should the cruisers have guns?

lets see...

from Sins Forums
take a step back and do some straightforward analysis.

Frigates are obviously the military meat. they provide both the stomach and the muscle of the TEC armada, their focus is on damage and elimination of enemy weaponry.

Capital ships are about providing powerful backup and damage, including the marza incendiary shells and the Kol railgun. ships such as the dunov and the akkan provide backup while the sova is purely fighter support. these ships are meant to become the powerful forward weaponry of your battlefield meant to eliminate, enhance or protect key ships or broad forces.

the role of Cruisers is pretty damn obvious. their abilities are far more mundane than the powerful capital ships, however their relative cost allows far more of them to be produced making them perfect to spread ship enhancements over large forces.

I've really had it up to here

with the whining that "cruisers suck".
yes, they arent exactly offensive based. but if you are fielding them as forward forces meant to provide a stronger arm than your frigates, or a more mobile force than the cap ships, you are getting what you deserve!
if you use the cruisers correctly you will find that they are quite the godsend. just dont mistake what their purpose is and you'll find out how really good they are.

they are far from perfection, but when used correctly they are well worth the investment.
30,014 views 82 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
Because Sentient for their cost in research, production, supply points their not really worth it. Why don't the developers release a test patch that give the cruisers a little more firepower or something else.

The main thing is this, we have 230 odd days left, why not try a patch that gives the TEC cruisers some more firepower. Why not a few autocannon turrets, or lasers, or missiles. It doesn't matter. But if you have 230 days till release lets use it to test different variants. What is it going to hurt?

Oh and sentient, you really can't talk because if I remember correctly you whined about a unique ability the Akkan had. What was it called, you know the one that allows you to travel into enemy territory without being fired upon? Armistice...
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
armistice was broken. being able to spam invulnerability is a slightly different scenario, especially when paired with a phase interdictor
the devs, in their infinite wisdom, made the perfect fix: allow the armisticed ships to bypass an outpost if its being used in such a way.
Because Sentient for their cost in research, production, supply points their not really worth it

oh, they are tons worth it. I've gone up against fleets twice or so my size and came out with hardly a scratch because I brought a couple of Command Cruisers and a carrier along.
The main thing is this, we have 230 odd days left, why not try a patch that gives the TEC cruisers some more firepower. Why not a few autocannon turrets, or lasers, or missiles. It doesn't matter. But if you have 230 days till release lets use it to test different variants. What is it going to hurt?

while I'm not opposed to testing ideas, you are completely missing the point of the cruisers (which I so gratiously just explained to you)
they are not supposed to have weaponry. that would be having your cake, eating it, and giving it to the queen as a gift.
you cant expect the ships to become broken super-machines. such an idea would bring forth the oh-so-famous strategy of just bringing along a ton of command cruisers, have them spam embolden on each other with a dunov using flux field in the back.

what you're asking is to turn the spotman for artillery into a schwarzenegger style super-buffed commando. thats not how it works in the military, if we took some guns off of our battleships and stuck them on our carriers, took some runways off the carriers and stuck them on the cruisers. guess what you'd have?
one very, very fired group of engineers.

for instance; how is the command ship to spot using its reconaissance array when its constantly being rocked from recoil? you would have wasted millions on one very broken surveyance array

why do you want weapons on the ships meant to amplify the ships that are supposed to have weapons? its utterly pointless.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
One thing is certain, the Kodiak's role replaces the Cobalt. In addition, cruisers are too weak (in terms of health and armor) that putting them into their own category seems ridiculous. Maybe expanding the frigate list to include these units would be better, but putting them into their own group and making them so damned hard to get seems ridiculous.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
free speech good sir , everyone can say what they want, you never know a good idea or two may come from it... if it bothers you don't read it



i've seen a lot of new posters in the last 3 days, and they have had a few good ideas, along with some bad...

anyway, have you tried beta 2? haven't seen much input from you on the forums...
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
now, I'm not saying they are balanced or perfect or worth their position on the tech ladder (although its my personal oppinion that its good as so). what I mean to point out is that the group of ships are neither useless, nor weak. if they arent working for you either you havent noticed how well they work, you dont have enough, or you're using them to absorb bullets. in which case I would fling a myriad of insults your way, but we can avoid that for now.
One thing is certain, the Kodiak's role replaces the Cobalt

oh not in the least...
In addition, cruisers are too weak (in terms of health and armor) that putting them into their own category seems ridiculous. Maybe expanding the frigate list to include these units would be better, but putting them into their own group and making them so damned hard to get seems ridiculous.

yes, they do seem a lot like frigates in terms of health and armor, but to mistake them as such, and to say that they shouldnt be placed up high on the tech ladder is IM(not really so)HO rather fallacious.

