Who's found the "right" role for cruisers?

[matthobbit]

I've noticed in every one of my space battles that my cruisers are getting utterly wrecked by enemy AI fleets. I'll go in with 10 battleships, 20 cruisers, 30 destroyers, and 80 corvettes, and literally lose every single cruiser before other ships start getting destroyed. Are they intended to be damage sponges or should I just start skipping them for battleships in the late game.

Anyways, has anybody found a good way to keep cruisers viable and useful after you get your battleships?

 

[Beyond Disbelief]

If you look at the couple other weapon/ship type analysis threads literally still on the first page, you'lll find that cruisers currently outperform all shipclasses due to their inflated stats. Check out the weapon/component loadouts that are being discussed, too.

We've had like, literally 4-6 lengthy thread of these.

EDIT: The issue you're experiencing isn't that cruisers are getting "wrecked", its their current AI/role to charge into the front lines and get targeted.

 

[I_am_Nemo]

Damage sponges is part of their role, yes; they're intended to get up front and brawl with the enemy; presumably, this is the reason for their high-ish health relative to fleet cap.

 

[aruon]

paradox should seriously consider splitting up the cruiser type into light, heavy, and battlecruisers.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

paradox should seriously consider splitting up the cruiser type into light, heavy, and battlecruisers.

That seems super nitpicky- I can't see it actually improving battle dynamics at all.

 

[Emraldis]

That seems super nitpicky- I can't see it actually improving battle dynamics at all.

I feel like it could be done, but in terms of more ship section variety, or having ship sections have different stats.

 

[GamingHUD]

As I see it, cruisers going boom first is what keeps them viable in the late game. You don't want to be losing and replacing battleships, so that's where cruisers come in. Their performance in general is great and they're large enough to draw the enemy's big guns away from your battleships (mostly).

Late game I just roll with cruisers and battleships. If I'm facing the Unbidden but aren't doing a kinetics run or up against an awakened FE that uses the dual focused arc emitter battleships, I might use a different composition but those are the only exceptions.

 

[craftomega]

The most effective fleet composition I have found so far is thus.

Cruisers - Mid range, high health (Optional Fighters/Bombers)
Battleships - Long range, mid health

That is all.

This composition loses the fewest ships, and can deal with 99% of what someone can throw at you.

 

[Tony Wonder]

That seems super nitpicky- I can't see it actually improving battle dynamics at all.

I agree that adding 2 new classes is too many, but i do think the BC could fit in nicely.
This might be problematic when it comes to FE's but since the whole fitting system already reminds one so much of eve. Couldn't they just then technically just have like what in eve is meta 13? or make them unique in some other way

 

[Stempz]

Currently each class of ship fulfills its own niche roles...

Spoiler: Text Wall Reasoning

which is a far cry from the original release of spam evasion corvettes. After the corvette evasion nerfs cause evasion spam to be less op on corvettes, than destroyers took on that new role. So to remedy this issue of the spamming really only 1 ship class + battleship auras; they changed it. Right now it works on the principle of rock paper scissors which helps make balancing easier as all ship types are viable. From what i can understand it goes like this ; Corvettes > BB, Destroyers > Corvettes, Cruisers = jack of all trades master of none also tank sponge, Battleship = Long Range DPS.

Cruisers are the basic jack of all trades and master of none.
Taking and dealing a lot of damage per mineral cost. This helps a lot to prevent your Battleships from being taken out which is your main DPS. As well as to keep your destroyers/corvettes alive which fulfill the role of supports for your Battleships. (corvettes do good dmg to enemy Battleships and destroyers help kill corvettes which target your own battleships)

So as of right now, yes they do die first but that's not entirely a bad thing.

 

[Pchang]

If you had no cruisers, then your battleships would die first instead (and at a higher fleet cap rate).

 

[aruon]

That seems super nitpicky- I can't see it actually improving battle dynamics at all.

