hm? The Kol, Garda, Marza, Akkan, Kodiak, and fighters all have autocannons, iirc.

I meant Autocannon Turrets.

[goes to store and gets a couple six packs]
.
.
.
.
.
[returns to chair and gets the little woman to give him a nice back massage while drinking the beer and eating more pop corn.]

[slowly crawlys up takes a couple cans then legs it back to own seat]

.....now[opens first can] as the wiki page said cruisers have been different things throught the ages and shouldn't be classed overall like CRUISERS HAVE BIG GUNS
instead be classified like the kodiac is a combat cruiser so Should have large firepower but the others seem to be support ships just with a bit more armour but they still should have some sort of firepower either equal to or slightly greater to frigates firepower

[opens second can, then goes back for popcorn]

unless a ship can fire in reverse while retreating (which I haven't seen yet, nor do I think the devs plan on including... maybe excluding the vasari) there really isnt a need for it, other than to finish off the last couple of units, and how is that really helpful in winning the battle in the first place? it really just antagonizes the AI and forces it to spend some more money

wow, watch the beer there buddy, you're missing some periods.

while I can see the arguement for having the bigger guns, I think that should be allocated to a completely different class of ship. that is, if the devs choose to put one in (which I think wouldnt be a half bad idea, that "middle ground" I whined about in Beta1 is still missing). However the role of these ships shouldnt be changed, maybe enhanced, but not changed.

The only thing I think any of the Cruiser's need is the command cruisers could use a bit more shields and Hull. The AI seems to go for them first, and they die pretty fast.
Aside from that, they all have their uses, I like them all except for the Kodiac, which I guess will be useful vs the other races later, so I'll reserve judgement on that.

The Command Cruisers RULE, they add SOOOO much damage to a fleet, and the Robotics Cruisers really help too. Just imagine they're called support craft instead of cruisers, and problem solved . Also, adding anti strike weapons would make the garda kind of obsolete once you get cruisers. Once you have a robotics cruiser that can kill fighters, why build anti fighter frigates? If your cruisers are being owned by strike craft, build 10 or so garda's to escort them, problem solved.

Wow a heated debate over a minor detail of terminology.

It seems to me that the terms capital ship, cruiser, frigate, etc as it relates to a class of ships, should more indicate the hull size and maneuverability of the vessels in question rather than the roles they play. The vessel designation or name should indicate their role.
A command cruiser is a support vessel that boosts the offensive capabilities of the combat vessels in the fleet. Support vessels typically have little to no armament.
That’s not to say that you can’t or shouldn’t also have a battle cruiser with larger more potent guns for a combat role. It can be added it’s just does not seem to be in this beta.

For those that seem to like referencing US Navy terminologies. Speaking as an honorably discharged second class petty officer aboard the decommissioned (1994, MSRIP) Guided Missile Cruiser USS Fox CG-33, a COMBAT vessel and pride of the US Navy and all who sailed aboard her. This is a RT4X video game, not real life. USN terms need not necessarily apply. Only the terms the majority of players are going to comprehend and agree with.

IMHO we should consult the fount of all knowledge for all things spaceshippy in games-EVE online (bet ya saw that coming)

In most of the space games I have played (including EVE) the cruiser is used mainly as a frigate and destroyer buster. that is to say it excels (sp?) at killing things smaller than itself but cant take on bigger opponents. this is because it is a support ship aimed at picking off small fry that bigger ships have trouble aiming at, or in situations where there are too many small fry for a capital ship to take out. if cruisers are going to be used as a supporting craft for resupplying etc, it should still be able to defend itself/ attack ships of the same size. so for SINS maybe keep it as mainly support but give it some weapons so it can be of use as well. a capital ship is not gonna like being against a swarm of 1000 frigates, but a capital ship backed by 200 cruisers will be quite happy.

also since this is *gasp* a new game, it should be different. when I think cruiser I think of something medium sized good at blowing holes in other medium sized things. I dont think of some amazing dealer in death and destruction, or of something that gets worried when a few tiny little ships come along. something that is not primarily aimed at offence but is still pumped up enough to defend itself agains attacks from multiple smaller enemies. that would be my idea of an ideal cruiser setup.

I want to add my support for giving the command cruiser more armor. Right now they get popped like balloons.

Also, I don't understand all of the complaints about the carrier. That thing is absolutely amazing when deployed in large formations. If you defend the carriers properly upgraded bombers can do incredible amounts of damage.

I agree that the cruisers need a new name, but I'm not sure about their position on the tech tree. I think a lot of us aren't using cruisers as much because you can simply jump to capital ships, and until we get a stronger AI or multiplayer it will be hard to tell if we'll always be flush with that much cash.

While I certainly don't mind the current Cruiser situation, this is also reasonable:




As for this...