to be more clear as to WHY i posted this:
we're here to debate these sorts of points, not to say repeatedly "they suck" and demand guns to satisfy our macho nature. thats folly and should be adressed as such.
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

One thing is certain, the Kodiak's role replaces the Cobalt. In addition, cruisers are too weak (in terms of health and armor) that putting them into their own category seems ridiculous. Maybe expanding the frigate list to include these units would be better, but putting them into their own group and making them so damned hard to get seems ridiculous.


its the beta!!!!!! not the full game, things will change...
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
While I do tend to agree with sentient in that the cruisers do have their uses, especially the mini carriers. However, I also can't see enough difference between them and the frigates to necessitate them having their own class. Giving them a hitpoint and shield upgrade, along with increasing their cost, would help to differentiate them. Adding a few more abilities to some of the cruiser would be pretty good too. For instance the kodiak could really use an anti fighter upgrade, a point defence laser or something.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
Are you saying you still actively build Cobalts after you've gotten Kodiaks, then? I sure don't; more bang for buck has always been my philosophy.

And placing them high on the tech tree is a bad idea. If the point of the cruisers is to act as frigate support, then they should be more accessible to aid your frigates in the beginning. Why not just build a capital ship instead of a group of cruisers? They are easier to obtain, just not in large numbers.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
Giving them a hitpoint and shield upgrade, along with increasing their cost, would help to differentiate them. Adding a few more abilities to some of the cruiser would be pretty good too. For instance the kodiak could really use an anti fighter upgrade, a point defence laser or something.

see, this I could rally behind

sticking them in as makeshift frigates and ducktaping new guns to them is not something I agree with.
Are you saying you still actively build Cobalts after you've gotten Kodiaks, then?

yes, Cobalts do not serve the same purpose as the Kodiacs
Kodiacs go in first and draw the fire with support from Dunov and command cruisers, Cobalts are then used to swarm and do the massive damage.
Cobalts are worth far more in money/damage than the Kodiacs are, but the Kodiacs are far better at chasing down enemies and absorbing damage.
I sure don't; more bang for buck has always been my philosophy.

you're screwing up your math then. bigger bang for bigger buck doesnt always translate to bigger bang for buck.
in addition the cobalts dish out more for their relatively low cap-cost, where the Kods cost numerous times more, making them inefficient.
And placing them high on the tech tree is a bad idea. If the point of the cruisers is to act as frigate support, then they should be more accessible to aid your frigates in the beginning

because you break the game that way, cruisers are meant to amplify large numbers of frigates, but their abilities are so nice and so shiny and so damn useful that putting them in too early risks making the game too easy for the player.
Why not just build a capital ship instead of a group of cruisers? They are easier to obtain, just not in large numbers.

because as I noted earlier, the cap ships dont serve the same purpose. yes the akkan and dunov abilities are similar, but the cost effectiveness (especially including upgrades) is not nearly the same.
this is why the cruisers are the highly specialized ships, its why they are worth their effort, and its why they should never be underestimated or mistaken as frigate or capital ship replacements.

damn, my fingers are numb from the AC, I'm done until tomorrow.
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
How about this for an idea Sentient:

Take cruisers double their supply and production cost. Give them some more armor and shielding and give them a boost in weaponry, especially the Kodiak and the Command Cruiser (For the Command Cruiser add a few autocannon turrets, the TEC need some more kinetic love. Or whatever). Just a bump for the Robotics Cruiser. And an extra squadron or two for the Carrier but only accessed through research. And you will have cruisers that are balanced, ineffective to spam, and overall worthwhile as the core component of a light or heavy fleet.

They would still need an escort of frigates, and because of the increase in cost of resources and supply points they become a little more effective. Because right now the only cruiser I or the AI use is the Carrier. And we both spam it.

Obviously it needs a bit of tweaking here or there, but a good start towards making the Cruisers a little more worthwhile.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
Why should a light carrier have the same number of squadrons that the Sova starts with? That's just silly, even if you bumped the cost. Light carriers already have an advantage in fighter construction.

Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
hmmm.......
[Looks around for a nice comfortable chair and start to make popcorn]
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
hmmm.......
[Looks around for a nice comfortable chair and start to make popcorn]


*props a chair beside 1Spartan*

Yummy! Make me some too with lots of butter

Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
Everyone just shut up

hihihihi no you shut up hihihihi


its the beta!!!!!! not the full game, things will change...


*Multi starts to like mr kosc... just for a second..*

Why don't the developers release a test patch that give the cruisers a little more firepower or something else.


