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] 3

Author Topic: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader  (Read 4453 times)

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2023, 06:39:55 PM »

Huh, yeah the 2 slot destroyer number of reloads is odd. It seems to break the pattern of the other sizes by being so low.
Logged

IonDragonX

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2023, 07:37:09 PM »

Huh, yeah the 2 slot destroyer number of reloads is odd. It seems to break the pattern of the other sizes by being so low.
I agree. Seems like 6 capacity would make more logical sense.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2023, 08:25:01 PM »

Has always seemed to me that the standard number of small missile mounts for frigates and destroyers is two, hence why two-mount destroyers do not get extra ammo from MA.
Logged

BaBosa

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2023, 08:26:34 PM »

Hey Alex, how hard would it to make MA check for small missile weapons at the beginning of combat rather than looking only for missile mounts? And then give ammo to small missiles on synergy/composite/universal mounts.

As it is, MA doesn’t seem like it has a lot of ships it could be used on. For me it’d only really be tempest and falcon (P) and occasionally omen, falcon, eagle venture and centurion. That’s really only 2-7 ships that will really see it.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2023, 08:46:40 PM »

IMO that's fine; it also opens up the design space a bit meaning you might see e.g. a 1-missile-mount destroyer at some point.

It's very intentionally counting mounts rather than weapons. If it's weapons, you get some odd dynamics like all of a sudden it's a bad idea to fill your missile slots since you get less missiles if you do, you can beat out/match EMR on ammo for less OP, etc.
Logged

CapnHector

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1056
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2023, 09:15:43 PM »

Has always seemed to me that the standard number of small missile mounts for frigates and destroyers is two, hence why two-mount destroyers do not get extra ammo from MA.

The question about the pattern of numbers is why do destroyers get more ammo from MA if they have 1 missile slot than frigates if they have 1 missile slot, but otherwise destroyers get the same amount as frigates, while other ship sizes get more even if they have very many missile slots. That is, why is it for 1 slot/2 slots/3 slots/4slots 6/4/4/4 for frigates and 9/4/4/4 for destroyers (and not 9/6/6/6). Destroyer is easily thr worst size category in the game anyway so seems like a weird balance thing but most importantly ugly number sequences when breaks 2d pattern.
Logged
5 ships vs 5 Ordos: Executor · Invictus · Paragon · Astral · Legion · Onslaught · Odyssey | Video LibraryHiruma Kai's Challenge

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2023, 11:53:18 PM »

Haha I agree with you on the pattern, but I think destroyers are the best size category based on how I use them, followed closely by capitals and frigates, with cruisers a looong way behind the other two. Though I do like Herons and Gryphons for endgame.
Logged

CapnHector

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1056
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2023, 12:14:24 AM »

How do you use them? Is there a situation where you really wish you had specifically an Enforcer or a Hammerhead or a Sunder unless your specific goal trying to make those ships work somehow? Like in early game they are fine but you'd probably still rather have a bigger ship.

The main thing about destroyers is that they're less mobile than frigates but do not have the firepower or range to compensate. The Medusa seems kind of okay (maybe that is just because I don't really have experience of using it this version, but at least I've seen some people advocating for it) but other than that it seems like

- if you want these ships to fight, then why would you ever run Enforcer over Eradicator or Sunder over Champion when the latter give you range and firepower and durability and also require fewer officers and slots in your fleet?

- and on the other hand, if you want mobile ships that can still contribute to a fight then why would you run the destroyers over Scarab, Tempest, Hyperion and Brawler (LP) when these ships are more mobile and can also duel larger ships better than the destroyers can? Not to even mention the Afflictor vs Harbinger comparison.

Can't say I've even given them much of a chance though so maybe I'm wrong, definitely open to hearing about what I've missed.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 12:18:32 AM by CapnHector »
Logged
5 ships vs 5 Ordos: Executor · Invictus · Paragon · Astral · Legion · Onslaught · Odyssey | Video LibraryHiruma Kai's Challenge

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2023, 12:45:39 AM »

I have the same experience as CapnHector, destroyers also get the short end of the stick from skills, more than any other class (which is totally fine).

Only destroyers I used in end game fleets are Manticores (I look at them as safer Sunders), and Shrikes (clean up crew or pursuit duty).

If I were to rank hull sizes based on effectiveness it would probably look like Capitals > Cruisers and Frigates > Destroyers. Obviously there's a ton of exceptions but this would be a general order.

