Print

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

[Bungee_man]

The Eagle has gotten a lot of discussion, recently. Updates took it from a fairly underwhelming ship to one that's genuinely capable, and can leverage missiles, energy weapons, and kinetic weapons in some effective combinations. It's an early/mid-game flagship on par with any other, and can be better than a non-SO Aurora for that purpose.

However, I'm still not convinced it can pull its weight in an endgame fight. People are talking it up quite a bit, but it's a lot of DP for something that ultimately doesn't have the range or finishing power of a capital ship, especially in AI hands. Do people use them against double ordos with any degree of effectiveness? Are two of them worth more than another Onslaught, Executor, or Legion? If so, do you outfit them in a support role and hope that they do enough to justify their cost, or is there a set of weapons that gets their DPS high enough to put down the highly-aggressive Remnant ships before they close in and overwhelm you?

[Lawrence Master-blaster]

Whoa, you can't just call people out and demand evidence like that.

[Selfcontrol]

People are talking it up quite a bit, but it's a lot of DP for something that ultimately doesn't have the range or finishing power of a capital ship, especially in AI hands.

This problem isn't an Eagle problem. It's a shared problem between all cruisers. Why bring a Dominator when an Onslaught is a bigger and meaner Dominator ? Or an Eradicator ? Or a Fury when there's the Odyssey ? Etc.

By bringing a cruiser against Ordos (or any fleet, really), you always downgrade the effectiveness of your fleet. Capital ships spam is currently the most effective strategy and I think we all know that.

Nevertheless, Starsector currently doesn't have a hard enough endgame content that justifies not bringing cruisers. You can use cruisers and beat the game without any problem. You will only struggle if you decide to do self-imposed challenges like beating an obscene number of Ordos at the same time.

If so, do you outfit them in a support role and hope that they do enough to justify their cost, or is there a set of weapons that gets their DPS high enough to put down the highly-aggressive Remnant ships before they close in and overwhelm you?

I very much like the Eagle, but I always build them for support (although I do give them enough firepower so that they can kill ennemies). I use 3 HAC for good kinetic DPS and then 1 Ion Beam and 2 Phase Lances. Between ITU, Advanced Optics and an aggressive doctrine or officer, the range mismatch is not a problem imo.

My Eagles rarely die, which is something that I like. With 60 base speed and maneuvering jets, they are mobile enough to not be surrounded by Remnants (it does happen, but it's rare). They do kill Remnants, but it takes time since Phase Lances DPS isn't great. But unlike Eradicators, or Dominators or Furies, I like that I don't have to micromanage them all the time : I can actually focus on my flagship (I pilot my flagship myself).

I tend to deploy between 2 and 3 Eagles (they are my favorite cruiser) depending on the fleet I wanna build. Do note that I always put an aggressive Officer on them with Elite Helmsmanship and Elite Impact Mitigation for maximum speed and maneuverability.

Didn't have any trouble clearing up to 3 stacked Ordos. They clearly didn't kill as much Remnants as my capital ships, but I consider their job to be accomplished : they killed a reasonable amount of Remnants, they didn't die, they captured or re-captured objectives and they kept a good chunk of the Remnants occupied. However, I agree that anything bigger or harder would force to me put the Eagles aside and take instead another capital ship (or a SO Aurora but that thing is overpowered).

[Bungee_man]

This problem isn't an Eagle problem. It's a shared problem between all cruisers. Why bring a Dominator when an Onslaught is a bigger and meaner Dominator ? Or an Eradicator ? Or a Fury when there's the Odyssey ? Etc.

By bringing a cruiser against Ordos (or any fleet, really), you always downgrade the effectiveness of your fleet. Capital ships spam is currently the most effective strategy and I think we all know that.

That does seem true. I wonder if the next update will buff cruisers the way EP buffed destroyers. I wonder, given their cost and relatively slow speed, if giving cruisers the full benefit of EP wouldn't be reasonable.

Didn't have any trouble clearing up to 3 stacked Ordos. They clearly didn't kill as much Remnants as my capital ships, but I consider their job to be accomplished : they killed a reasonable amount of Remnants, they didn't die, they captured or re-captured objectives and they kept a good chunk of the Remnants occupied. However, I agree that anything bigger or harder would force to me put the Eagles aside and take instead another capital ship (or a SO Aurora but that thing is overpowered).

