Ankylosaurus: Anatomy of an Alleged Brick

The Ankylon Titan. Is it as bad as people say, or is it just misunderstood? Does it give more or less of a darn than the honey badger?

First, let's not try to paper over the obvious: the Ankylon is not capable of good focus fire damage output. Good thing TEC Loyalists have Kols and Marzas and can afford to have them in numbers. However, the Ankylon can target many targets in all directions and can be upgraded in such a way as to inflict 225% of base damage roughly 80% of the time + an additional 70 damage/second to ALL targets around it roughly 40% of the time. That's before considering any research a player may eventually do to increase laser, beam, and missile damage. In other words, the Ankylon can be upgraded in such a way that it most definitely does NOT have a damage output problem, it just can't bring it all to bear on one target.

I'm not suggesting that the above is a good way to upgrade the Ankylon, just that it can be done if frigate/cruiser destruction is the role you want it to perform. It can do it adequately, provided it has a supporting fleet. Actually, because support cruisers generally have low armor and hit points (and are therefore more damaged by Disruption Matrix than more heavily armoured vessels), the Ankylon + a fair number of Garda Flak Frigates and Cobalt Light Frigates (both of whom will priority target support cruisers and in the case of the Cobalt, shut them down) can pretty rapidly strip the cruiser-based support from an enemy fleet of Vasari or Advent factions.

The fact remains though that an Ankylon at level 10 has a total of 20 upgrades it can purchase and 26 potential upgrades. It's not possible to have everything and so sacrifices have to be made in deciding how to upgrade the ship. To my way of thinking, the decision has to be made at level 1 whether the ship is going to focus on spreading the pain or fleet protection. It should focus wholly on one or the other, splitting the difference just makes it poor at both tasks. Either way, the Ankylon earns its keep with its special abilities and needs to be able to use them often. Investing in Antimatter Funnelling is not optional, practically speaking. You need to do it. You need to make it the number one priority for upgrading. A larger antimatter pool, faster antimatter regeneration, and (most importantly) faster ability cooldown make a dramatic difference in usefulness. An Ankylon that doesn't work to max this passive ability out, ASAP, really is a brick.

Let's look at the active abilities one at a time, bringing in some comments on what passive abilities complement them as we go, always assuming that points are being put into Antimatter Funnelling.

Disruption Matrix. As the only ability that can interrupt Titan channelling, this is a must-have. Tactically, it's not as useful as EMP Charge for keeping a Titan shut down, since even with maxed AM Funnelling, it can't be kept up continuously, but it's a good opening salvo and buys time for the Dunovs to move into range. Of course, it's an area of effect and works on more than just Titans. The Ankylon has the durability to be a focus fire target for a decent while, so in pretty much any scenario it should lead the charge into the center of the enemy fleet and activate this ability before the rest of the fleet comes into range. This buys time to give the Dunovs orders, identify the first target the Kols need to shred, and otherwise make sure that the battle starts off with the TEC Loyalist fleet holding the initiative.

And, of course, Disruption Matrix also does area of effect damage over time. A fair bit of criticism says that because this damage is reduced by shield mitigation and armor, it's just not that impressive. First, I would say that the primary purpose of Disruption Matrix is the ability-disable effect and the damage is just an extra perk. Second, I would point out that this does substantially more damage than the Marza's Radiation Bomb, to a larger area and hence many more targets. Third, it will help in taking out the relatively fragile support cruisers that other fleets rely on for their durability, both by shutting them down for a time, and by damaging them. Taking those ships out is a top priority for a TEC fleet, and if it can be done quickly, usually signals eventual victory.

At the highest levels, with both Disruption Matrix and Antimatter Funnelling maxed, there is only a 19 second gap between the effect wearing off and being able to recast. That means it can be active roughly 40% of the time. It may be, undoubtedly is, a weak area of effect attack by Titan standards, but it's still not bad per se and the ability to shut all ability using ships in a large area down for 40% of the battle is pretty substantial. It's kind of like having level 1 Magnetize, but on everything. I consider this a must-have ability, no matter what primary role I want the Ankylon to perform - the disable effect counts as a fleet protection ability, and the damage over time counts as, well, a damage ability. Disruption Matrix works in both roles. Use it.

