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.

If you remove the guns on the cruiser class and rename them support ships. I'll shut up, but don't call them cruisers and not expect people to ask why the hell they don't have weaponry greater than a frigate.

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.

Although I think cruisers are fine as they are generally speaking, i think they could stand to toss on a few guns purely for graphical reasons, particularly on the command and carrier cruisers. The command cruiser is a pretty sleek looking warship but it took me like 30 seconds of searching to find its very small armament.

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.

Bud,
I have attempted to reply to you in a reasonable manner which basically agrees with your position. You then take your normal get snarky tack and dismiss my point and post quoting its weakest line.

I will restate:
1) Re-name all Cruisers to a Light-Cruiser designation thus removing 50%+ of the objections we are seeing.
2) Put some form of flak/point defense on all the (cruisers) as they are then leave them alone.
3) If you must give the command cruiser a weapon make it a standoff weapon such as a missle launcher.

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!)

and create 100% of "where are the heavy cruisers?"

if it avoids using it against ships, this I'm fine with

would you like accolades? I'm sorry, not used to giving them.
I'm straightforward, the reason I adressed your weakest point is because I'm mostly fine with the rest.

from the way you guys whine about game balance and the capacity of pirates, I dont think you'll appreciate the pounding I'm just itching to give   .

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).

Someone who has common sense has arrived. Completely agree with you Advalary.

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.

key word.

modern day cavalry aren't the same as medieval cavalry. rules change, so do names.

right... common sense that flys in the face of millenia of historical evidence

your (relatively) vast knowledge of anytime before the previous 10 years is much appreciated   
yes, I'm being bitterly nasty, but if you knew anything about the military pre-modern, you wouldnt tell me the "cruiser is a..." arguement is remotely valid.

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

It should be noted that the Kodiak does seem to hit much harder against heavily armored targets like gauss cannons, so the cobalt isn't purely superior at damage for cost.

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

the kodiak has the best pure damage, but its bogged down by three huge issues:
1) supply cost
2) resource cost
3) recharge time

these are all offensive-specific, and all are excelled at by the cobalt.

LRMS are used for those armor-piercing missions.

the kodiak has its uses, its just not the damage dealer.

tldr.

If we want to keep the cruisers the way they are, then the Kodiak does need a boost in firepower because it is obviously a combat oriented cruiser. And the others could benefit from anti fighter defense.

Also the Kodiak's special ability: Intercept. Doesn't seam all that effective, is it just me or does the speed increase seem futile?

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

While i agree there should be at least some limited anti strike craft defense on cruisers, and cap ships. The main issue is to fix the fighters AI so they will attack enemy bombers/fighters on sight. Thats for another topic.

If you combine Kodiaks, and Colbalts, and a Command Cruiser all 3 together are almost unstoppable unless you counter them with lrm's/bombers. I havnt seen intercept put into any use at all. IMO if it does boost speed it is counter productive for me because i like to keep my fleets in nice tight groups to concentrate firepower. The Kodiaks are not the end all of frigates (cruisers), but they are a nice addition to your forces.

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)

A large cannon would look very good on the bottom arm of the current cobalt model, if they do decide to switch the models. Also, a high damage weapon could work really well with intercept: Chase down a fleeing, damaged enemy ship, and finish it off with one heavy shot.

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'm gonna agree mostly with Schem. The cruisers are ok as they are. The carrier could stand to have limited anti-strike craft capabilities (like maybe 1/4th the firepower of a flak frig) but then again if enemy bombers are a problem for you then maybe you should be building more fighter squads instead of so many bombers. The robotics cruiser does have a gun and some more teeth with its destructor bots.


But I will admit that the name "cruiser" did throw me a little bit at first. I was somewhat surprised to find them to fill a supporting rather than combat role (except for the Kodiak of course).

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.