Indeed! One of the things that makes many RTS games boring is that you can blitz up the tech tree, and then spam out whatever is at the top, which then anhialates any enemy armies with ease. Many RTS games need a little more "S" in them... If the cruisers work out well than you will have sucessfully ended the dominating high tech spam fests   

If you are going to rename the class don't call them Support Cruisers, just call them Support Ships. Support Cruiser still implies a high level combat vessel. The new question I do have is: Is their a 4th class of ships to be introduced in the future? Giving the Capital class factory another build menu.

I have to agree with Nickname, cruisers really need some boost in firepower to make them a usefull fielding warship. I understand that in the sins universe that the commanders of cruisers don't get in the "dirty" work. But lets just say that the 2nd in command shot the captain and ordered upgrades....

Third game so far, and the only one I field and I see the Ai field is the Carrier Cruiser. The Repair cruiser is fine. But the command cruiser seriously needs some more firepower. And the Kodiak now after doing the math, is not effective as two or three Cobalt Light Frigates. I really like the cruisers, just want to see them get a little more love in the weapons department, the repair cruiser is fine as is. The others could use a little "post-blueprint upgrades"

If the TEC are not born again warriors thats fine, but it seams that according to their backstory their a little low tech in the weapons department. Yet I see them field more laser weaponry then the Empire. Like I said in other posts tack on some kinetic turrets or other kinetic weapons on the command cruiser and make it a somewhat frontline warship. It doesn't have to be end all, but a commander should lead! If you need some backstory let the Command Cruiser be the lineage that lead to the Kol Battleship.

Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys, be very careful. Cruisers need a buff but I'm all worry-warts.

I do not want Cruisers to be the "SUPERIOR TIER II UNITS" that will make all Frigates Obselete.

The Cruisers right now need some serious work, but you could actually kill most of the stragety in this game if the Kodak winds up usurping the Light Frigate to extinction. I'd rather have a game where all the Units can be useful then having a game where Cruisers are only useful.

The LAST thing you want is a Cruiser to be the total "Upgraded" verison of a unit; because it effectivly kills the weaker one in the process.

I am sick and tired of games were the Tier II Tank is better round the board then the Tier I tank, because the Tier II is tank is Tier tWo!. Why the heck do you even bother with two Tier Tanks in a stragety game if one is superior to the another. (Oh I forgot, Rommel's Spam/Rush Charge is always a Sun Tzu classic)


Make every unit useful in a specific way. "Light Frigates could do more damage when put together while Heavy Cruisers could have more HP for the pound". Rather then, "Okay, Light Frigates are only useful until you have your second planet up and have destroyed the creeps in the area; then upgrade to Heavy Cruisers, alternating between Carriers and Battle Cruisers. Since we also have a Planet Nuking Cruiser that does the same exact thing as the Planet Nuking Frigate only better, make sure to only get the cruiser." (And I know there is (thankfully) no Siege Cruiser)

Of course there may be interactions and "units" as Blair said, but that doesn't stop the fact that as of now cruisers aren't needed, and therefore I will discuss. Sure, I love the mini-carrier, but the LRM frig is just as good at hitting cannons and capitols. The command cruiser has yet to prove its worths to me, as it usually is killed near the beginning of any battle it enters, even if I order light frights as escorts. Same with the repair cruiser. And I have yet to even research the Kodiak.

The problem to me isn't their lack of firepower per se, as Blair said "Cruisers are more like middle level commanders that perform higher level tasks and let the grunts (frigates) do the majority of the dirty work (fighting). They were intended to be escorted around and in combat to sit a bit behind the main lines supporting and enhancing their troops."

Which I love. A great idea to utilize these as support to get away from the A to B to C advancement of fleets. This SHOULD create balanced, or a least, diversified fleets. But the cruisers large vulnerabilities (easy of destruction/difficulty of protection) make maintaining these diverse fleets near impossible.

Maybe the cruisers need more shielding to withstand a fight. Or maybe there just needs to be better tactical fleet management in terms of auto-positioning, not just for firing arcs, but command and defense structures. The mini-carriers do a decent job of jumping to an area and sit as they unload the flyers. I can order light frigs to protect the mini's, but either that either puts the minis in harms way or take frigs out of the fight. With or without protection, the mini's just sit there and eat up any damage shot at them.

I haven't used the other cruisers enough to really talk about them, but I assume the command and repair do essentially the same.

So, I agree more firepower isn't necessary, as it might make frigs obsolete, but some tweaking seems needed.

I'm envisioning the presence of something like a Command Cruiser on the battlefield as something to fear. But not because of it's weapon capabilities. Heck, it could have absolutley zero guns for that matter. At this early stage of experimentation with the Cruiser level ships however, I would say that boosting their defense capabilities (via shielding, point defense, whatever) is probably something to look into. But what is really interesting would be to have my fleet of 30 ships (no cruisers) warp into a gravity well and see an opposing force of 20 ships but with a Command Cruiser in the back of the formation guiding them. The bonuses he would confer to the standing navy would give his seemingly outgunned force a tactical advantage that would make me the clear underdog in the upcoming battle, regardless of my superior number of ships.