Furious Defense. Always take at least one level in this ability. If nothing else it makes healing the Ankylon between battles much faster. Before you put any more points into Furious Defense, ask yourself if you are willing to commit to getting the maximum benefit out of it, because it's a serious commitment of upgrade points. Wait, what? you say. Bear with me.

I remember reading one commenter giving advice about upgrading the Ankylon and he said something along the lines of, "Never take points in Superior Gunnery, because Furious Defense is better at all levels." As best as I can tell, the percentage increase in damage output from Superior Gunnery is applied first, and then the percentage increase from Furious Defense is applied. Which means, each point you place in Superior Gunnery substantially improves the bonus you get from Furious Defense. With both maxed out, the Ankylon does 225% of the damage it would do with neither invested in. With only Superior Gunnery, it does 145%; with only Furious Defense, 155%. Those numbers are not for defending at home, defending at home is substantially better, but I want to work with minimums for deciding value. Clearly, investing in BOTH Superior Gunnery and Furious Defense results in an improvement that exceeds the sum of the parts. Don't stop short, if you start down this upgrade path, finish it. Go all the way, specialize the ship, and don't split the difference or you end up with something that is mediocre at everything. Commit!

As far as I know, the bonus from weapons research is applied before either Superior Gunnery or Furious Defense, making researching lasers, beams, and missiles very effective at improving the Ankylon's damage output if you are investing in those two abilities. This is how you make the Ankylon a killer of fleets, but it's a major commitment and can't reach its potential until the very late game, since no matter what you should be prioritizing hull, armor, antimatter, and shield research over weapons research. It also means committing 8 of your upgrade points into areas that have no direct benefit to the rest of the fleet. Four points in Antimatter Funnelling, four in Disruption Matrix, four in Furious Defense, and four in Superior Gunnery leaves only four more upgrade points for other areas. This is not enough to make the Ankylon also be a good fleet protection asset. So decide: protect your ships or hurt the enemy's, you can't have both. Decide and Commit!

Group Shield. Now I shall do what the kids call 'trolling': Group Shield is a very, very nice ability that synergizes with the TEC Loyalist fleet perfectly.

And now I will substantiate that claim. Group Shield reduces damage taken by a percentage. The percentages listed in the game are "Ironclad Math", so not to be believed as a sensible person would understand them. What the listed percentages actually represent is the percentage increase in durability an affected ship experiences. The important thing here to realise is that it is a percentage increase. The more durable a given ship is before being affected by Group Shield, the more it will benefit from the bonus (in terms of time survived). What have I been harping on in every single one of these essays? RESEARCH ARMOR AND HULL POINT UPGRADES (AND SHIELDS)!!!

TEC ships with maxed out hull and armor research more than double their functional durability. Add shield research, and they come in around 2.5 times as durable as the base models, by my estimate. That's for frigates and cruisers. Capitals also become more durable as they level up, so they just have this massive snowball effect and end up being several times more durable. Group Shield, at level 4, increases durability 82%. If you have basic math skills, you are now realising why I actually quite like the Ankylon. For the math challenged, level 4 Group Shield makes frigates and cruisers (if you've done the hull, armor, and shield research) about 450% more durable than the base model. Capital ships benefit further.

Hypothetically, a level 7 Kol using level 4 Adaptive Forcefield (and with the research I keep pushing) is invulnerable for all practical intents and purposes when under a level 4 Group Shield because it's getting a real damage reduction of about 66% before shield mitigation, armor, and passive regeneration are considered - assuming full shield mitigation, said Kol will only end up taking about 4% of incoming damage, which its passive regeneration rate is more than likely able to negate.

I've seen pros complain about Group Shield along the lines of, "It really keeps capital ships alive, but it's just not good enough to save frigates, so it needs buffed in a patch." Think about that. First, it keeps frigates and cruisers alive just fine if you've done the right research to complement the ability. But set that aside for a moment and consider that, second, it keeps capital ships alive. Capital ships that have reached levels 5+ are the only irreplaceable parts of the fleet. Even the Titan can be replaced! It only matters if the frigates die too quickly if the player is relying too heavily on them.