And I honestly don't think destroyers losing out on MA is a big deal. Destroyers usually have a lot of guns for their size, usually focusing on non-missile weaponry, and even if there's a missile focused one, you'd probably run it with EMR since the mounts it would have will probably not go well with MA. It's a nice option for some cruisers and frigates because their small missiles usually don't make a huge impact like those more focused on more missile mounts.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2023, 01:05:08 AM »

Thirding the opinion about destroyers, they just have no place in endgame fights unless you want to count un-destroyers like Condor or Drover(and hopefully next patch, Harbinger)

Frigates are kind of needed to quickly capture objectives, can dodge incoming fire because they're small targets that move fast, and have enough speed advantage so that their significantly shorter range doesn't matter as much because they can get in and get out quickly. Destroyers do none of these things, they exist in that weird "middle ground" that doesn't really work either way.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2023, 01:09:25 AM »

Yup! I consider Enforcers, Hammerheads, and Sunders all good ships in AI hands (though enforcers are a bit slow for early game) that I take rather than cruisers. Destroyers for me are a high offense usage of DP with "good enough" mobility to either avoid or swarm enemy capital ships and heavy cruisers, while keeping busy/killing all the smaller things themselves. They are tough enough to take limited capital fire and numerous enough to not get swarmed by frigates. In terms of range, they actually have much longer range than frigates. I'd expect a basic "mid range" hammerhead (mortars and railguns) to have 840 range, while a long ranged one has a mixture of 1200 and 840 range weapons (officers boost that up to 25% of course). A midrange sunder has 840 range, while a long range HIL build has 1200-1400 (before officer if applicable). Both of them have damage systems as well.

In terms of if I'd take a destroyer over a "high performance" frigate like a Hyperion/Scarab/phase: it really depends on my fleet/skill build. If I can afford to go into both tech and leadership enough for wolfpack, more officers, additional flux (and phase skill for the phase ones), and if I train up an officer with the right skills, then I think those frigates can usually do better. Often times I don't want those skills, or want my officers for different ships (or haven't trained them), or if I need the ships to escort capitals, or if I want to engage a station, then I would want destroyers. One way I build has officered frigates as my hunters, officered capitals as the anchors, and unofficered destroyers as the "infantry", where in effect I'm choosing both high performance frigates and destroyers, only the destroyers don't need any skill or officer investment to be valuable ships.

In terms of comparison to cruisers, I would take 2 Enforcers over 1 Eradicator, or 2 Sunders over a Champion in most situations just because the destroyers bring more bang for the DP buck. I think that Herons have a niche as the fastest carriers and Gryphons have a niche as missile spammers (though conquests nearly do the job as well per DP while being more officer efficient and also bringing serious gun power). Destroyers tend to have less defenses than cruisers per DP, but they also take less damage and are more mobile, and with numbers comes serial venting, so I don't really see them dying much more either. They also tend to be a lot cheaper!

While I see a niche for destroyers, I don't see one for cruisers: if I'm taking a slow cruiser that can't get away from an enemy swarm effectively, why not take a capital? To me they fill the same role, but better. Like the Dominator: I like the Dominator as a ship and feel it's not in a bad place power wise... but if I'm bringing a Dominator, I can afford to bring an Onslaught and do the job better. Same for Conquests obsoleting a bunch of the speedier/missile heavy cruisers. So I tend to gravitate towards ~3 capitals, leaving 5-7 officers (possibly + AI cores) free for smaller ship classes. Cruisers don't make the cut in terms of providing either numbers or efficient firepower. They are too much of an investment to serve as an escort, but are vulnerable to swarming so can't really operate independently either.

I think if I liked capitals less, I could see myself running a wide cruiser fleet (say 8 officered cruisers + a supporting frigate contingent). There is a stage of the game though (say taking a ~100DP fleet up against the first capital ships or against a luddic path swarm) where I'd be apprehensive about using just 1 or 2 cruisers (unless I got lucky and found like a Doom or Aurora for me to pilot). The whole "too slow to run, too weak to fight" thing.

For endgame, the main consideration is Radiants, as they are the only enemy that can catch and pop a destroyer fast. Thats mainly a case of where I need to be on the ball in terms of my orders: holding back the destroyers until I've let the capitals engage the radiants first and then letting them move in and flank when the radiants are fluxed up some. I'd expect an unofficered destroyer to be able to hold off an alpha core AI destroyer, and an officered destroyer to be able to hold off an alpha core brilliant - though a burst of missiles can swing both those fights in either direction based on situation.