"We outnumber him. Easy win."
"Wait... Is that a Command Cruiser he has in the back?"
"Oh crap! We need to make a decision now. Do we try to take out that Cruiser to give us a chance, or do we get the hell outta' Dodge and regroup?"
"Let's go. Maybe it's time we stop spamming LRM's, and start researching some cruisers of our own."

That's the type of scenario I would like to see. Anything that can be done to further the strategic/tactical options of the players to steer us away from piss-poor mass unit tactics is what I'm hoping for from Sins.

My 2 cents at least.

if anything they should amplify the need for frigates, those are the meat and potatoes of any fleet anyhow.

I find the carriers range and hitting speed to make it far more effective. additionally its life expectancy is a nice bonus

I believe the term for that is "broken"
it needs to be powerful, but not rediculously so.

how is a single ship a "tactical" option?
I agree that swarms should be shut down, but by combined force tactics, not a broken game element

which is why you should plan for one

I just want to say this. According to the Lore: The TEC have been hit pretty hard by the Vasari and now the Advent. They seem to be a people between a rock and a hard place. So why would they design a Cruiser that doesn't have necessary firepower? I mean according to your back story the TEC are in a desperate situation, so why the hell are they wasting resources on Cruisers that are less effective then 3 Cobalt Frigates?

So its worth while to waste resources on a command cruiser that doesn't command? The Embolden ability is nice, but because it targets a single unit at a time not effective. And to be honest the Akkan's targeting ability is more effective then the Command Cruisers .

I am not saying that you can't make your game your way. But if the ships are supposed to represent the race. Why the hell would the TEC make cruisers that suck. I am not saying you have to make cruisers a front line unit, but give them some firepower. Even the Kodiak right now is not that effective and its supposed to be a combat cruiser. Oh and why do the TEC use a lot of Lasers? I thought they were supposed to be low tech? The only ships I really see use Autocannons are: Akkan, Kol, and Gardia.

Don't be afraid to put weapons on your cruisers, because it just doesn't make sense to equip them with pop guns. I understand you said the cruiser commanders don't like the "dirty" work. But if they were such cowards why not camp on a Kol Battleship?

Also why does the Kol Battleship have a railgun ability, when the incendiary shells ability from the Marza would be more effective? Seeing as how the Dreadnought now is more of a Battlecruiser then a Dread. And the Kol is more of a Dread then a Battleship. To be honest I thought the original Marza from Beta 1 was more of Dread then this new Marza ever could be. And seriously why does it have incendiary shells ability anymore when it doesn't even have autocannons? Are the TEC dumb when designing warships? Because right now their are only a few effective ships. Gardia, Cobalt, Carrier Cruiser, Akkan, Kol, and the Capital Carrier (Sorya?).

Carriers should have squads (at least +1)

Perhaps the Sovas can have +2 squads?

"Frigates - Very specialized roles: Such as combat, fighter defense, colonization etc...
Cruisers - More powerful specialized ships: Good at combat but also have a few abilities.
Battleships - A truly multi-role specialized combat ship: Dish it out and take it too, as well as having many varied abilities that make them the heart and sole of a fleet."

They should really make up some new names for ship classes . . Frigates, Cruisers, Battleships mean nothing as these terms are used differently by everyone. Historically Frigates are FAST warships of ANY size, that acted as powerful independent scouts (this is a Role not a type of ship). Cruisers like Frigates are typically independent long range ships with the power and resources to operate on there own or in small groups, can be of any size but tended to be larger because of the independence and long range capability (this is a Role not necessarily type of ship). A Frigate can be a cruiser etc. Battleship is more of a class then role, a name for a dedicated ship of the line, the biggest warship, good at killing any other ship big or small. (note the Dreadnought variant was a short lived all BIG gun version that was a battleship killer)
So, Frigates and Cruisers should be the jack of all traits ships keeping pirates down and scouting and raiding other systems (note size is NOT a factor here size never = power, It may hint at power potential but often big ships sacrificed weaponry for speed, armor, range etc.
Battleships, battlecruisers, and possibly Dreadnoughts should be the ships-of-the-line that are in a battle group and kill systems and other fleets.

Now if is not what is wanted, could we at least use different names (make them up this IS a fiction and does not have to be a earth bound navy sim) . .

So again I would say the Frigates and Cruisers roles should be the bulk of the dispersed fleets maintaining security and scouting, and the “ships-of-the-line” should be the offensive punch to win you a war.

I personally am finding the frigate/cruiser/capital ship power/cost balance pretty good.

I love that this game is going to keep all ship classes useful through the whole game, regardless of tech level. Needing to factor in construction cost/research/fleet support gives a lot of room for strategy and is also an effective set of balancing tools.

I think it needs the KOL's flak burst ability...