That hardly seems what the above was about. It was about changing the cruisers role a bit -- putting them as ships 'in-between' frigates and capships, as opposed to the 'mage/priest' (to use a fantasy RTS analogy) units they are now.



At the moment, sure. Again, the above was a suggestion changing their role a bit.



Increasing the cost hardly seems to encourage this. (not to mention the suggestion of extra research).



Again. Suggesting a change (though as to what you two define as core escapes me, as I can see just as sane an argument that Frigates are the core of your fleets. YMMV) . The suggestion above would work to put cruiser in more of a middle ground as opposed to where they are now.

I'm quite happy with the support role that cruisers currently play, as far as I'm concerned, they don't need to be buffed at all.

I tried to mod the cruiser class this way (It didn't work using the existing models, but here's the idea) -
Bulldog Destroyer - Basically a Cobalt and Javelii mixed together. However, it is a bit on the slow side.
Kodiak Light Cruiser - Like it is know, except for a slightly more powerful gauss cannon and good point defense capabilities.
Victory Heavy Cruiser - Basically a scaled down capship - a good all around ship that I think would from the bulk of any fleet.

IIRC in Eve-Online Tech 2 frigates ate most cruisers for breakfast.

I agree with scematicninja here. The only thing i could see missing on the cruisers are anti fighter defence.
And, just because cruisers, today, in the USA navy are used in one particular role, does'nt mean the future can't change it. So lets get over that and play the game.

Cheers

wow schem, he came dangerously close to agreeing with you! too bad he was talking to some scem

My bad Well, actually the whole ship balancing discussion is kind of pointless until we see the other races (species?). I have a feeling we'll all go: Aaaah that's what there here for! once we see them.

Or maybe Oh-La-La!


Cheers

In reality Cruisers are far more powerful then frigates. Frigates are small and their applications limited, but cruisers can engage in battles and provide long-range missle support. In fact since WWII cruisers have replaced battleships in most navies around the world. So for someone to tell me that frigates are the military's backbone and cruisers are support vessels, and me to believe it I would have to be high or have severe brain damage.

Or you could try not to implement U.S.A:s current definition of a cruiser on a game that takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.



Anyway this has been discussed already.

technically a cruiser is a ship with battleship weapons but almost no armor at all. They're cheap and primarily useful either in supporting roles or against enemies with sucky weapons. For example, if you wanted to go attack pirates or something cruisers would bring the full weaponry of a battleship down on them without the extra expense of the armor or fuel required to move such a heavy ship to that position. Which is fine because pirate typically don't weapons worth a damn. They're also useful for bombarding coastal installations... again especially if said coastal installations are NOT armed. If they have something dangerous to shoot back at you with... bring in the battleships.

In WW1 the british navy built a LOT of cruisers under the theory that with careful control and tactics they could get what amounted to a full battlefleet for about half the cost or less. This didn't work very well as when the cruisers made contact with the enemy they started just exploding. They had to run away... the british did beat the germans back to into their ports but it required the "actual" battleships to do the job... and the losses by that point were high. It was a strategic victory for the british in that they drove the germans off the seas but a tactical failure based purely on the amount of tonnage lost on either side.



Anyway... that's what a "cruiser" is... it's short for Battlecruiser... and they're garbage compared to a "battleship".

you have mistaken battle cruisers to cruisers.

a battle cruiser is a battleship with little armor. the hms hood was a battlecruiser.


a cruiser is a ship designed to patrol alone. or in groups. they would never be able to stand in a fight with battleships. with exceptions to this of course.

you're right, the term "cruiser" is more complicated... but the term cruiser is always an abbreviation. what you are referring to is a coast cruiser or shore cruiser.


In any event, I've heard many people on this site and elsewhere refer to Battlecruisers as being powerful ships... when really, they're not. Their guns ARE powerful... but as a battleplateform they're so vulnerable to enemy fire that they're of limited use when compared to a battleship.


This is one of the problems with using naval terms when talking about space "ships"... we should probably come up with new names for these things. When humanity eventually goes to the stars I doubt we'll actually call them ships... We'll come up with entirely new names.

battlecruisers were designed for speed hoping that speed would replace armor. it didn't work

The concept of the Battlecruiser works just fine. It can outrun whatever it can't outfight. The problem occurred when the British Navy tried to use Battlecruisers to outfight what they really couldn't outfight.

Well, I suppose it really isn't that simple. The real source of British Cruiser/Battlecruiser loses had more to do with with poor compartmentalization of the power path between ship ammo storage and the turrets. When hits penetrated British turrets, the ammo powder residue would be ignited and would act like a fire trail all the way back the the main ammo storage dumps = ship in many pieces.

The other navy's had better compartmentalization of the route powder took to reach the turrets, so there was less chance of a fire making it all the way back to the ammo storage areas.

I don't think battlecruisers are actually much faster then battlships... they're just cheaper.

they are faster AND cheaper