitting pocket battleship. I think it would fit thematically, too, since the Onslaught also has it. However, the Dominator has such a huge dead zone in the back that I don't know if overwhelming frontal firepower really makes up for it.

On the whole, I feel that way about Low-Tech: the pros just don't outweigh the cons. They don't have so much more armor that you feel "safe" keeping shields down and winning the flux war. Nor do their mobility systems really compensate for their overall cumbersome nature and huge blind spots in the back.

It's almost as if Low-Tech needs its own rules. A built-in hull mod or Low Tech "tag" that improves any other +Armor, +HP, Reduced damage to armor, etc. skill or hull mod by some significant (30%?) amount. Other types of ships can use them but Low Tech gets bonuses by virtue of their class. I feel that we still haven't quite doubled-down on Low Techs strengths yet (without dipping into Derelict Contingent, though something similar for Low-Tech as an inherent damage reduction could also work).
Logged

Anvel

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2021, 10:28:07 AM »

Sorry guys but like in the real world high tech supposed to be better than low-tech, a new generation of ships always better than 200+ years older. We simply need more med-high tech ships for other factions too not just TT, for example, powerful high-tech cruiser for hegemony, missile capital for Syndicat, etc.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2021, 10:37:55 AM »

You know, Heavy Ballistics Integration on the Dominator would be a nice little buff to it, just to save some OP and reinforce that this is supposed to be heavy-hitting pocket battleship.
Gee, why does every ship with large ballistics needs a hullmod that makes large ballistics cheaper?

Nor do their mobility systems really compensate for their overall cumbersome nature and huge blind spots in the back.
Burn drive is confined mostly to strategic mobility. When engaged, its utility is very situational, since rarely you have situations where you want to commit, burn drive will take you the right distance and you can do those without getting instantly flanked in the process.

Scorpixel

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2021, 11:14:41 AM »

Sorry guys but like in the real world high tech supposed to be better than low-tech, a new generation of ships always better than 200+ years older. We simply need more med-high tech ships for other factions too not just TT, for example, powerful high-tech cruiser for hegemony, missile capital for Syndicat, etc.
It is supposed to be a different doctrine, if the only viable way is high-tech then why even bother with anything else?
Factions have specific roasters for Lore reasons.
Why would your local templar show-up in the Heresy-mobile-3000?
Why would a hegemony commander act all picky and ask the entire logistical line to make him unique ships when every other goes the XIVth's way?

The real problem is low-tech being a black hole of ressource consumption for terrible returns. Enormous crew requirements, same supply consumption as more advanced designs except it need long and costly repairs after every battle, guzzle fuel at a pace making you think the crew drinks it.

Less intricate designs should cost less and give more, if a Paragon beats an Onslaught then just make ten for the same cost because you can afford the manpower and Bagration the whole thing.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2021, 11:29:10 AM »

You know, Heavy Ballistics Integration on the Dominator would be a nice little buff to it, just to save some OP and reinforce that this is supposed to be heavy-hitting pocket battleship.
Gee, why does every ship with large ballistics needs a hullmod that makes large ballistics cheaper?

...

I don't think its because large ballistics are bad. I think its because large ballstics armed ships have divergent mounts. The Conquest with its broadsides, the Onslaught with its kind of 2.5 broadsides (as each forward flank can support 2, but only 1 forward + TPCs). The issue that was coming up was that it was better to concentrate the OP power of a ship in a single direction and then point that way: single broadside Conquests, forward only Onslaught (or even broadside onlsaught with 2). The large mounts in the off directions then got like a single flak. Heavy Ballistics integration incentivizes keeping those "off" mounts still filled with larges instead of downsizing them. The ships with large ballistics without divergent mounts (Dominator, Legion) don't have HBI.

Granted, Dominators could use a little something, but it doesn't need to be HBI because they both point forward.

Sorry guys but like in the real world high tech supposed to be better than low-tech, a new generation of ships always better than 200+ years older. We simply need more med-high tech ships for other factions too not just TT, for example, powerful high-tech cruiser for hegemony, missile capital for Syndicat, etc.

The "tech levels" don't represent that in SS. They are more like design philosophy than actual tech level, with the designs that are actually old (Onslaught is one that the descriptive text calls out) being modernized so many times that all that it shares in common with the original ships is the shape. Its also heavily implied that the domain has been in a state of pretty slow tech development/stagnation for a very long time. They "figured out" some good spaceship designs and kept using them with minor upgrades, then also try new and weird stuff thats not actually all that much better.

For a "real world" military example, look at firearms. We pretty much "figured out" how to make good firearms a long time ago. Considering how much tech progress has been made over the past century, its amazing how serviceable small arms from 100 or 50 years ago are.



Regarding low tech viability vs spoilers:

Spoiler
This isn't my final planned endgame fleet, but I decided to go fight some doritos anyways. It is just under 240DP (225), so nearly a full deploy though. No 3rd S mod on any ship (I got salvage + the CR yellow skill instead: 3rd S mod would be better probably but I was a little low on story points so decided not to commit yet). Not optimized loadouts either, just general purpose fighting. Findings:





Low tech staple fighters of Thunder, Galdius, Talon, Broadsword, Khopesh do NOT do well. The small arms and emp arcs of these things just massacre them.

Onslaught with a center storm needler is practically a hard counter to these things. I'm using Reapers but only landed 12 hits over the coarse of the battle because of the emp arcs knocking them out vs later stages: I wonder if harpoons would be a better choice vs them?

The Legion with its turretted sabot pods and reapers did well even with its interceptors mostly shut down (5 reaper hits). The post battle reports 26 fighters killed by the mjolnir and 45 fighters killed overall (even though the column adds up to 30)... I'm not totally sure I believe the 45, but apparently mjolnirs do extremely well in final cleanup.

Enforcers are tough enough to tank the frigate sub ships forever but are individually overwhelmed by the destroyer sizes after a decent length of time (they can hold on a while). Dominators ditto for one size up. Enforcer kinetics (HN and HVD's depending on ship) are effective, but reapers from them mostly missed. Again I wonder if harpoons would be more effective? In general, the enforcers formed a force of tough destroyers that could brawl with the doritos, put out damage, and just in general contribute.

The Dominator was surprisingly effective: turns out that its role of punching up against strong low count enemies is pretty good for fighting these things. Main guns also got in on the action, so with an officer with helmsmanship they are maneuverable enough to contribute.
[close]
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 11:58:35 AM by Thaago »
Logged

WeiTuLo

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2021, 12:23:34 PM »

Very nice! I'd watch the hell out of the video if it's on youtube.
Logged

Flunky

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2021, 12:41:40 PM »

I'd be pretty interested to see some of the staple loadouts you're using there, too. I find myself having trouble making good loadouts for Enforcers and Dominators, particularly when it comes to AI loadouts that can manage their flux effectively.
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2021, 01:29:32 PM »

So I eventually did look up the location of a Coronal Shunt, took my fleet as is (no swapping of anything, just what I'd been using), set to 300 battle size which in turn limited me to 180 DP at a time, and took a single attempt.  I provided no fleet orders to see how the default AI handled stuff, just normal player piloting of an Onslaught.  The fleet was victorious, but at cost.  Had to recover everything except an Onslaught and the two moras at the end, out of a full 240 DP fleet.  2 Onslaughts, Legion, 2 Moras, 2 Condors, 4 Enforcers, 6 Lashers was the fleet,  although everything was configured so no story points were need to recover.  They either had an officers or reinforced bulkheads.

I suppose I probably should have sent the moras and condors in the first wave instead of 2nd given their loadouts were more anti-large ship than small (loaded with bombers).
 

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 01:47:48 PM by Hiruma Kai »
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1889
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2021, 01:59:30 PM »

I don't think its because large ballistics are bad. I think its because large ballstics armed ships have divergent mounts. The Conquest with its broadsides, the Onslaught with its kind of 2.5 broadsides (as each forward flank can support 2, but only 1 forward + TPCs). The issue that was coming up was that it was better to concentrate the OP power of a ship in a single direction and then point that way: single broadside Conquests, forward only Onslaught (or even broadside onlsaught with 2). The large mounts in the off directions then got like a single flak. Heavy Ballistics integration incentivizes keeping those "off" mounts still filled with larges instead of downsizing them. The ships with large ballistics without divergent mounts (Dominator, Legion) don't have HBI.

HBI is definitely this.

However as an aside i am struck by how hard it is to armor tank large ships anymore(absent derelict contingent armor tanking). Impact Mitigation is... much weaker than it used to be. And, importantly, comes at a huge loss in DMG. Shield tankers have an advantage in that they can reset their effective HP, so -20% damage is a pretty strict bonus. But armor tankers cannot, and so need a much larger effective increase in general. The problem is that impact mitigation is far weaker than armor tanking used to be in net.

And, importantly, its far easier to increase hit strength. The general hit strength advantage an officer has now is between +20 to +50%(for a frigate this can go as high as 70% though its unlikely). While the general bonus DR that an armor tanker has is -25%. This nets to a 10% advantage to 12.5% deficit in terms of hit strength*. And its worse if you want your large armor tanking ships to actually do damage. Because armor tanking is now on the same skill as a +30% damage bonus from range. So an armor tanker compared to a shield tanker, capital officer vs capital officer, now has a 12.5% deficit in terms of hit strength/dps over no skills, but also has a 4% DPS deficit. (Shooting 1.2 weapons into .8 shields) for a net 17% disadvantage over no skills. And this without having a unique top of the line value for the tier 5 skill (where as mid tech and high tech generally do).