I feel like it could be done, but in terms of more ship section variety, or having ship sections have different stats.

the reason why i think there should be more to the cruiser type is that as it currently stands, the cruiser is a one size fits all ship whose true expertise is as a damage sponge. now while cruisers are; both historically and commonly portrayed in sci-fi, quite often tanking shots to the face... that's the job meant for a HEAVY cruiser. the way cruisers in various sci-fis (and the history they mimick) go roughly like this:

light: light cruisers are all about one thing: speed. they are the thoroughbreds of large military vessels. their armament and armor are limited and/or undersized to achieve high speeds. you know how corvettes were prior to patch 1.3? strong in numbers but helpless on their own for anything other than running away. CLs are like that- but much larger and able to take some hits. in stellaris, a CL would be a very flexible ship, best utilized as a scout, space cleanup ship (getting rid of basic threats single handedly), or suicidal distraction. it's armament is weaker (best for reusing older, less power intensive designs), it's base speed is much faster, base health much lower, and cost far lower. the Constellation-class from star trek is a prime example.

heavy: these are the cruisers in stellaris to a tee. they are brawlers. slow but menacing and expensive as hell. no more description needed.

battle: battlecruisers vary slightly between sci-fi franchises but they generally follow the ship's historical use: armament roughly on par with a battleship, ridiculously fast, poorly armored. battlecruisers are the counter to heavy cruisers (they were nicknamed cruiser killers for a reason you know). compared to the CAs, they have less health, greater speed, and a ton of armament for a slightly higher cost. and considering that BBs in stellaris are now essentialy mobile artillery, the BC would fit well as essentially the machine gunner role complementing the tank and artillery in a late-middle/late game brawl with FEs and crises.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I've noticed in every one of my space battles that my cruisers are getting utterly wrecked by enemy AI fleets. I'll go in with 10 battleships, 20 cruisers, 30 destroyers, and 80 corvettes, and literally lose every single cruiser before other ships start getting destroyed. Are they intended to be damage sponges or should I just start skipping them for battleships in the late game.

Anyways, has anybody found a good way to keep cruisers viable and useful after you get your battleships?

Way too few heavy combatants, and too many ship types.

Pick one of cruisers or battleships, have at least one for every corvette.

Do not build destroyers.

If you try to have a fleet with a mix of all ship types what happens is what you've discovered. One of your ships is everything's favourite target, and so that class gets focused down first.

If you only have two ship classes you'll have enough within each to spread out the damage of things that don't focus fire, and your own ships will all come in at consistent engagement ranges so you're using more firepower at once, and you'll take fewer losses.

 

[Raithnor]

light: light cruisers are all about one thing: speed. they are the thoroughbreds of large military vessels. their armament and armor are limited and/or undersized to achieve high speeds. you know how corvettes were prior to patch 1.3? strong in numbers but helpless on their own for anything other than running away. CLs are like that- but much larger and able to take some hits. in stellaris, a CL would be a very flexible ship, best utilized as a scout, space cleanup ship (getting rid of basic threats single handedly), or suicidal distraction. it's armament is weaker (best for reusing older, less power intensive designs), it's base speed is much faster, base health much lower, and cost far lower. the Constellation-class from star trek is a prime example.

battle: battlecruisers vary slightly between sci-fi franchises but they generally follow the ship's historical use: armament roughly on par with a battleship, ridiculously fast, poorly armored. battlecruisers are the counter to heavy cruisers (they were nicknamed cruiser killers for a reason you know). compared to the CAs, they have less health, greater speed, and a ton of armament for a slightly higher cost. and considering that BBs in stellaris are now essentialy mobile artillery, the BC would fit well as essentially the machine gunner role complementing the tank and artillery in a late-middle/late game brawl with FEs and crises.

Light Cruisers: Couldn't you add afterburners to a Cruiser design at the expense of shields and armor to make something like this? Add small, high tracking/accuracy weapons to wipe out Corvettes and that's a light Cruiser.

Battlecruisers: From what I've read of Sci-Fi and Naval History, a Battlecruiser seems to have dimensions and tonnage similar to a Battleship (at the very least it's much larger than standard heavy crusiers), trading armor for mobility and weapons. The problem is in Stellaris maneuvering doesn't matter, there's no bonus for hitting an enemy's flanks or rear which is why you'd want mobility.

You could make a case for a "Light Cruiser"-killer, since the main purpose of speed is to catch something. Between the extended ranges of Lances and Artillery it's seldom necessary (or possible) to "outrun" a fleet engagement.

