trying to put some constructive post here again: the idea of a destroyer is not bad in itself, two things to add. one, make sure we don't have the problem that was to be avoided by not making cruisers upgraded frigates ie destroyers should be a complement, not a replacment of earlier units.

two, as has already been mentioned, it won't be spammed, if - refering to above post - a more diversified force composed of carriers, frigs and cap ships can do the same job more effectively. having a single ship to counter all units also implies that it does not counter anything as well as the specialised units do and more expensively so. why then build it? as a reserve force and to add flexibility to your force. that way, you don't even want to have very many of those, because its pointless.

now, I too have earned my right to make a stupid post. if you make a super-powerful end game unit, make sure it has a ventilation shaft by which it can be blown up with torpedos guided by an invisible power and fired from tiny x shaped fighters that are piloted by backwater noobs.

The present Frigates already cover the Corvette-Frigate range of Ship Class quite well.

The present Cruisers already cover the Destroyer-Light Cruiser range of Ship Class.

The present Capital Ships already cover the Cruiser-Battleship range of Ship Class fairly well.

I am not convinced there is a need for a new class of ship between Frigates and Cruisers.
What the Devs should be doing instead is balancing the Cruiser Class ships a bit better.

If it pleases people, the Devs could also reclassify the ship classes to more accurately cover the Corvette/Frigate/Destroyer/Light Cruiser/Cruiser/Battleship range.

Shadowhal:now, I too have earned my right to make a stupid post. if you make a super-powerful end game unit, make sure it has a ventilation shaft by which it can be blown up with torpedos guided by an invisible power and fired from tiny x shaped fighters that are piloted by backwater noobs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah it is kinda of annoying when you think of it. A battlestation with the power to destroy a planet blown up thanks to a small thermal exhaust port that is only 2 meters wide by a farmboy

Okay, just to prevent confusion im going to merge all my posts, They should explain this a bit better.

I would like to see one (and only one) new ship in Sins.

This ship is : The destroyer !
The destroyer would be a bridge between capital ships and cruisers and allow for less of a dependancy on capital ships and kodiaks late-game.

Destroyers would be multifunctional vessels, they would have 2 main weapon systems, dual gauss cannons to take out medium to heavy targets and about 4 Point defence anti-fighter guns. These ships would be able to hold 1 squad of fighters and would be the fastest late game unit you would have (second only to the scout vessels.) The destroyer would have no clear counter, it would be generaly good vs anything but not specialize in any specific roles. It would thus be quite a numerous vessel in ones fleet. Its size would be about about a quarter to about a half of the Kol's size and it would have slightly more hitpoints than the Kodiak. To prevent spamming, destroyers would take a long time to build (longer than any cruiser or frigate, but not as long as a capital ship, somewhere in between) and would have something around the price of 150 Crystal 800 Gold and maybe 500 iron. That way Destroyer spamming is out of the question. Since destroyers dont really excell vs any kind of unit you would need to support them with frigates and fighters to make them effective, they should become the backbone of your navy later on. Destroyer scanners are extremely effective and can cover a large area to help support your units.

Finaly, I think Destroyers should be added simply to mix up the current bland clear counters we have now. It would certainly be interesting to see them in the game !

The destroyer is not effective against everything, in fact the specific units that have clear counters/ clear counter something else would be more effective For instance:

The destroyer would have multiple anti fighter cannons much like the anti fighter frigate, yess but the range for the gund would be at the lest halved, if not made even shorter. It would have gauss cannons, so there is little it has to do with the kodiac other than its armour, which would be at least in part similar. Carriers can be easily killed if not protected so yeah, theres a 1up for the destroyer there too.

The game would not focus on destroyer spam. Honestly guys if you did that your fleet would be screwed for the following reasons

1: the destroyers weapon range is not even close to a capital ships once again its somewhere in between a kol's and a kodiak's.

2: The destroyers dont really have that great armour, sure they can do fine in single combat but are not effective vs many enemy ships.
In addition to that the gauss cannons would fire slightly slower than our faviourate defence system, so "spamming" them is even more out of the question.

As for fighters, really come on its much more effective to make carriers or even capital ships. Frigate carriers are cheap so they are not ruled out either, a frigate carrier can still be usefull late game due to theyre cheap cost, essentialy you can pump out 5 frig-carriers while its much harder to do so with even 1 destroyer. Kodiaks are NOT replaced ! there is very little a destroyer provides in terms of close quarters combat, so the Kodiac is still very usefull.

When i said it had no clear counter i meant that the unit had no major weaknesses but that doesnt mean it really excells at anything either, whereas your other ships and weaknesses and advantages.

As you can see the majority of the public agree's with me, maybe there is something your just not getting here.

