Tarka battlecruiser is WORSE than cruiser ( strafe+war)

[unmerged(400937)]

what advantage, have you played the game, combat AI is clueless, you gonna micro manage every ship in your fleet?

one, combat AI works okay if you use the workaround (see in the Tactical Combat Guide). two, yeah, i am gonna micro manage every ship in my fleet, that's what I've done in SOTS 1 and in this game. or rather, i group them into groups of two or three and use them as hunting pairs, which would work fine with the cruisers you're complaining about (their speed allowing them to chase down stragglers or fleeing ships).

in current game design, you are better of with normal cruiser rather then BC for any task

t

chasing an enemy. objectively, the faster ship is better.

 

[Blackwarder]

Because Cruisers cost less, do more damage, have jump-drive.
where the BC that is supposed to be heavily armed cruiser: less effective in doing damage ( even if you are flying around, broadsiding, ), cost more money, require a dreadnought to operate ( because of that Dreadnought lose firepower)

Numbers?

Warder

 

[Myrrdin]

Because Cruisers cost less, do more damage, have jump-drive.
where the BC that is supposed to be heavily armed cruiser: less effective in doing damage ( even if you are flying around, broadsiding, ), cost more money, require a dreadnought to operate ( because of that Dreadnought lose firepower)

So, would you say that a dreadnaught (that still is far from undergunned with a carrier mission section) sporting hunters would be less worth the CP and monetary cost in a fleet compared to say, a regular Armor/BB DN? This of course taking into account that fleets this time around actually are limited to the base CP of the CnC (no reserves). I think that it would be a lot more conductive to any comparison to view the Hunters more like a DREADNAUGHT based system, and compare what you actually get from a CP and monetary cost in comparison to other dreads. Personally, I can easily see they would have roles to fill in many fleet outfits.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

The CR has a lower credit cost, but has a construction cost 3 times higher. I can build 3 BC for every CR.
The BC should be compared to the standard+armor section, not the war+strafe. Even with that they mount more large guns. Not having the same alpha strike capabilities does not make it worse at doing damage, it changes its role from a line ship( a ship you keep in tight groups to overwhelm targets in single volleys) to a harrier (strike and harry, used to corral ships into your firing ranges and harass) The BC is faster at top speed, better at maneuvering and accelerates faster to boot.
The DN doesn't lose firepower from the BC's. They are part of the DN, a part that can be independently replaced and swapped out. I can use the same carrier for 100 turns while the BCs weapons keep getting better.
I can bring the same amount of CR's and DN's into battle whether they are carriers or not. The carrier DNs give me extra ships in exchange for reduced firepower on the DN itself, but enhanced firepower when you consider that I now have 3 more cruiser class ships. So thats not really a minus, its a trade off.

please explain your example in more detail.
Edit: to be specific

Because Cruisers cost less, do more damage, have jump-drive.
where the BC that is supposed to be heavily armed cruiser: less effective in doing damage ( even if you are flying around, broadsiding, ), cost more money, require a dreadnought to operate ( because of that Dreadnought lose firepower)

Here you gave your opinions but did not back them with information. I can't delve your basis for these statement so all I can do is offer my opinion and the reasons I have it.

 

[unmerged(402909)]

I'm not sure I see how having 2 CR + 1 DN instead of 3 CR is a disadvantage. Does the carrier DN not still have more armor, structure and guns than the 3rd CR you'd be bringing instead?

Again, you're comparing a fairly fragile War section CR to a battlerider. For a more even comparison we should be looking at a strafe/armor setup instead.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you carry replacement riders or restore them via repair ships, so that if one is destroyed in combat you can bring in a replacement next turn without the spares counting against your command point limit like full cruisers would? I seem to recall that was the major advantage of both drones and riders in SOTS1, being able to keep the carriers back and recover all loses the next round while whittling away at the enemy. In SOTS2 that would be an even bigger advantage, since unlike SOTS1 everything gets put on the field and there is no big reserves sitting behind your fleet. That advantage alone would be worth the extra expense.

