Print

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

[Zakaluka]

On the other hand, a low tech ship with armor s-mods & a skilled officer can absorb a few times more focused damage than a high tech ship with shield s-mods & a skilled officer.

Like everything, there are other factors at play, and which to choose will depend entirely on your goals.

[Arcagnello]

OH, that's some spicy Storm Needler & Sabot Onslaught and Harpoon Legion. The monicker is holding up really well there Thaago 

As much as I dab on the latter for being horrible, it does indeed carry a lot of missiles...

[Thaago]

Haha to be fair it really is horrible in that fight! The interceptors work against ordos, but not against omegas, and with the bays not mattering its just a worse onslaught.

[Locklave]

You could have brought up some numbers to illustrate your point, like I did previously.

Spoiler

[close]

I'd rather leave that to people more suited and knowledgeable to present said info, like yourself.

So thank you.

[Arcagnello]

Haha to be fair it really is horrible in that fight! The interceptors work against ordos, but not against omegas, and with the bays not mattering its just a worse onslaught.

Also, that fleet of yours makes my personal campaign where I'm still in the process of triple S-modding 5 Capitals and around 12 frigades plus double elite skills for every officer look...eh...a bit much   

I always had this habit of overpreparing, really.  I beat them with basically no losses with two pirate capitals made up of bloody asteroids, surely my Squall, Sabot and EMP spam fleet could beat it right now...but I want complete victory.

To crush zee Remnants, zee dem drifen before youu, and hear zee lamentations of ze Doritos!

[TotenKopf]

The only problem I have with low tech ships is the amount is supplies they guzzle. My net from missions was far less than mid or high tech with the post combat supply suck. This seems to run contrary to the relationship between high and low tech things in real life.

I think of the comparison between a hammer and a pneumatic nail gun. The nail gun requires additional equipment, maintenance, power, and knowledge to operate and carries an additional risk of injury. A hammer is just a fancy rock.

Perhaps decoupling monthly maintenance and deployment cost, or adding monthly maintenance multipliers for mid and hightech would help reflect the fact that literally everyone understands how a hammer works and how to use it

[Locklave]

Interesting line of thinking there.

Maybe a repair cost and speed discount for low tech? Less complex should mean faster cheaper repairs. I should also point out that Low tech ships have more crew, which you'd think would mean they could get stuff fixed faster.

[WeiTuLo]

Imagine if low tech ships lost fewer crew upon destruction/could be recovered with partial CR (30-40%) instead of 0% due to simpler and more robust components.

[SCC]

I would prefer them being better in combat, so they wouldn't blow up in the first place.

[Locklave]

I would prefer them being better in combat, so they wouldn't blow up in the first place.

Your posts genuinely make me smile sometimes. This one did. It's like it's some insane request but it's just a simple thing at the same time.

edit:
I'm forgetting to be productive in my own thread. How shameful.

I think Low Tech and ships that are intended to armor tank need a different AI then the rest of the ships. Or at very least ship systems that the AI can use to make them preform as described/intended. The Centurions system being a good example, although not low tech... Something like that.

[Drazan]

Again, lot of people are debating abput combat performance in this tread. I personally think low tech underperforms, but it is up to debate.

But this thread is not about combat, its about logistics.
Low techs maintenance being higher is not up debate. It is higher and without any reason. All lore states that they are simpler easier to use ships, and yet they cost more than high tech ones.

[Realm]

It does somewhat surprise me that the old, near-ubiquitous and reliable designs that in some cases were built to use the same parts as one another end up costing more than the state-of-the-art, fragile and specialist vessels.

[Locklave]

Again, lot of people are debating abput combat performance in this tread. I personally think low tech underperforms, but it is up to debate.

But this thread is not about combat, its about logistics.
Low techs maintenance being higher is not up debate. It is higher and without any reason. All lore states that they are simpler easier to use ships, and yet they cost more than high tech ones.

Thank you for saying this.

It does somewhat surprise me that the old, near-ubiquitous and reliable designs that in some cases were built to use the same parts as one another end up costing more than the state-of-the-art, fragile and specialist vessels.

This also strikes me as a problem.

[TotenKopf]

This issue really is just an unfortunate product of the way the systems work. I loved my slug fleet and, despite always losing all of my frigates, it was a lot of fun. It was just a little less fun with supply concerns living in my head. By the way, I cannot in any way quantify the logistical difference, this is all just feels.

If there is a simple, logical fix? Cool. Otherwise, I feel precious development time would be better spent scrutinizing the deployment point system. It felt really bad having only 120 points to the opponent's 180, especially before I understood why (tutorials? Pshhh). It's not a bad system, but getting to deploy 50% more dudes could stand to be reduced to 25% or some such.

Sorry for going OT

[ElPresidente]

That's the point. Powder is better than bow and arrows. High tech best tech.

Logistically? No.
High-tech equipment is more expensive to maintain.
Take a look at the maintainance costs of the high-tech airplanes and manhours required, the flight time/maintiance time ratio and compare it to older planes. The F35 needs something like 2 hours of maintainance for every flight hour.

Compare it to more robust and reliable oldies like the F-14, F-15 and F-16.. or the A-10. No comparison.

The general rule is: high-tech = expensive, demanding.