Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21)

Author Topic: The Buffalo (freighter, not Mk. 2)  (Read 2279 times)

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
The Buffalo (freighter, not Mk. 2)
« on: June 09, 2013, 01:05:45 PM »

With CR and LR becoming important, I thought it was a good idea to take a look at non-combat ships. Something stood out as a bit odd. The Tarsus is straight up better than the Buffalo in almost every way, and it's cheaper. I think it's also more readily available as well (EDIT: according to the description, the Buffalo should be fairly common due to the prevalence of its blueprints). Apparently the Buffalo's engines are the main contributor to its cost (EDIT: according to the description), but it's really not much better than the alternatives. In fact, the Tarsus' burn drive would make it safer to have in case of an escape scenario.

I feel like the Buffalo's cargo capacity should be higher (350-500 maybe) or it should be a bit cheaper, since it really doesn't offer anything that the Tarsus doesn't do better. Alternatively, you could make those expensive engines worth the price tag. The Buffalo stands out as the one high-tech ship (assuming based on its blue color) that's almost universally worse than its lower-tech counterparts.


EDIT 2: Just thought this was interesting- with the changes to fighters, a lot of them are starting to look pretty dangerous. Warthogs and Gladius wings in particular actually have a lot more firepower than I thought, since I never really used them before. Seeing them kinda make me want to see a high-tech assault fighter wing in the same vein as the Warthogs (a high-tech fighter that actually deals hard flux damage).
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 02:59:42 PM by naufrago »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: The Buffalo (freighter, not Mk. 2)
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2013, 02:45:31 PM »

Maybe. The buffalo has much better fuel efficiency, we can't say yet if that will make it worth it. I'm pretty sure ship prices are far from final, though.

Regarding the lore, the Tarsus is a heavy duty military freighter, the Buffalo a cheaply produced civilian freighter. I think that's enough to explain why the older ship is better.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Talkie Toaster

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Buffalo (freighter, not Mk. 2)
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2013, 03:05:54 PM »

The Buffalo has a range of 72 ly on a tank of 90 fuel and a min crew of 10.
The Tarsus has a range of 54 ly on a tank of 120 fuel and has a min crew of 20.
It looks like the Buffalo is going to be quite a bit cheaper to run (half the crew & fuel costs, but supply costs we don't yet know), and will be able to do longer jumps without refuelling- this could potentially be a huge advantage if you can't be ambushed whilst in FTL. Choosing which to run to balance efficiency and survivability might be a fairly major concern in the sector.
Logged

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: The Buffalo (freighter, not Mk. 2)
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2013, 03:52:24 PM »

Just saying, there should be a reason for its existence. Even the Mk.2 has a reason for existing- desperation. The Buffalo's reason could be efficiency, minimal upkeep (low LR cost), and availability. That's fine too. It just needs something.
Logged

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3062
    • View Profile
    • Bitbucket profile
    • Email
Re: The Buffalo (freighter, not Mk. 2)
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2013, 11:36:56 PM »

Approaching it this way: what are the strengths of each of the small freighters?

Mule: Armament, armor
Gemini: Flight deck, armament, shield
Tarsus: Capacity (though it's only 300 to the other two's 250), some armor, uhhh... can run away from a fight really fast with Burn Drive

So yeah, the Buffalo's strength could be its cargo capacity - as the description goes, "Load-n-Pray." I'm concerned that it might become a no-brainer for combat fleets that need a pack mule, but maybe that isn't such a bad thing.
Speed is also an option; would be good for fast raider fleets with loot to carry.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 11:39:29 PM by Histidine »
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4916
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: The Buffalo (freighter, not Mk. 2)
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2013, 03:52:51 PM »

Or just give it a little bit of built-in PD, so that it isn't quite so vulnerable? 

I gave it drones, myself; I can't see why, in the violent world of Starsector, you'd build transports without some built-in protection.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack