Print

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

[intrinsic_parity]

Spending story points as early as possible speeds up leveling, so doing it on smaller logistics ships makes a lot of sense.

Bypassing the 2 logistics hullmod limit doesn't, but it's cool/fun so why not I guess!

I think it makes a lot more sense to s-mod big logistics ships to make them more usable early, since you are much more likely to keep them long term, and they also want some extra logistics hullmods to counteract downsides like sensor profile, where small logistics ships really don't need that help. I just bypass small logistics ships as much as I can since they are generally much less efficient in terms of cargo or fuel capacity/supply or fuel upkeep.

[MrTwister]

Its cool for moneymaking or if you want to take the kitchen sink with you, but for exploration - it depends.

As said before, it slows down exploration fleet a lot and your nebula speed will be 14 at most and turning rate will be very slow too.

I prefer to have a fast explo fleet that can go 20 normal and 16 through difficult terrain so I'm using 20 ships max with a single cruiser (Apogee) and the rest destroyers and frigates. That means I give up most of the mundane finds to only carry valuable stuff and data.

However it's fully legit to play a slow scavenger fleet and make a lot more money from deep space trips

My main use for Atlases is moneymaking within the core systems, I do it while keeping my neutral status in the early-midgame before being commissioned. After that I go explo and they remain parked until I need them again for some bulk transport to my colonies.

[intrinsic_parity]

I think colossus is better for early game than atlas to avoid excessive sensor penalties, but with navigation + bulk transport, you get +3 burn on civilian ships, so atlas is actually a burn 9 ship which is very playable early. You can also s-mod augmented drive field if you don't want to take bulk transport, or if you want to run militarized subsystem on atlas to avoid the sensor penalties.

I agree that dropping below burn 18 in sustained burn is pretty painful, and I never do that. I will just run 2 tugs and 8 burn ships with navigation to get to burn 20 most of the time.

[AcaMetis]

What I do is S-mod Insulated Engine Assembly and Efficiency Overhaul into my fleet of Atlas haulers, since it gives more bonus XP than S-modding more costly hullmods like Augmented Drive Field and the Atlas has enough OP to fit whatever two logistics hullmods I want it to fit. Expanded Cargo Holds I never bother with unless I also have Militarized, which I never do because Bulk Transport is amazing and I don't want my unarmed haulers to count against my combat ship skill limits, though apparently I might have to reconsider that stance if it really is less inefficient than I though...

[Specht]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I learned a lot and will make changes in the next playthrough (This is my first serious try to 'finish' the game though ).

So I will drop the Augmented Drive and Expanded Cargoholds but keep Military and add insulated engines to minimize the sensor profile. Along with Efficiency Overhaul ab Bulk Transport skill and the supply and fuel saving skills this should be what I wished for.

You guys are awesome.

[Maeleth]

While I agree capital ships will have more terrain penalties, slowing you down, and the logistics capitals have a max burn speed of 9 without skills, I don't see how it puts a dent in your supply/fuel economy.  Can you give an example?

Sure thing.
Say you got hit by a storm or an asteroid. Due to CR restoration mechanic you're going to pay dozens of supplies for Atlas, while smaller ships are much more manageable. Your burn speed became 15 inside a nebula? Now your whole fleet is going to reach its destinations a bit later, consuming more supplies and spending more on crew wages (not to mention your own sanity, flying at those speeds is bad for your health). Doesn't really happen with pure frigate/destroyer 10 base burn fleet. A-and you've spent precious SP on a ship you simply might not want later in the game. A-and let us not forget the Salvage Gantry. Free loot, anyone?

So, what about eventual combat scenarios? Got caught with your pants down and forced to retreat? Smaller ships are no problem, Buffalo/Phaeton with UI might stand a decent chance. But Atlas? Yeah, that thing is dead and gone. Really early into a playthrough Shepherds provide Salamander spam and basic PD/distraction, while later on you can simply repurpose them with converted hangar or even scuttle without a second thought. You have options. Atlas provides none, it's there to haul stuff. Stuff you might not even find, depending on your luck (for example, in may latest game I've found exactly one pile of precious loot, 1k volatiles and 1,5k transplutonics, in about 2 years of exploration).

In the end I'd say it's only a matter of personal preference. If trading doesn't bore you to tears - go for it, Atlas is great for its intended purpose. Otherwise there are far better options to play with.

[intrinsic_parity]

Shepherd gives 100 cargo for 3 supplies/month which is 33.3 cargo/spm. Atlas gives 2000 cargo for 10 spm, which is 200 cargo/spm. You spend 6x more in upkeep per unit of cargo (and 3.3x more efficient in cargo/fuel cost). You spend way more resources in upkeep on a shepherd, so the combat utility is the only thing that really justifies using it IMO. It does have some built in hullmods too, but you can get those on other ships that give you bigger bonuses so if I want those, I just use other ships (and using stuff like surveying equipment on cruisers or capitals gives a much larger bonus). The idea that you might want shepherd instead of literally any other cargo ship in late game makes no sense at all to me. It's very inefficient in terms of both supplies and fleet slots. As soon as it becomes a liability in combat, I ditch it. I wouldn't even consider using an s-mod on it.

I agree that taking an atlas before you have cruisers is probably not a good idea. I am looking to swap to atlas around the time I start running cruisers. But I usually get cruisers pretty early for combat purposes.

Personally, I don't play iron man, so I spend 0 time thinking about retreat scenarios. I also am careful to make sure my sensor stats are decent, so I pretty much never get surprised any more since I pretty much always see other fleets before they see me. 

I don't trade at all, but I still think atlas is by far the best cargo ship if you are running a cruiser centric (or larger) fleet. Otherwise, Buffalo/colossus are both at least 2x more efficient for cargo hauling than shepherd. Colossus gives bigger hullmod benefits, while buffalo is faster.

[Draba]

Personally, I don't play iron man, so I spend 0 time thinking about retreat scenarios. I also am careful to make sure my sensor stats are decent, so I pretty much never get surprised any more since I pretty much always see other fleets before they see me.

Same, sensor skill+having capital with hig res sensors/insulated engine assembly is very convenient for early game.

[Locklave]

I can't justify using SP on support ships.

What we need is the logistics hull mods cap removed, because the cap serves no actual function in the game but to make QoL support hull mods unavailable.

[Kriby]

I can't justify using SP on support ships.

What we need is the logistics hull mods cap removed, because the cap serves no actual function in the game but to make QoL support hull mods unavailable.

"I don't think installing more than two logistic hull mods is worth spending SP points"

"I want to be able to put on more than two logistic hull mods"

I can't really square these. The game is presenting you with an interesting choice that grew dynamically from the system interactions between hull mods and story points and the conclusion is there shouldn't be a choice proposed to begin with?

[Draba]

I can't justify using SP on support ships.

What we need is the logistics hull mods cap removed, because the cap serves no actual function in the game but to make QoL support hull mods unavailable.

Removing the cap wouldn't do much, if you refuse to S-mod non-combat ships they won't have enough OP for the dock only mods anyway.

[Locklave]

I can't justify using SP on support ships.

What we need is the logistics hull mods cap removed, because the cap serves no actual function in the game but to make QoL support hull mods unavailable.

"I don't think installing more than two logistic hull mods is worth spending SP points"

"I want to be able to put on more than two logistic hull mods"

I can't really square these. The game is presenting you with an interesting choice that grew dynamically from the system interactions between hull mods and story points and the conclusion is there shouldn't be a choice proposed to begin with?

What is there to square? Those mod don't get taken almost ever because of limited OP or specifically limited SP, the only ships with the OP can't take them because of the arbitrary limit. Those SP shouldn't have to be spent on secondary fleet bonuses, which are frankly minor, when the combat ships need them more for survival and fighting power.

The logistics limit exists for no reason. There is no balance argument that can be made for it continuing to enforce it.

I reject the hard choices need to be made argument here, just like I did for the last skills system. Choices like that should be required for balance, not just because games use systems like that.

[Hiruma Kai]

What is there to square? Those mod don't get taken almost ever because of limited OP or specifically limited SP, the only ships with the OP can't take them because of the arbitrary limit. Those SP shouldn't have to be spent on secondary fleet bonuses, which are frankly minor, when the combat ships need them more for survival and fighting power.

The logistics limit exists for no reason. There is no balance argument that can be made for it continuing to enforce it.

I am perhaps misinterpreting your statement, so please correct me, but it sounds like to me that you're implying there are no balance considerations for the campaign and navigation layer.  I'm pretty sure a giant profile, low sensor range, and low burn fleet (a fleet with all civilian tags and no mitigating hull mods for example), is going to be found and caught by hostile fleets more often than a small profile, high sensor range, high burn fleet.  Especially if neither has transverse jump.

The number of logistic hullmods you can place your logistics train directly affects how large that logistics portion of the fleet needs to be (translating potentially into more slots for combat ships out of the 30 soft cap), or alternatively increasing profits for a lower investment and running cost, as well as those 3 campaign map statistics which determine how often you have to engage in fights you don't want.

You can keep your fleet's profile small and burn at 10 by using 26 hounds for 1950 cargo space, limiting you to 4 combat ships, or you can use an Atlas for 2000 cargo space, at the cost of dropping to burn 6 with a 150 or more increase in the fleet profile, but allowing 29 other combat ships.  That is an extreme, but real potential comparison of fleet setups.  Logistics mods then directly affect those numbers.

While I can see being what the ideal balance point being hard to pin down quantitatively, I do see there is a balance to at least be considered.  If a 15 Atlas, 15 Prometheus fleet was as fast and hard to detect as an all phase frigate fleet, then I would agree the logistics hull mod limit exists for no reason.  But there is a multidimensional continuum of campaign stats that logistics hull mods move ships in different directions on, and by limiting hull mods, you are restricting how far you can move from the initial starting point, which looks like a balance consideration to me.  In the same way that OP limits combat ship stats all going up to the max as well.

[Wyvern]

I mean, the Atlas is... okay, I guess? And kinda mandatory to pick up a few if you end up wanting to activate one of the star tap thingies, since - for some reason - you have to ship all of the materials at once.

But personally, I'll take a pack of Revenants.

[SCC]

Removing the cap wouldn't do much, if you refuse to S-mod non-combat ships they won't have enough OP for the dock only mods anyway.

Freighters will, actually, especially if they aren't using ADF. Tankers have more OP in general, so you can get about 5 hullmods on them. At that point, though, just buff spreadsheet ships by 30% and remove Civilian Hull, Militarised Subsystems and all +30% cargo/fuel/crew hullmods. Same effect, less clicking.