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 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 22

Author Topic: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic  (Read 17078 times)

Harmful Mechanic

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
  • On break.
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #105 on: December 05, 2022, 02:22:53 PM »

I think a little more speed on the Eagle  - up to 60 from 50, say - isn't that big a deal; it's still slower, but now you can actually get that firepower places to apply it. Given the design of the Falcon and Eagle, they're always going to feel really similar; this way, they're at least both useful.

If you felt nitpicky, the Eagle could get a -10 additional speed version of Maneuvering Jets (or, it could be charge based, with the the Eagle's version getting two charges and the Falcon's getting three). Lots of options for keeping them differentiated.

On the other hand, I feel like just dropping DP cost makes the Eagle less useful to the player overall; the problem with the low base speed is that it shortens the window of time when you'll want to use an Eagle at all (since if you're grabbing 'a slow midline cruiser', later on you'll almost always have the Champion as an option, or you'll be doing your heavy hitting with the Pegasus or Herons), while a faster 'generalist' heavy cruiser can be shoehorned into a lot of fleet comps.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #106 on: December 05, 2022, 02:38:50 PM »

Hmm. Arguably, a significant DP reduction is more significant later on, not less, no? A 17-point Eagle vs a Champion is a 7 point difference, etc.
Logged

ForestFighters

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #107 on: December 05, 2022, 03:01:39 PM »

There is still the problem of the Falcon + Monitor combo doing everything the Eagle wants to but better. Yeah, with a 16-18-point Eagle it costs 2-4 DP more, but that is a small price to pay, and you get two ships that do things outside of holding the line.
Logged

Harmful Mechanic

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
  • On break.
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #108 on: December 05, 2022, 03:05:26 PM »

Yeah, but no amount of cost discounting is going to make up for a ship that doesn't feel useful on the field; if it's there in the game mainly for flavor, that's okay, but if it's part of a system where everything feels useful, not just in a by-cost sense but in the sense of actually having in-game synergistic capabilities (IE, fulfilling the classic cruiser role of being a fast, independent vessel with significant, though sub-capital, firepower), then there are breakpoints where no cost discount will make up for falling on one side of a breakpoint or not.

Even at 18 or 17 DP, I'd probably still take the Falcon; it's even cheaper, and even faster - and since neither one can stand up to a capital ship, I prefer the one that can run away better, hunt destroyers and frigates better.

I'm going to be a huge dork and quote Alfred Thayer Mahan on armored cruisers:

Quote
By giving this tonnage to armor and armament you have taken it from other uses; either from increasing her own speed and endurance, or from providing another cruiser. You have in her more cruiser than she ought to have and less armored vessel, or less cruiser and more armored ship.

If the Eagle stays at 50 speed, you could up-armor it, and get... well, the same species of disappointment you get in the Dominator, a classic 'armored cruiser' design. It's slow and clumsy for a cruiser, and it's still not quite capable of facing down a battleship. The Eagle is more like the interwar 'treaty cruiser'; a heavy cruiser with precisely limited armament.

Closing the speed gap would make the Eagle more generally-useful at cruiser tasks, while keeping it slow just makes it an also-ran, no matter how discounted.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2022, 04:10:46 PM by Harmful Mechanic »
Logged

llama

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #109 on: December 05, 2022, 03:38:03 PM »

Along the same lines as the 3 Falcon vs 2 Eagle comparison, 2 Eagle vs 1 Conquest suggests to me that the Eagle is too close in speed to its capital counterpart: trading 5 speed for large and medium missiles, large ballistics and capital-grade ITU is a much better deal than trading 30 speed for similar mounts and flux
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #110 on: December 05, 2022, 04:04:49 PM »

Please tell us about the HBL buff!
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #111 on: December 05, 2022, 04:08:06 PM »

I'll save that for the patch notes; those aren't too too far off :D
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #112 on: December 05, 2022, 04:35:49 PM »

I'll save that for the patch notes; those aren't too too far off :D

Spoiler
[close]
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #113 on: December 05, 2022, 04:44:13 PM »

So, I dusted off the old AI Battles mod and previously used variants, along with the fleet files I ran back in August, and did another round of Falcons vs Eagles, this time assuming a 17 DP price point for the Eagle, and a 700 base flux dissipation.

Core fleet:
Conquest (Elite variant)
2 Gryphons (1 Hypervelocity Driver, 1 Hurricane, 2 Harpoon Pods, 3 Sabot, 3 Vulcans, ITU, ECCM, 14 vents, 14 caps)
5 Centurions (Assault variant with missiles swapped to Harpoons)

The core fleet was combined with either:
5 Eagles (3 Heavy Autocannons, 1 Ion Beam, 2 Heavy Burst Laser, 2 PD Laser, 2 Swarmer, ITU, Stabilized Shield, 30 Vents, 23 Caps)
or
6 Falcons (2 Heavy Autocannons, 1 Ion Beam, 1 Heavy Burst Laser, 2 PD Laser, 2 Swarmer, ITU, 30 Vents, 23 Caps)

and sent against each other in the AI Battles (version 13) mod.  All personalities set to aggressive.  5*17 = 85 DP versus 6*14=84 DP, so nominally 185 DP vs 184 DP.

Yes, these aren't the best fits, but since it's almost a mirror match it probably not an issue, and along the lines I was asked to run back in August.

Results were:
Eagles won (2 Eagle, 2 Gryphons, 5 Centurions lost)
Eagles won (no losses)
Falcons won (4 Falcons, 2 Centurions lost)
Falcons won (1 Falcon, 1 Centurion lost)

That looks like AI piloting variation to me, which is a good sign.  At least in a full fleet context, 17 DP looks like it would work.  Probably should play around with some other cruisers and fits.  18 DP might be OK as well, especially when comparing to something like a Champion with less universally effective large missile options.  But 17 DP looks to be in the ballpark to me.

At that point, what that 30 speed loss is getting you is about 20% more flux dissipation and 25% more guns over Falcons.  Still doesn't make we want to pilot them early game because of the speed, but assuming a proportional drop in credit cost, I could at least see picking them up as a 3rd or 4th cruiser or something.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2022, 04:47:05 PM by Hiruma Kai »
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #114 on: December 05, 2022, 04:56:14 PM »

Thank you for running that test, very cool! It's currently set to 17, so, *thumbs up*.

As far as getting it as a first cruiser: it definitely doesn't feel like a ship you'd want to pilot yourself. I could maybe see picking it up - on the relative cheap - to be an anchor while you pilot some kind of destroyer but, yeah, at that point you're less DP-limited, if at all, so it's just about the supply cost saving, and being cheaper to buy.
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #115 on: December 05, 2022, 05:50:37 PM »

How the mighty have fallen...22 DP down to 17 now. Not gonna lie, this wasn't the outcome I was hoping for...

That said, there's the issue of Burn speed. If it stays at Burn 8, you're going to have the liability of an inferior line cruiser and it's going to slow your fleet down so that superior Cruisers can catch you. I think the Eagle could really stand out in this new, cheaper version if it was Burn 9 along with the Falcon. It might not be fast on the battlefield but it doesn't slow your Destroyer fleet down and it could be a poor-man's line cruiser during mid-game.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #116 on: December 05, 2022, 05:52:04 PM »

I often want to pilot Eagle because its looks and weapons are cool, except it sucks to fly.
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #117 on: December 05, 2022, 06:01:12 PM »

A line cruiser costing less DP than a light cruiser (Fury) and fast cruiser (Eradiator) honestly feels... wrong. Yes the Fury is high-tech and the Eradicator isn't "light" but... it just ain't right.

Feels like the Eagle got done dirty, instead of being a proper line cruiser feels like we're just acknowledging it is a failed product and are putting it on discount, "clearance sale 23% off all stocks must go!"
Logged

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #118 on: December 05, 2022, 10:34:08 PM »

17 DP Eagle? That's great, now we can compare it directly with Eradicator P, wich has:

 - base speed as high as Eagle using Maneouvering Jets
 - Burn Drive on top of that
 - two more small ballistics and three more small missile slots all neatly pointed towards the enemy
 - base burn of 9
 - red space camo drip instead of Eagle's cheap puke green paint(then if you put Graviton Beams on it... yuck)
Logged

Pratapon51

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Eagle and (base) Falcon remain anemic
« Reply #119 on: December 05, 2022, 10:43:38 PM »

17 DP Eagle? That's great, now we can compare it directly with Eradicator P, wich has:

 - base speed as high as Eagle using Maneouvering Jets
 - Burn Drive on top of that
 - two more small ballistics and three more small missile slots all neatly pointed towards the enemy
 - base burn of 9
 - red space camo drip instead of Eagle's cheap puke green paint(then if you put Graviton Beams on it... yuck)

Hey man, I agree, but it's really more of a luxurious bronze...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 22