ZOMG, this is the final product??!!1! waaaaa *Multi takes a chill pill*

*props a chair beside 1Spartan*


*So does Multi, and asks* what is this? action, thiller or XXX?
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
* mmm thanks for putting extra butter on the popcorn

I believe its a 4X.....RTS
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top

*So does Multi, and asks* what is this? action, thiller or XXX?


The bad news: it's none of those.
The good news: it's something even better.
The worse news: it can actually be something worse.

Ever heard of the word counter-productive?

Heh, the main problem is probably with the name cruiser. The way it stands now, we rather have 2 classes of frigate rather then one frigate and one cruiser class. The normal frigate feel like combat frigate, and the cruiser is like Tech Frigate, or Utility frigate rather then the upper tier of cruiser. Maybe that's how we should call them huh?




Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
I dont see the issue here. Most of the cruisers have a special ability which the frigs do not, because they are meant for a support role not as ships of the line. The exception being the Kodiak, I agree with schem that the Kodiak's main purpose is to absorb damage while the blob of cobalts lay the smackdown. I still build tons of cobalts long after kodiaks are researched.

You have a repair ship whos purpose is pretty self explanatory. If you are bringing that repair ship into front line combat then you deserve to lose it. It is meant to assist damaged ships after the battle.

Your wrong about the light carrier having the same fighter slots as a Sova. The Sova starts with 2 fighter slots while the light carrier only has 1, and stays at 1 since it cant be upgraded. Its purpose is for fighter support for small raiding frigate fleets. least thats what i use it for.

Command cruiser is a mini Akken It can be used to augment a fleet with an akken or as a support ship for a smaller frigate fleet

The thing is that none of the cruisers with the exception of the Kodiak are meant for a stand up fight. They are meant to buff up, and support an already existing fleet.

Our modern navys cruisers aren't any more powerful than frigates, or destroyers, and are meant for a support role as well

There position on the tech tree, and cost right now is only for testing. It may not stay that way in the final game. Do remember this is STILL a beta, and not everything is set in stone yet. We still have yet to see the other 2 races in action, and we have no clue how TEC will stand up against them.

Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
Take cruisers double their supply and production cost. Give them some more armor and shielding and give them a boost in weaponry, especially the Kodiak and the Command Cruiser (For the Command Cruiser add a few autocannon turrets, the TEC need some more kinetic love. Or whatever). Just a bump for the Robotics Cruiser. And an extra squadron or two for the Carrier but only accessed through research. And you will have cruisers that are balanced, ineffective to spam, and overall worthwhile as the core component of a light or heavy fleet.

dont like it in the least (sorry!)
reasons:
1) I hate the idea of "gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme GUNS!!!" it completely misses the point of the entire class of ship
2) they are meant to be produced at a cheap cost
3) too many fighters for the carrier (bomber rush, anyone?)
4) those "core components" you're talking about are capital ships.
Obviously it needs a bit of tweaking here or there, but a good start towards making the Cruisers a little more worthwhile.

they are very worthwhile, you should research them and see just how powerful they are rather than using them a couple times and tossing them.
hihihihi no you shut up hihihihi


I did my job in grabbing peoples attention.
if it offends anyone that I told them to shut up... well my bad.
its the beta!!!!!! not the full game, things will change...

ah, the attitude that has lead to more vile things (including mass genocide, poverty, AIDS and shitty video games, ah the horror) than any other.
yes, its beta!!! but we're supposed to argue these points out so that the devs have a full view of how the game can pan out.
Ever heard of the word counter-productive?

I'm trying to stop the counterproductivity.
I dont see the issue here. Most of the cruisers have a special ability which the frigs do not, because they are meant for a support role not as ships of the line

thank god, someone who understands!

the point I want to raise is that people are not considering the cruisers for their true light, they instead are making childish demands for guns on them. the last POSSIBLE thing I want on my command cruiser is a gun, if the cruiser has a gun that means it will chase things around, which means it'll get shot at, which means it'll die, which means I lose a good 5-7% of my firepower!!! I dont want to lose that at ANY cost.
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top

I did my job in grabbing peoples attention.
if it offends anyone that I told them to shut up... well my bad.


hehe yeah you did no offence is taken

But i agree with schem. They are useful.
I also build them to support my fleets.
Well i dont got a precise number i build for each fleet, its just abit random.
But normaly i build atleast 2 of each cruiser, for every fleet.
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top
I don't think they should have guns either, they are support and should remain so
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
I'm with Schem on this one.
Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top
Cruiser

So far cruisers in Sins do no deserve to be listed as "Cruisers". Renaming them to "Support craft" will put the entire issue of armament to rest. If they are to remain "Cruisers" most of them need some loving.
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
whoops sorry, didn't see that link, but still its an interesting read never the less