Interesting. 3 HAC, an ion beam for suppression, and 2 lances for raw damage, plus an aggressive officer. That does sound formidable.

[Mishrak]

This problem isn't an Eagle problem. It's a shared problem between all cruisers. Why bring a Dominator when an Onslaught is a bigger and meaner Dominator ? Or an Eradicator ? Or a Fury when there's the Odyssey ? Etc.

By bringing a cruiser against Ordos (or any fleet, really), you always downgrade the effectiveness of your fleet. Capital ships spam is currently the most effective strategy and I think we all know that.

Completely agree.  There's little reason to field a cruiser when Capitals are as strong as they are and escort Sunders and Manticores exist.  Eagles don't do anything better than these or anything else.  The only reason you field cruisers is because you want to.

I don't think anyone's even arguing that an Eagle is good.  But they can function and contribute even against ordos.  They need support, you can't mono fleet them.  Fielding more than one feels like a mistake every time.

[PixiCode]

Cruisers aren’t in an awful spot. They don’t stack with other cruisers particularly well (I’m not even sure it’s a good idea to spam just Auroras) but they go well when mixed in small numbers with other fleets. Some number between 1-4 seems like a generally good tactic for most cruisers.

HMG Eagle

[close]

As far as Eagle goes for ordo fights, I personally only use Eagle as a close range DP-efficient for firepower weapon platform. If I want long range support on a cruiser I’ll use an Eradicator or a Falcon. The most recent build I’ve tested shown above, it got 64 pro rata DP in a ~720 DP remnant battle in a fleet that wasn’t fully optimized.

It was the only cruiser in the fleet. It used Pegasus, Eagle, Medusa and Omen. The 3 Pegasus (Pegasi?) were the only ships that got more pro rata DP, at ~110 average or so.

That’s acceptable performance for ordo fighting imo.

[Selfcontrol]

Interesting. 3 HAC, an ion beam for suppression, and 2 lances for raw damage, plus an aggressive officer. That does sound formidable.

The 3 HAC and the Ion Beam are the "core" weapons of this build. 3 HAC bring lots of kinetic DPS against most Remnants and the Ion Beam pierces shields when the ennemy is at high flux. Since the Phase Lances are burst weapons, disabling the ennemy's weapons / engines is very useful because it allows the Eagle to safely use its Phase Lances multiple times against the same ennemy and at a somewhat close range safely. I also find the Ion Beam to be really good at supporting the inevitable capital ship vs Radiant fight.

It also allows the Eagle to somehow "kite" and face multiple ennemies. The most common example I see is one Eagle against 3 Remnants (like 1 Apex and 2 Brilliants). One Brilliant charges, the Eagle disables it with a Ion Beam while starting to maneuver in a more comfortable position, the other Brilliant charges and is also disabled while the Apex keeps lagging behind them. Now the Eagle faces 3 disorganized Remnants and picks them off one at a time while being always on the move thanks to Maneuvering Jets + Elite Helmsmanship and Elite Impact Mitigation.

Its time-to-kill is not fast by any mean, but the Eagle will safely kills them (and it will instantly kill a Remnant frigate the moment it comes too close) without my help or any kind of micromanagement.

This Eagle build is really a "fire and forget" build but that's what I like about it.

[BigBrainEnergy]

Long range cruisers are most effective in larger numbers, where multiple ships can concentrate fire on a single target.

sniper eagle

[close]

[Cryovolcanic]

Draba posted a cool Eagle (kinetic/autolance)+Apogee (HIL) duofleet that did quite well against Ordos. All cruisers were positioned in a line, alternating between Eagles and Apogees.

[PixiCode]

Long range cruisers are most effective in larger numbers, where multiple ships can concentrate fire on a single target.

sniper eagle

[close]

Using too many long range cruisers, at least against Ordos, leads to kiting the enemy to the edge of the map and then exploding from low dps. Capital ships have similar or superior range and also much better DPS concentration on one target as well. The biggest reason for this is probably because only so many long range ships can hit the same target due to allied hitboxes and how the ai on both sides usually spreads out. You can get the enemy to clump up but that requires certain things to be met. Hydra tends to make the enemy cower at a distance at first glance, so that could potentially be used to make longer range builds more effective. Squalls and harpoons also do this.  Even at capital ranges I rarely see more than 3 ships shoot at the same target. Having those 3 ships be capitals is very useful compared to 3 cruisers.