I don't know everything, and I don't play on ICO, and I'm not a 'pro', and maybe the developers really did screw up, but I've played RTS games since I was 12 (I'm 30 now and they say it takes ten years to become an expert at something...), I've modded some of them, I've written guides for them, I've gone so far as to truly master a few of them. Sins isn't one of those, yet, but I trust my instincts when I analyse the best way to play a faction and I agree that in Trinity/Diplomacy and before, keeping capital ship numbers low made sense for everyone. Rebellion changed things, and when I look at the TEC Loyalists now, and especially when I look at the Ankylon's Group Shield and how it works, it seems obvious to me that the TEC Loyalist fleet is meant to be capital heavy, specifically Kol heavy, and the Ankylon is built to keep the high value and high DPS capital ships alive in the middle of the fight because they, the capitals, are where the durable killing power for the Loyalists comes from, specifically from the Kol and Marza, with anti-Titan utility from the Dunov.

The other big complaint about Group Shield: It doesn't last long enough to be effective. I will admit that this is true at lower levels, but at level 4, with four levels in Antimatter Funnelling, it stays on as long as there is antimatter to fuel it, and that shouldn't be a problem what with the levels in Antimatter Funnelling.

Group Shield is an amazing ability, if you plan ahead to use it and conduct your research and build your fleet appropriately.  If you don't plan ahead and don't focus your research on improving durability and don't build your fleet around massed capital ships, the value of Group Shield declines considerably and the Ankylon as a whole with it.

Inspire and Impair. I admit, the idea of this ability is better than the seeming reality. At level 2, with Antimatter Funnelling maxed, it can be active 50% of the time (45 seconds on, 45 seconds off). That's not too bad, for what it does. Increasing friendly forces' rate of fire and decreasing the enemy's in the entire gravity well is great, but it doesn't affect Titans or strikecraft. Still, this ability will allow the Kols to tear hard targets apart even faster. Anything that lets the TEC Loyalist fleet remove important enemy ships faster is a good ability to have. It protects the fleet by reducing incoming damage, and it hurts the enemy by increasing fleet DPS. And there really isn't much more to say about Inspire and Impair than that. Get it. Use it.

----

So what's left? Well, if you get the Ankylon all the way up to level 10 (not an easy feat), and you take my advice to specialize either in Furious Defense or Group Shield (clearly, I favour Group Shield, but I imagine a strategy could be built around Furious Defense on the Ankylon), you will have one or two discretionary upgrade points. Given that no matter what you will be constantly casting three special abilities as long as you have antimatter (Disruption Matrix, Inspire and Impair and either Furious Defense or Group Shield), I suggest putting them in something passive - Fortified Superstructure, just because they have to go somewhere. 

Is the Ankylon a bad Titan? I suppose it depends on how narrowly you define what a Titan is supposed to do. All the other Titans do appear to be better at fighting each other and/or destroying fleets of frigates and cruisers very rapidly. If that's the criteria for being a good Titan, then I suppose the Ankylon is a lacklustre Titan. That doesn't meant that it's a bad ship, however. It does what it needs to do to give the TEC Loyalists an alternative to a great Titan: extremely durable high DPS ships, ie. massed capitals. It keeps them alive and it greatly increases their damage output and it allows the TEC Loyalists to ensure that the primary focus-fire damage-dealing part of their late game fleet isn't composed of highly vulnerable frigates. It synergizes really well with Kol Battleships and I suspect that the design motivation behind the Ankylon was to try to goad TEC Loyalist players into actually appreciating the Kol (and massed capital ships in general), but perhaps I'm projecting too much of my own love for the Kol.

To summarize, I like the Ankylon, but it only works as part of a holistic philosophy focused on defense and durability that encompasses ship, ability, and research choices.

---

Now I still need another post to, hopefully, wrap all things TEC Loyalist up, but I haven't actually played the game in three days and I'm having withdrawal (and also hunger pangs, time to make dinner) so that will probably have to wait until tomorrow.

