Actually downsizing the guns on cruisers (like the Arcova) and renaming them to support units would put some discontent at ease. As of right now, the term cruiser is very misleading. I still think the Kodiak in large numbers are still better then the Cobalt, but then again anything in large numbers is better.

How about the cruiser designation is changed to Light-Cruiser and a minor flak gun added to them across the board for anti-fighter self defense. These ships in their own right serve a support function already. The major problem seems to be their designation,they don't "act" as many believe Cruisers should be able to according to our preconceived idea of what a Cruiser should be.

well if you mistakenly consider them in equal numbers, duh, the kodiac wins. but in terms of both cap cost and resource cost, the cobalt is stronger.

what to call them then?
support ships sounds stupid, and cruisers need not always apply to the history of... cruisers.

and if we all acted according to how we view heavy cavalry, we'd be screwed if we fought with tanks.

I like them as is. the only issue I have is that the command cruiser actually has a gun.

Thats SentientSchematicsofNinjas normal way of treating someone, many of us await the day when we will meet him on the field of battle (in multiplayer!)

Cruisers definitely need to be renamed. Modern day cruisers are actually the most powerful ships that at least the US has in it's arsenal as far as naval firepower goes. I also however agree with schem, "support ship" is a bit wussy. Perhaps "support cruiser."

From the US Navy's site:

Cruisers - multi-mission warships capable of engaging multiple simultaneous targets and employed in force support or independent action

"In force support or independent action" and capable of "engaging multiple simultaneous targets." Sounds like a warship with weapons to me.

Also, looking further into it:

Description
Large combat vessel with multiple target response capability.

Frigates on the other hand:

Frigates - warships designed to protect other ships and as anti-submarine warfare combatants


And for Cruiser armament:

MK41 vertical launching system Standard Missile (MR); Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) Missile; Tomahawk Cruise Missile; Six MK-46 torpedoes (from two triple mounts); Two MK 45 5-inch/54 caliber lightweight guns; Two Phalanx close-in-weapons systems.

Now I never want to hear you say a cruiser is merely a support ship ever again.

And a frigates armament:

Standard Missile (MR); Harpoon (from Standard Missile Launcher); Six MK-46 torpedoes(from two triple mounts); One 76 mm (3-inch)/62 caliber MK 75 rapid fire gun; One Phalanx close-in-weapons system.


So there you go, modern day cruisers are more powerful than frigates. Although, I will admit, sins does take place in space, and they have battleships, which the US Navy no longer uses (as in they've all been decommissioned).

I could go on, but I think I have made my point. Although I will also point out, that although they are combat vessels, they are capable of serving support roles, however, arguing that they should have no weapons at all and still be called cruisers is...well, out there.

(again, this is all from the US Navy, although I find it hard to believe that there is a navy that uses cruisers as nothing but support and doesn't arm them; also I again confess that sins is not modern day, however, if sins more or less follows modern day, I would think in space something called a frigate would remain outclassed in firepower by something called a cruiser).

I could just as equally argue that cruisers should be fast, long ranged ships that could preform specific roles as they did in until after WWII. There were AA cruisers, scout cruisers (ussally carrying a scout plane), and just general cruisers. Earlier there were Protected and Armored Cruisers, and even before that it just meant a smaller, faster ship-of-the-line. Definitions change, heck, a frigate at one point was anything short, long, and with a small armament. During WWII it was used to describe ASW ships larger then corvettes but smaller then destroyers.

i have to agree the only weapon that should be added to the cruisers are flak guns for use against fighters and/or missiles

The Cobalt and the Kodiak use two different weapons. The Cobalt uses lasers, the Kodiak uses autocannons.

tldr.

I agree, its ability as it is seems useless...

it seems to me like it could be useful early game when you're constantly chasing fleeing ships... but not late game no.
if they want it more damage specific it should simply have a burst weapon that fires a single powerful shot (like the kol gauss cannon) that would allow a microer to do extensive damage (the AI would need to be very well programmed to avoid all using it on one target though)

its been stated that kodiaks intercept is intended to counter some particular units; presumably these are long range kiting ships possessed by the Advent or Vasari. Currently, you could use them to ravage carrier and missile frigates with high efficiency. Another use would be rapid destruction of an interdictor.

I think the cruisers are fine, but Kodiak needs some more firepower. And would like that extra firepower to include a few autocannon turrets. One of the coolest weapons the TEC have, yet only found on one ship.