Edit: it occurs to me I'm assuming it's 2 riders per carrier. Is that correct? or is it less/more per?

 

[tyranny12]

Because Cruisers cost less, do more damage, have jump-drive.
where the BC that is supposed to be heavily armed cruiser: less effective in doing damage ( even if you are flying around, broadsiding, ), cost more money, require a dreadnought to operate ( because of that Dreadnought lose firepower)

Do more damage: Only in a firing line facing forwards. Flying around, while their opponents are trying to face them, means they will still be either a) doing more damage than the opponent struggling to keep up, or b) ignored, and doing lots more damage as they savage undersides and engine sections. Poor Liir engines.
Have jump drive: The mothership has a jump drive and is still a combatant.
Money: True.
Dreadnaught: Sweet, I get a dread plus two cruisers for the CP of a dread!
Armor: Much more armoured.

On micro - that remains a concern of mine - hopefully stances fix it.


Anaris, nihilist, et al - aka anyone who has used these. It has 1,600 structure points. The cruiser MadGelo is flogging has 2100 or so between it's three sections. It does have more armour, but am I reading that it has less structure? The two lines next to the I symbol under structure - is that layer defense?

 

[unmerged(403913)]

Perhaps they've screwed up the firing arcs?

Sots 1's Tark Battleriders had 90% forward firing guns, were cheap, had more guns than a std CR, and basically kicked ass.

Battle Riders didn't exist in SOTS1 but Tark Ships had mostly forward firing weapons.

 

[Myrrdin]

Battle Riders didn't exist in SOTS1 but Tark Ships had mostly forward firing weapons.

Tarkasians actually did have battle riders in SotS 1 in the last expansion. They were truely fearsome things.

 

[Arankor]

Battle Riders didn't exist in SOTS1 but Tark Ships had mostly forward firing weapons.

Actually they do exist in SOTS1, but they are Tarka exclusive and are pretty much at the top of the drone tech tree.

 

[Tairneanach]

Anaris, nihilist, et al - aka anyone who has used these. It has 1,600 structure points. The cruiser MadGelo is flogging has 2100 or so between it's three sections. It does have more armour, but am I reading that it has less structure? The two lines next to the I symbol under structure - is that layer defense?

The two lines mean that damage is reduced by two, before it's applied to armour. This makes armour so much more durable, considering how it works. Since you only have to destroy two sections to kill a vessel, the cruiser can take less of a beating there too, IF all shots hit the same two sections.

 

[unmerged(402486)]

Anaris, nihilist, et al - aka anyone who has used these. It has 1,600 structure points. The cruiser MadGelo is flogging has 2100 or so between it's three sections. It does have more armour, but am I reading that it has less structure? The two lines next to the I symbol under structure - is that layer defense?

Not sure what that symbol means but your comment about if it had less structure I would say no... The BC has a single structural section of 1600 before it explodes... the CR has 2 sections with 500 (well 1 550) and the rest in the engine section... The CR would loose a large amount of firepower due to focus fire detonating a section and blowing away all that sections turrets while the BC will keep shooting with max firepower until the it is blown up.

Also I believe the mechanic is still in the game where if a cruiser looses 2 of its sections (~1050-1500 structure for the picture) it explodes anyway

 

[tyranny12]

Ah-HA! Finally! So they don't cost extra CP, that makes bringing BCs one heck of a sweet deal!



The two lines mean that damage is reduced by two, before it's applied to armour. This makes armour so much more durable, considering how it works. Since you only have to destroy two sections to kill a vessel, the cruiser can take less of a beating there too, IF all shots hit the same two sections.

Don't quote me on the CP thing. I haven't used them. From everything I've read though, that is what I believe is the case.

Re: the armour. I assumed that is what the notation meant, but was unsure when I saw it applied to the antimatter warp section.

I disagree with your analysis on sections - you only have to kill one section on the battlecruiser in the end. Just a tough one.