In terms of builds: the classic HIL Sunder with 2 gravitons (or 1 graviton + 1 ion), the mid ranged Hammerhead Mortars + railguns (or the mixed Mortar + Arbalest + railgun + light assault gun), the long ranged Hammerhead (HVD's + railguns), and either a mid ranged assault enforcer (Heavy needler + 2 heavy mortars), and the long ranged escort Enforcer (HVD's + flaks, harpoons instead of reapers), all just work. You can throw them into nearly any fleet and get value out of them in any stage of the game.

Yeesh that turned long!
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 01:12:22 AM by Thaago »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2023, 01:34:25 AM »

I was so confused reading that, constantly thinking "how the hell does he arrange his officers?"... until I read the part about 3 capitals on average. Yeah that's just a different playstyle in the end.

Not sure how the sentence "I can afford a capital" when looking at cruisers is fair, since on average capitals are at least 20 DP more expensive, that's 2 whole destroyers for you! Although if I picture a 3 Conquest fleet in my head, I can kinda see you not needing cruisers.

Anyways I'm most curious about those mid range Hammerheads, how do you keep them alive in end game? I know they're pretty darn good ships but they crumble against Luddic Path and Remnants.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

CapnHector

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1056
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2023, 02:35:20 AM »

Thanks for explaining it! I do agree with you that capitals largely obsolete cruisers. Specifically Conquest brings so much more firepower per DP while also having good mobility that I do not see why you would take Champions (or any other cruiser for that matter, other than possibly Gryphon for its system) over it, and why would you take Dominators over Onslaughts at all. I guess the former are tougher per DP though.

In my mind it has been generally capitals > frigates > cruisers > destroyers in order of desirability. I suppose it is partly how you think about it: I haven't tested but I would bet a mono-cruiser fleet of Champions would work better than a destroyer fleet of anything in an endgame fight (I know cruiser fleets of the higher quality cruisers do well vs Remnants from Vanshilar's testing but can't imagine a fleet of destroyers being able to do so, since it seems like they would pop like bubbles due to being unable to run like SO frigates). This is a very viable order for building up your fleet too, for example "acquire one Conquest somehow, add whatever cheap ships you happen to find to support it" is a very good game plan to warp straight to the endgame.

However, I suppose the argument is that they can work as well as frigates as support for capitals, so taking some destroyers instead of one more capital or taking some destroyers instead of some more frigates is okay?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 02:42:50 AM by CapnHector »
Logged
5 ships vs 5 Ordos: Executor · Invictus · Paragon · Astral · Legion · Onslaught · Odyssey | Video LibraryHiruma Kai's Challenge

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2023, 03:31:32 AM »

Yeesh that turned long!

It's been a while since I had a "are we playing the same game" feeling when reading the forums.

I don't know what "swarming" is. My current endgame fleet is four Afflictors, four Conquests and two Herons. This is as little as 4 ships holding the line and I never get "swarmed". If the enemy has more ships than usual(Pirates, Pathers) then by rules of deployment they must be weaker than usual so they will just die faster and the problem solves itself. And in case capitals don't count, I once ran a monofleet of 10 Eradicators and nothing else and I also never had problems with "swarming".

Destroyers bring more bang for DP buck than cruisers but only in theory. Officers are a heavily limited resource, you can only have up to 8-10 of them(not counting Automated Ships) so you usually want them to sit in the most impactful(=biggest) ships possible, which destroyers are not. My example fleet has whooping four capitals and I still don't have enough officers to cover everything - the two Herons are empty.

Another advantage for cruisers is hullmod scaling. ITU on a destroyer is a 20% extra range, on a cruiser it's 40%. That is a pretty big difference given how important "am I in range of enemy guns" is for AI behaviour. And who knows if you can even afford the ITU on a destroyer in the first place since they tend to be a lot more tight on OP than cruisers are(This is one of the reasons why I always half-joked that Falcons are the best destroyers in the game)

I find the statement that destroyers "take less damage" than cruisers completely incomprehensible. How can they take less damage when they spend more time in range of enemy weapons? Same with the idea that a cruiser "can't operate independently". If a cruiser can't do that then a destroyer which has significantly less everything definitely can't do it either.

Finally I find it funny how you readily admit that against Radiants you need to hold your destroyers back and, essentially, let your capitals face the entire enemy fleet all on their own for a while. I mean... if your capitals can do that then the destroyers in your fleet are basically just salad dressing, are they not? Might as well get rid of them and get another capital, free some officers for other ships.
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: I have a couple questions about the Missile Autoloader
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2023, 03:54:05 AM »

None of the classes are ever obsolete for me - they just change roles as the game progresses.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3