One thing I've noticed with a lot of games I've played and ended up writing guides/long posts about strategy about is that the process of writing those things makes me dive into the numbers more, and that inevitably exposes inefficiencies in my own play. So I'm re-thinking parts of my habitual fleet construction.

But I'm planning a long post, part of which will cover how to think about fleet composition. I'm having a really bad day though, health-wise, so I'd like to get it up by tonight, but probably not sooner.

I have to ask, though, why the Krosovs? They feel like overkill when you've got a large number of capitals, to me, and they're awfully intensive on fleet supply for such a fragile and inflexible vessel.

It's an OCD thing.  I know it gimps me, but I feel they were included for a reason(Even if it was just for the "Fear of Icebergs" achievement...and If I build one, I need to have the whole row. [e digicons]'[/e] I could probably have other, better ships using that supply, but I generally don't need it by the end game anyway, which is where I build them.

And welcome to the community, tokerme, hope you stick around.

-Huzzah!

And it's worth repeating after all this writing about the TEC ultra late game and defensive playing and massed capital ships and on and on that both TEC factions are roughly equal in their ability to rush and force an early conclusion, and TEC remains the best of the races for doing so. That requires a very different opening game from the very beginning than what I've been talking about, but there's generally loads of info for that play choice already out on the forum.

I agree.  Larger maps + pirates create a more multi-dimensional gaming experience, and I don't mind stretching out a game over a week or two, playing a bit here and there and thinking about my options in between sessions, considering a particular challenge from a few different perspectives before deciding on a final course of action.  This is intended to be a simulation of an interstellar war taking years, after all, not an arcade FPS game where every decision has to be made in a split second.

Don't get me wrong...even in a large game, I always incorporate some form of a "rush" against one or the other of my AI neighbors.  That's the way I establish a defensible and economically viable sphere of influence, and generally find my primary AI ally (the enemy of my enemy, etc. etc.).  I just would not prefer to place so much weight on this part of the game (in the terms of the initial conditions or constraints) that one precludes the rest of it.

Earl Grey tea is an interesting choice.  I tend to go with Lapsang Soochong, myself.

I really enjoy early game fighting, in pretty much any game. I really enjoy late game fighting in pretty much any game. A little quirk of mine from game to game, including games like the Total War series: I'm best with small-scale micro-heavy tactical command and fleet/army level command. But that midpoint, like the mid-game sized fleets in Sins or 10ish unit stack battles in a Total War game? I'm not bad commanding at that point, but I'm definitely not at my best.

I like TEC Loyalists because their periods of greatest effectiveness match up with both of mine. That's quite rare in RTS factions. Most are either rush or late game factions. Having a faction that is at its best when rushing and the late game, but weakest in the middle, is refreshingly different.

I'm from the US, but I lived in Scotland for four years while attending university. I picked up my tea habit there, and if it's not a black tea and served with milk, I'm not interested. For the record, Twinnings' Lady Grey is my favourite, but it's impossible to find it loose leaf here. Fortunately I can find Earl Grey.

As an aside, anyone else notice that the background image for these forums has an Ankylon surrounded by a group of Kols? I trust my analysis, but I'd hate to think it might have been subtly influenced by the milieu. 

Right click on the image, select 'View background image'. Then right click on the image again and choose, "Set as my desktop background". You'll probably have to select "Tile" to get it to look right, at least I did.

Well, to be fair, the best tea I've bought was from a speciality tea shop in Alexandria, Virginia. It's a loose black tea cut with jasmine and orange zest. Heavenly. I still have some, which I just smell occasionally.

I can understand the 'pro' position, although it's not entirely fair to call it that. There's at least one pro who plays TEC Loyalists who broadly advocates the same ideas I do, can't remember the handle, but an old post by him is what got me seriously comparing the cost/benefit of armor/hull/shield research vs. weapon research.

Part of the 'problem' is that the vast majority of the pros don't play TEC Loyalists. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because the Ankylon is neither 'sexy' nor intuitive nor truly fleet-independent, unlike ALL of the other Titans, except maybe the Coronata (but even the Coronata is better at Titan vs Titan slugfests). This forces TEC Loyalist players to continue relying upon a mixed fleet in the late game when everyone else is using bomber spam, corvettes, and Titans pretty exclusively. It is admittedly easier to just not play the faction than to figure out how to build a mixed fleet that can survive in an environment dominated by the three most efficient counters in the game.