 

[Tairneanach]

Don't quote me on the CP thing. I haven't used them. From everything I've read though, that is what I believe is the case.

Awww... Okay, I'll edit my post.

I disagree with your analysis on sections - you only have to kill one section on the battlecruiser in the end. Just a tough one.

Well, that one section has more structure points than any two sections of the normal cruiser together. If you account for armour too, a normal cruiser might be tougher. I'm not sure.

Having said that: As others have mentioned, a war section isn't the best comparison to a BC. I don't know how many structure and armour points an armour section has.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

its more of an equivalence thing. The CR takes two section loses for a total of 1550 to kill while the BC takes 1600. The CR has less armor and will lose gun-power to a section loss before it goes. The BC has more armor and will work to full effect until its destroyed or losses its crew.

Really though the CR should be more durable, its a capital class ship and I can build 3 BC to every 1 CR (the BC costs more money but has 1/3 the construction cost). Its probably the fact we are comparing to a War section instead of a Armor section.

 

[unmerged(402486)]

Its probably the fact we are comparing to a War section instead of a Armor section.

Probobly, but we didn't pick the matchup so not our fault its not a good comparison

 

[unmerged(374275)]

don't forget that those battlecruisers are going to be (with techs) a lot faster than a standard cruiser - you may well find them orbiting their target firing broadsides constantly while the FTL ships move into range.

 

[tyranny12]

don't forget that those battlecruisers are going to be (with techs) a lot faster than a standard cruiser - you may well find them orbiting their target firing broadsides constantly while the FTL ships move into range.

And I sincerely hope one of the stances will accomplish that!

 

[Tairneanach]

its more of an equivalence thing. The CR takes two section loses for a total of 1550 to kill while the BC takes 1600. The CR has less armor and will lose gun-power to a section loss before it goes. The BC has more armor and will work to full effect until its destroyed or losses its crew.

Really though the CR should be more durable, its a capital class ship and I can build 3 BC to every 1 CR (the BC costs more money but has 1/3 the construction cost). Its probably the fact we are comparing to a War section instead of a Armor section.

Actually, I attributed the longer build times of CRs and the higher durability of BCRs to the fact that the latter don't have any kind of FTL drive. They've got more room for conventional enginge, armour and the likes and, by my guess, building an FTL drive takes up a lot of time.

From a purely balancing perspective, I guess you're right.

 

[unmerged(374275)]

And I sincerely hope one of the stances will accomplish that!

It should do, there is I believe meant to be battlerider specific stances possibly

 

[Romeo13]

I'm not sure I see how having 2 CR + 1 DN instead of 3 CR is a disadvantage. Does the carrier DN not still have more armor, structure and guns than the 3rd CR you'd be bringing instead?

Again, you're comparing a fairly fragile War section CR to a battlerider. For a more even comparison we should be looking at a strafe/armor setup instead.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you carry replacement riders or restore them via repair ships, so that if one is destroyed in combat you can bring in a replacement next turn without the spares counting against your command point limit like full cruisers would? I seem to recall that was the major advantage of both drones and riders in SOTS1, being able to keep the carriers back and recover all loses the next round while whittling away at the enemy. In SOTS2 that would be an even bigger advantage, since unlike SOTS1 everything gets put on the field and there is no big reserves sitting behind your fleet. That advantage alone would be worth the extra expense.

Edit: it occurs to me I'm assuming it's 2 riders per carrier. Is that correct? or is it less/more per?

Problem is that it appears that DNs are the equivalent of 3 Cruisers as far as command points for fleets are concerned... I can currently have 9 Cruisers per fleet, or (just before the last big crash in the game) 2 Command Cruisers and 2 DNs (I had not yet researched Command for DNs... saw it just before the game crashed, so couldn't test it).

Key is, its currently 9 Cruisers, or 3 DNs per Fleet.... but does anyone know how many Cruiser sized Riders a Carrier can handle? or a DN with 2 Kingfisher Mods (are they working?)