This is a far cry from the advantage you could achieve last version.

On top of that the inability to easily get PD on armor tanking ships

*While there were much larger hit strength bonuses in .91 these were entirely offset by the armor strength bonus. So we can effectively ignore them in net x/(x+y) = x*.5 / (x*.5+y*.5). Thus we had the +15% dmg skill vs the +150 armor always skill and the 90% armor DR skill(and maybe another -armor damage taken skill i think?). You needed about 500 hit strength before +15% damage would overcome +150 armor at 2000 armor as an example. As armor goes down the necessary hit strength bonus to achieve equivalency goes up.

To compare:
.91 armor dmg bonuses were +15% (all dmg) +50% hit strength, +50% weapon/engine dmg
.91 armor tnk bonuses were -20% armor dmg, +50% armor calc, +150 armor, 10% minimum armor dmg calc, -50% kinetic dmg, -50% weapon engine dmg, +50% weapon/engine repair, +50% weapon HP

.91 net(officer v officer) armor tanking was -8% incoming dps and hit strength, +150 armor at all stages of calc, 10% min armor damage calc, -50% kinetic dmg, 62.5% effective dmg reduction for weapons/armor, +25% repair rate for weapons/armor
.95 net(officer v officer) armor tanking is +17% incoming DPS*, +12.5% incoming hit strength, +50 armor at all stages of calc.
Relative DPS change: +27% (not including secondary characteristics OR hit strength)

.91 Shield dmg bonuses were +15% (all dmg), +15% (Shield dmg)
.91 shield tank bonuses were -20% dmg, 10% hard flux dissipation while active, -25% HE dmg on shields

.91 net(officer v officer) shield tanking was +5.8% incoming dps, 10% hard flux dissipation while active, -25% HE dmg on shields.
.95 net(officer v officer) shield tanking is +20% incoming dps*, -30% HE dmg on shields, 15% hard flux dissipation while active
Relative DPS change: 13.4% (ignoring secondary characteristics)

This is a huge discrepancy. It used to be the case that an Onslaught could keep firing its weapons when taking armor damage. This is not possible anymore even with armored weapon mounts and automated repair units. Ion damage disables RFC, AWM, ARU ships now when it generally did not as of last patch. Not only did armor tanking receive a much larger effective deficit but the secondary characteristics swung away from armor tanking and towards shield tanking. (with the lone exception that building in Heavy Armor on everything is now hella good). Whenver i am building armor tanking ships armor tanking has to be a secondary consideration over making a good shield tank and using both (unless utilizing DC... but even then without the huge DR on weapons .91 provided DC just means you get disabled and killed)

*this assumes that the target shooting at them is a shield tanker and not an armor tanker in both cases armor tankers generally lose out on a 0 to 30% damage bonus as a result of taking impact mitigation.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 02:04:18 PM by Goumindong »
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech doctrine play through comments
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2021, 02:34:46 PM »

Those numbers seem solid - armor tanking is harder now. This is doubly true because automated repair unit was repairing twice as fast as intended last version and has had a bug fixed which effectively nerfed it (this was in Rubin's balance patch). I would not mind IM getting a bit of a buff but I am FAR happier with kinetics actually being able to damage hull than I am about losing a bit of tankiness.

As part of this run's testing I'm prioritizing armor and offense over shields in building my ships: officers don't get the shield skill unless they came with it. Ships don't get hardened shields unless they already have a full offensive complement of hullmods and enough caps to make it worthwhile (only some of my enforcers have it). And in general, my ships are durable. Big impact weapons still crack armor (looking at this redacted torpedo thing, boy is that nasty) but in general I can take medium/small ordinance on the chin and be fine. I spend a lot of this fight I'm analyzing with shields down taking shots on my Onslaught (which has the hull D mod and I don't have damage control) and even with how crazy good omega weapons are (including high shot size) its going pretty well.

So it still works, and to be honest I prefer the AI also going down easier.



Most of what I'm learning fighting these things a few times is that reapers are the wrong missiles: about 2/3 of my fleet's missile slots aren't effective!. The hardest part of the fight is the initial deploy: because its a 0 objective map there is no time for the small ships to get behind the big ones if I do deploy all before contact, and if I deploy the big ships first there's no time for the small ships to catch up. Its not a big problem, but being able to specify deploy order would make it a lot easier.

Also, because these things have such insane anti-fighter, my Moras and Condors are dead weight DP wise... the Mora's at least distract for a while, but otherwise I'm down 60 DP.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 02:54:09 PM by Thaago »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]