So few people evidently play TEC Loyalists in competitive mulitiplayer that there just isn't enough experimentation being done and few people are good at (or have the patience for) purely theoretical analysis. It's a temptation for me to start playing on ICO, but I know my execution isn't good enough yet and I would need to acclimate to the much faster settings first.

Doesn't the Orkulus know that Kols supported by an Ankylon are nearly invincible themselves? I sense a never-ending battle coming, unless there's a couple dozen Ogrov's just off screen left.

The invincibility of the Orkulus isn't really ipse dixit. It is invincible to the front with the Frontal Deflector Shield upgrade, and it can move, so a player can always make sure it's facing the direction the most damage is coming from, yet it can shoot in every direction, and like all starbases it has great armor, hull points, and regeneration. Of course, you'll never see the AI use it very well. The closest you'll see is the Pirate starbase if you play the Distant Stars mod: it is a royal PITA to take down.

To kill an Orkulus as TEC Loyalists requires Dunovs, just like a Titan, to drain its antimatter and help strip its shields. Unlike a Titan, though, starbases can be Magnetized, so there's that. You probably can't stop a player from triggering Frontal Deflector Shield, but you can make sure they won't be able to renew it, assuming your Dunovs are still alive. The thing puts out a massive amount of DPS with its phase missiles and other weapons. Cielo Command Cruisers with Designate Target are almost essential to taking the thing down, but they don't have much survivability in its line of fire. I'm serious about the Ogrov's, too. Ankylon + Kols and an Orkulus will just beat on each other for half an hour without the backup. Bombers are an option, too.

Trying to fight an upgraded Orkulus and a Titan at the same time is not a winning proposition, even TEC Loyalists can't win that cost effectively (if they can win it at all) which is what makes the Kostura Cannon + phase-jumping Orkulus' of the Vasari Rebels so game-breaking that the faction is pretty much banned in multiplayer. I'm not sure how I feel about that, since there is a clear counter to a faction that becomes over powered in the late game: don't let them get to the late game. However, most MP games are big team games, and it can be impossible to take a player in the pocket out before the late game in that situation, meaning there is no effective counter.

It won't be even remotely close to as skilled. However, you are correct, you can judge the relative merits of different approaches. But bear in mind two things: if you are using frigates/cruisers for any part of your DPS output (including Ogrovs) you need to account for a skilled player using Stilaukus Subverters to shut some percentage (perhaps all) of them down. The Stilaukus can also make your shields weaker against phase missiles. Meanwhile, Serevun Overseers can insta-repair hull damage on the Orkulus.

In other words, you must assume that you will need to spend time pop-ing support cruisers and not just directing all of your fire at the Orkulus itself. The AI doesn't use those ships very well at all, so although they may be present in the right numbers, it can be easy to underestimate their effect in a human's hands.

To do acceptably well against a human, you will need to find something that works exceptionally fast against the AI. I have my theoretical answer. I'll be curious to see what you come up with.

Interesting about the Subverters. Why aren't they used? Is that a Rebellion tendency, or have they never been used?

For what it's worth the wiki entry on the ship implies that they see a lot of use, but I've gotten the impression that the wiki can sometimes be a hobby-horse for pet theories (as though I'm one to talk, of course).

Guilty as charged   ... But really, your first clue should have been the half dozen times or so I've said as much.

No stranger to RTS multiplayer in general, though. Just haven't done Sins MP yet (well, a couple really laggy attempts with my cousin aside). Which makes me that hated breed, a non-ICO player with opinions (and also math)! Hide the women and children!

But the AI is getting tiresome, its limitations are too glaring once one understands the game mechanics. Coming up with a strategy, executing it, and having it work is not nearly so satisfying when there's very little chance the AI could have coped in the first place. And since coming up with strategies and trying them out is sort of the thing that makes me happy, that really frustrates me.

I'm strongly considering finding some way to MP Sins after my surgery (need my gallbladder out). As it is, I have to go AFK too often (and I have technical issues with my connection, but I can resolve those, I own an IT business for chrissake), just to move around a bit.

One more question, though... 20 carriers? Why so few? Or are 40 Bombers widely considered 'enough'? I find them to be too slow to kill and go for 60+. When I use Bombers, that is. They're not my preferred solution. I was a strikecraft fanatic in Homeworld 2, but they don't do it for me in Sins, at least not for the TEC Loyalists.

Fleet Composition and Final Thoughts

I've been arguing for a defensive play style for the TEC Loyalists and then a late-game, large fleet push fuelled by a powerhouse economy. I've reasoned that coupled with a heavy emphasis on culture and combining the Ankylon with massed capital ships the TEC Loyalists can build an irresistible pressure against a foe and wear down opposition over time. There's a few things I've mentioned and want to reiterate and some other things that I want to make explicit that may have only been implied up till now.

First, any strategy in Sins is founded upon aggressive early expansion. There are a lot of other threads that can help a new player learn how to expand rapidly in the very early game, I won't go into details. I just want to point out that a defensive mid-game strategy is still built on an opportunistic and aggressive start. I say opportunistic because either of the TEC factions are arguably the best 'rushers' in the game; if a situation allows for crippling or destroying an enemy in the early game it's foolish not to take advantage.

Second, defensive does not mean passive. Two separate points to make here regarding scouting and titan/capital levelling.

The Arcova Scout Frigate with Sensor Drones researched is arguably the best scout ship in the game. There is no excuse for not having every bordering enemy world under constant surveillance. Frankly, in the late game the Arcova is cheap enough that building 5-10 of them and trying to get one of them through to the next enemy world and get a sensor drone on it is a good idea where you can. You should always know where the enemy fleet is and what its composition is well before any attack could be launched against your border. Your own fleet should always be present if/when an enemy jumps into one of your border systems, there is no excuse for being caught with your ships somewhere else.

If you are playing against the AI, no matter what, it will attack from time to time, allowing your Titan and ships to gain experience. A human player may be more cautious if you've built up your defences well and do a good job of keeping your fleet opposite his. The Akkan's Ceasefire ability allows you to attack, do some damage, and retreat. Use this to raid and gain experience, especially for the Ankylon. Ogrov Torpedo Cruisers are great for raiding. They do massive damage to structures, they have a huge range to start with and when paired with an Akkan they are ridiculous. Jump in with the Ankylon, the Akkan, the Ogrovs, and a bunch of Gardas, let the Ogrovs rapidly tear some things down while the Gardas tear up the inevitable immediate strikecraft response and then Ceasefire and leave before the enemy fleet can effectively react. You could send some Percheron Light Carriers, too, loaded with fighters. Strikecraft aren't worth much experience individually, but if you can kill a bunch of them it adds up. Try to raid systems the enemy Titan isn't in, so that any losses you suffer don't help it level up! Don't worry if it's one jump away, you'll be gone before it can join the fight.

Third, the purpose of playing defensively is to hold the enemy at bay while you first build up your economy and then out-research your opponent. If you allow the enemy to also build up his economy and conduct unlimited research, you're just wasting time as he will probably maintain parity.

As discussed before, build the economy up with dual starbases with trade facilities so that the logistic slots on your border can be given over to Broadcast Centers. Force your opponent, who has less logistic slots to work with and can only build trade facilities on one starbase/gravity well and can't conduct production of frigates and cruisers on his starbases (unless he's also a TEC faction, of course), to spend precious logistic slots countering your culture.

Research and build multiple Novalith Cannons and keep bombarding all of the enemy's planets: you don't have to wipe the planet out, though it's nice if you do. The purpose is to keep applying the max population and trade debuff and cripple your opponent's credit income.

If you have excess mineral or crystal income, keep selling to the Black Market to keep the market crashed. If you cripple the enemy credit income, he'll have to sell resources for credits, and the lower you can keep the market price, the worse off he'll be.

Keep raiding and inflicting damage that your enemy has to rebuild or retrain. With judicious use of Ceasefire you should be able to inflict more losses than you take. Even if losses are even, your economy should be able to handle the cost of replacement easily, while his will be further drained.