You could make a case for a "Hit-and-Run" Battlecruiser/ship but you have FTL cooldowns which limits the size of the Squadron you're sending. (Usually Naval capacity of 15 or less) If I'm doing that I might want 3 or 4 light cruisers if all I am doing is poaching orbital stations and maybe lesser starports. The cost for 1 battlecruiser would be the same for at least 3 light cruisers, maybe it could kill the stations faster but the basic station in Stellaris aren't that durable.

 

[GamingHUD]

Light Cruisers: Couldn't you add afterburners to a Cruiser design at the expense of shields and armor to make something like this? Add small, high tracking/accuracy weapons to wipe out Corvettes and that's a light Cruiser.

Should be noted that (assuming all tier 4 thrusters for ease), in combat, cruisers themselves are pretty fast - equal to destroyers. With two afterburners, the cruiser will be faster in combat (one gets them respectably close) than a corvette with no afterburner. Unfortunately that super fast combat speed doesn't translate into sublight speed so you only really get halfway to having a light cruiser. Because of that, it isn't really worth sacrificing one or both shield capacitors IMO.

 

[Pchang]

Actually, build destroyers when they are the biggest ships available. Stop when cruisers are available and let them die a natural death.

 

[romothecus]

paradox should seriously consider splitting up the cruiser type into light, heavy, and battlecruisers.

Ship classes are a trap. There shouldn't even be pre-defined ship sizes. The current state of ship design is kinda bad - the pre-defined computers and sections for each ship class mean that there's no flexibility in design. You just fill in the guns and let the designer autosolve the power situation.

But there's a better way. Instead of predefined computers and sections, let components, hard points, and weapons should add tonnage, and ship size (ie, max tonnage in a design) is limited by spaceport size.

That way you could gate ship size by tech, in exactly the same way as it is right now, without strangling ship design so much. So it's better because if only because there is more player flexibility.

We also wouldn't have stupid fights over the "roles" that types of ships play because of outdated analogies to World War II-era navies. I mean, the analogy barely even works today; every modern ship is basically a carrier variant or a missile platform.

 

[Stempz]

Ship classes are a trap. There shouldn't even be pre-defined ship sizes.

I completely agree with this point for realism sake, but from a gameplay perspective this is closer to what they did on release than in the current build. And it didn't seem to work out because there was always 1 most powerful ship type. (not having a defined role for each ship type i mean). And completely removing all ship types for tonnage system would be horrible to figure out. (Occam's Razor)

Instead of predefined computers and sections, let (,,,) add tonnage, and ship size

Balancing power for ships is already a very tedious affair and i think adding more tedium would be god awful but is an interesting system all the same.

The rationale of game design cannot be aptly applied to real life as many people tend to think. The main thing i want in a game is healthy design which doesn't always mean balanced design. Although with that being said, i still think cruisers are fairly balanced as they are right now. Although adding some spice with tonnage of a similar system wouldn't be too bad just need to make sure its not tedious.

Spoiler: Full Quote

Ship classes are a trap. There shouldn't even be pre-defined ship sizes. The current state of ship design is kinda bad - the pre-defined computers and sections for each ship class mean that there's no flexibility in design. You just fill in the guns and let the designer autosolve the power situation.

But there's a better way. Instead of predefined computers and sections, let components, hard points, and weapons should add tonnage, and ship size (ie, max tonnage in a design) is limited by spaceport size.

That way you could gate ship size by tech, in exactly the same way as it is right now, without strangling ship design so much. So it's better because if only because there is more player flexibility.

We also wouldn't have stupid fights over the "roles" that types of ships play because of outdated analogies to World War II-era navies. I mean, the analogy barely even works today; every modern ship is basically a carrier variant or a missile platform.

 

[Vishaing]

Distant Worlds limited ships purely by Size and only had Ship Classes used to distinguish ships as you desired. You could easily build a tiny Battleship before you got large ship sizes, and have Destroyers that were larger than Cruisers.

The only exceptions were the various Purpose-Built ships; such as Carriers and Resupply Ships. These ships got a size boost, allowing you to build ships somewhat larger than your Construction Cap, but instead had to allocate a certain amount of their size to certain modules. It worked pretty well overall.

And it let me design Resupply Ships with a Ton of Weapons and Armor and Strike Craft since they used Station Sizes and use these as Flagships which worked amazingly when I inevitably switched over to Star Wars Empire Ships and assigned the Resupply Ships the image of an Executor Super Star Destroyer.