In response to the last comment: Why is it a bad idea? the Kodiak is fine as it is all things considered, i fail to see why you want it even better when most people end up spamming THEM ! Honestly, the Kodiac's role does not bridge the huge gap between the 2 ship classes, not even a bit.

Another edit here: A destroyer is not meant to be a capital ship, not in the least, it is a fire support unit capable of multiple actions against many kinds of enemies and with a proper hold of units and fleet mechanics anyone could find a nice warm place for the destroyer in their navy. Its like a "multipurpose" ship of the TEC fleet, Look at the game Star-Craft. In it we see a unit called a "Hydralisk" used by the Zerg forces, The Hydralisk is obviously the Zerg's bread and butter unit and is treated much the same way as the other race's units. However, the hydralisk has no clear counters, while many of the other basic units had very clear counters and stops, the hydralisk was something completely different. Therefore one would often need to change his or her strategy to accomodate them. Hydralisks werent good at any one specific thing but rather excelled vs everything on a whole and as such It became the mainstay of the Zerg forces thoughout the game. If spammed, it could be an extremely risky move due to theyre large cost and could devastate an economy to lead to the users defeat. This same risk should be made with the destroyers. In essence if you spam you walk a dangerous line, and when walking this line if you somehow manage to lose these destroyers you are going to face the harsh consequences of your actions.

Jeeze these devs are REALLY taking theyre time on this one... i wish someone sent them a PM or memmo to check it out.

EDIT:

Oh, as a footnote: The reason a person would want to get a destroyer is because of :

1: its multiple fields of fire, to protect flanks
2: its standard fighter defence, plus its greater reliability than flack frigates
3: its heavy gauss cannons, which would provide excelent fire support for fleet and anti capital ship maneuvers *Note: the gauss cannons would be long range*
4: its effective radar, to see incomming threats on the space lanes and on the tactical map.
5: its speed, its much faster than a Cap. Ship making it easy to do some heavy recon with them
6: its flexibility, the destroyer can prove effective in most combat scenario's

There, hopefully that will help the dev's with theyre decision.

Finaly, something new.

Destroyer cost: 1800 Credits 20(or 15) Ship slots 800 Metal and 300 Crystal.

The flagship should be invincible...unless you fly an a-wing directly into its bridge.

Hah it seems in not the only star wars nerd here, but seriously i hope the dev's consider this !

I still find it absurd that the SSD was destroyed by flying a ship into the command bridge... it's just.... no?

Anyway, I digress. I like the idea of heavy forward shooting weapons. The Kol has the beams but having two forward aligned particle guns/gauss cannons would add sufficient 'OOMPH' factor to a ship, especially when they'd be quite powerful but slow shooting. I have no problem with adding a lot of Anti-fighter weaponry to it, rave-guns ftw. But I disagree with the suggestion to add multiple fields of fire. I think it's all about Strengths and Weaknesses. Make this ship's strength the ability to fire heavy weapons in a 40 degree angle to the front. Its weakness is the lack of anti-ship defense.

But then I'd be changing the role you had intended for it.

I suggest you lose the big guns in the front and keep the multiple fields of fire or you go with my idea.

Or the devs could just add both types of ships

sry for the other off topic, but this just seems so fitting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Amr8PTkZCI

btw the ssd was already under fire and heavily damaged. shields broke down and before they could restore it, the a wing crashed in. without command crew it lost direction and crashed into the deathstar. that destroyed it.

on topic: the strengh of the originally propsed ship would be flexibilty, the weakness its lack of focus, of a special task it is supposed to, essentially the downside of the flexibility. I tried to find an example to illustrate it with, the best I could come up with is a medium class car. its decent at everything but not excellent at anything. it cannot transport as many people as a combi can. its not as convenient for big cities as a smart is, its not as fast or prestigious as a luxury car is, its doesn't have the power of a suv and so on, but it can do most of these functions to a certain degree. don't hang me on this, its just to get the idea across.

Zero, i respect your opinion but removing the gauss cannons would just make it a larger flack frigate.

I love that clip, i have seen it before "Oh gosh HE CRYING !"

On topic:

on topic: the strengh of the originally propsed ship would be flexibilty, the weakness its lack of focus, of a special task it is supposed to, essentially the downside of the flexibility. I tried to find an example to illustrate it with, the best I could come up with is a medium class car. its decent at everything but not excellent at anything. it cannot transport as many people as a combi can. its not as convenient for big cities as a smart is, its not as fast or prestigious as a luxury car is, its doesn't have the power of a suv and so on, but it can do most of these functions to a certain degree. don't hang me on this, its just to get the idea across.

Thats what i have been TRYING to say !!!

Bottom line is this: the TEC need another combat oriented ship and this Destroyer proposal is the best Idea.

It would help with the late game spamming of Kodiak Cruisers, and also be a good interim Capital class warship. But if the destroyers don't make it into the game, then the Kodiak needs an upgrade in firepower and fields of fire.