Fourth, if you use all of the available capital ship crew (and, as much as I think massed capitals are the way for TEC Loyalists, I'm not sure there's a need to train ALL that you can) you will use a little less than half of the maximum fleet supply. With the TEC Loyalist economy, you should be able to afford to max out your fleet supply research and you should always be using all that you have researched. In other words, you are going to have a LOT of frigates/cruisers.

Some ships are ones that you will always want to have in numbers:

Cielo Command Cruisers with Designate Target make killing big scary enemy ships a lot easier by increasing their damage taken (before mitigation) by 40%. Don't underestimate the usefulness of Embolden, either, as it decreases weapon cooldown and restores shields. The shield restore rate isn't that impressive, but the weapon cooldown buff increases DPS output and anything that increases DPS for TEC fleets is good. I try to keep 10-20 of these ships around.

Hoshiko Robotics Cruisers greatly enhance the durability of TEC fleets in the early-mid game. They aren't quite as necessary for that role after you've done your hull and armor research, but they fortunately gain an ability to shut down the weapons and movement of enemy frigates and cruisers. Each Hoshiko can use Demolition Bots to keep two ships shut down. There are two things to note, if you are using your Hoshikos for the Demo Bots, turn auto-attack off and also the auto-cast for Repair Bots. The first ensures the Demo Bots get spread around, the second prevents the Hoshiko from draining anti-matter too quickly. It's a good idea to have at least 20 Hoshikos for fleet repairs after a battle. If your enemy has a lot of cruisers and frigates, build even more Hoshikos for the Demo Bots. The AI will always have ships for you to shut down, but human players allegedly often stop building frigates/cruisers in the Rebellion late game. If your enemy doesn't have frigates/cruisers, scale back your Hoshikos.

Percheron Light Carriers are essential for countering bomber spam. Even the AI likes to rely on large swarms of strikecraft in the late game. Gardas and Shrikens counter bombers, but given how dangerous large groups of bombers are, you need to take them out of action as quickly as possible. 20+ Percherons loaded with Fighters will go a long ways to helping your other anti-strikecraft methods to keep the 'skies' clear. After the enemy fleet is destroyed, the Percherons can scrap their Fighters and build Bombers (if they have anti-matter left) to help destroy fixed defences. I say 20+ carriers, emphasis should be on the plus if the enemy is massing bombers. Fighters counter bombers, but not as quickly as you may assume, so you need a LOT if the enemy has gone bomber crazy. At least a 1:1 ratio (in addition to your other counters).

Garda Flak Frigates are my personal favourite frigate. They're fairly tough to kill, even before the hull and armor research, and they keep the fleet safe from strikecraft and corvettes. If they are placed in the middle of the enemy fleet they do respectable damage to long range frigates and support cruisers as well. Working within the radius of an Akkan's Targeting Uplink greatly enhances their lethality to strikecraft and corvettes, as do the autogun weapon upgrades. I'll have anywhere from 40-100 of these in a late game fleet. Note, however, they are still frigates and suffer in the face of late game Titan area of effect abilities. All frigates should be held back from battles against Titans until Disruption Matrix and EMP Charge can create a 'safe' environment.

Ogrov Torpedo Cruisers are essential for taking down enemy starbases and other defensive structures. Don't go on the offensive without at least 15 of these. 20 is better. 50 can tear even an Orkulus apart very quickly, but puts a heavy burden on your fleet supply. Fortunately, the Kols + Marzas + Dunovs + Ankylon combo can also dish out a lot of pain very quickly, so a smaller number of Ogrovs is acceptable to use in support. 15-20.