[BigBrainEnergy]

Using too many long range cruisers, at least against Ordos, leads to kiting the enemy to the edge of the map and then exploding from low dps.

I don't find this happens if the ships are well built. They have lower DPS on paper, but the longer range means their guns have better uptime than other weapons.

[PixiCode]

Not for cruisers.

1000 X 1.4 =1,400 for rather low dps weapons

Vs

900 X 1.6 =1,440 for higher dps weapons

It’s not that dps is all important, it’s just that capitals do it better - though I’ve specifically seen using too many long range eagles last only as long as their missiles are, if they use good missiles at any rate.

I feel like Falcons do what long range eagles do but for better DP efficiency as well, does anyone else feel that way?

[Pizzarugi]

This problem isn't an Eagle problem. It's a shared problem between all cruisers. Why bring a Dominator when an Onslaught is a bigger and meaner Dominator ? Or an Eradicator ? Or a Fury when there's the Odyssey ? Etc.

By bringing a cruiser against Ordos (or any fleet, really), you always downgrade the effectiveness of your fleet. Capital ships spam is currently the most effective strategy and I think we all know that.

Completely agree.  There's little reason to field a cruiser when Capitals are as strong as they are and escort Sunders and Manticores exist.  Eagles don't do anything better than these or anything else.  The only reason you field cruisers is because you want to.

I don't think anyone's even arguing that an Eagle is good.  But they can function and contribute even against ordos.  They need support, you can't mono fleet them.  Fielding more than one feels like a mistake every time.

I mean, one good reason to want to field cruisers instead of capitols is because you want to make full use of your 8-10 officers. Considering you have a 240 DP limit, sporting a ton of capitols means most officer-piloted ships won't ever see battle outside of taking on 5 ordos at once or something. And let's not forget to mention that any skills you use which scale based on your combined combat ship DP value is practically useless.

If capitol-only is a meta fleet, then it sounds like capitols need to be nerfed. If we buff cruisers, then destroyers and frigates are worthless (or at least moreso than they already are).

[PixiCode]

This problem isn't an Eagle problem. It's a shared problem between all cruisers. Why bring a Dominator when an Onslaught is a bigger and meaner Dominator ? Or an Eradicator ? Or a Fury when there's the Odyssey ? Etc.

By bringing a cruiser against Ordos (or any fleet, really), you always downgrade the effectiveness of your fleet. Capital ships spam is currently the most effective strategy and I think we all know that.

Completely agree.  There's little reason to field a cruiser when Capitals are as strong as they are and escort Sunders and Manticores exist.  Eagles don't do anything better than these or anything else.  The only reason you field cruisers is because you want to.

I don't think anyone's even arguing that an Eagle is good.  But they can function and contribute even against ordos.  They need support, you can't mono fleet them.  Fielding more than one feels like a mistake every time.

I mean, one good reason to want to field cruisers instead of capitols is because you want to make full use of your 8-10 officers. Considering you have a 240 DP limit, sporting a ton of capitols means most officer-piloted ships won't ever see battle outside of taking on 5 ordos at once or something. And let's not forget to mention that any skills you use which scale based on your combined combat ship DP value is practically useless.

If capitol-only is a meta fleet, then it sounds like capitols need to be nerfed. If we buff cruisers, then destroyers and frigates are worthless (or at least moreso than they already are).

Frigates are not worthless and more destroyers became very potent once escort package was added.

I don’t know what exactly the meta is since it requires defining what the ‘effective result’ for a ‘most effective tactic available’ is. Whether we’re taking about speed of getting to level 15 and lots of money asap, killing bounties the fastest, killing remnant the fastest, killing the most remnant in one go, stuff like that. Capitals are definetively in a good spot right now, at least.

[BigBrainEnergy]

I feel like Falcons do what long range eagles do but for better DP efficiency as well, does anyone else feel that way?

I don't have any evidence to back this up, but I agree it does feel that way.