Shriken Corvettes are one of the key components of a TEC Loyalist fleet, as far as I'm concerned. Because of their fragility it can be a good idea to keep them out of a battle until the midpoint. Other times you may need their anti-bomber capabilities ASAP. They will target Bombers while targeting other ships and can do a good job of thinning out bomber spam. The Shriken really shines at the end of a battle as the enemy tries to retreat. Every attack the Shriken makes has a chance of inflicting the target with a movement, acceleration, and turn rate penalty of -25%. The effect can stack, slowing all movement to an absolute crawl. This basically means that an enemy can't retreat from a lost battle against the TEC Loyalists. All corvettes do bonus damage to Titans, as well. To be effective in the late game, Shrikens need to be used in large numbers. 50-100 are good. Some situations (such as the enemy having a high level Titan) may call for even more Shrikens to counter. Note: Vasari Titan AoEs can, unusually, affect corvettes, adjust accordingly.

Some ships are situational and should be built to counter enemy fleet composition, they may or may not need to be present in your fleet at any given time:

Cobalt Light Frigates can be useful when the enemy has a lot of support cruisers. Sabotage Reactor will damage the cruisers when they use their abilities and disable said abilities for a brief time. It's not overwhelmingly great, but it helps and the Cobalt does extra damage to support cruisers. However, even with hull and armor upgrades the Cobalt is not known for durability or for damage output against targets it's not meant to counter. If the enemy has a lot of support cruisers or flak, build Cobalts, but build a LOT of them to be effective. 50-100. If the enemy isn't building a lot of support cruisers or flak, Cobalts are probably not worth having in your fleet.

Javelis LRM Frigates remain the best focused DPS/cost frigate/cruiser in the game. However, they are hard-countered by corvettes, fighters, and heavy cruisers (meaning these units do a lot of bonus damage against the Javelis) and soft-countered by flak and bombers. As the most fragile of the primary TEC combat ships, these are also the most affected by area of effect attacks. Once upon a time, these were kings of Sins, but now they have two counters that become available early in the game, and one of those counters the other, so that most players will be building one or the other en masse at the beginning of the game (flak or corvettes). Late in the game, however, when the Javelis can be had in large numbers (50+) as part of a large fleet and after Clustered Warheads has been researched, they can be very effective against any target. They will take losses, but the TEC Loyalist economy can afford to replace them and with the hull and armor upgrades they will almost certainly dish out more damage than they take before they die. The only reason I don't have them in the essential list is because a capital heavy fleet already possesses a lot of high DPS output from the Kol/Marza contingent and may benefit from more Percheron Light Carriers and/or Garda Flak Frigates than Javelis LRM Frigates in some situations.

Kodiak Heavy Cruisers. Honestly, I don't use these ships. I'm constantly wondering if I should, but I see them as a high damage, high durability midpoint between the combat frigates and the capital ships, designed to give muscle to the fleet, but they have short range and no useful special ability (Intercept was useful in earlier versions of Sins, but the Shriken now does a better job of chasing things down and killing them, in my opinion). When 1/3-1/2 of fleet supply is being used on capital ships, particularly Kols and Marzas, the niche of high damage, high durability ship is already filled and frigates/cruisers should be chosen primarily for their abilities (which is backwards from the norm, where one chooses capitals for their abilities and frigates/cruisers for DPS output...). The Kodiak is not a bad ship, but there's limited Fleet Supply to work with, and tend to use it up on other things. I'm reconsidering this approach, but haven't come to a conclusion. For what it's worth, they are the best ship counter to long range frigates and they tear up support cruisers. On the other hand, fighters do even more bonus damage to long range frigates and you should have plenty of those and the Kodiak doesn't have a disable ability to use on support cruisers like the Cobalt.

Fifth, if all of the above section didn't make clear: fleet composition (of frigates/cruisers) should be chosen to counter the enemy's fleet. There is no 'right' mix of ships that holds true in all circumstances. Don't waste time trying to figure out the 'ideal' fleet. Even the exact composition of the capital ship component should take circumstances into consideration. The TEC Loyalist economy and the rate they can construct new ships means that not only can they replace losses quickly, they can also scrap and re-tool their fleet if need be. It's drastic, but if your scouting shows that you've made the wrong choices for fleet composition to counter your foe, it may be necessary. Try to do better scouting earlier to avoid this eventuality, however.

Sixth, using static defences intelligently separates a skilled defensive player from someone who has fallen into bad habits against the AI (it's really easy to do). Static defences should supplement the firepower and durability of your fleet, not act in lieu of it. In the worst case, they should delay the enemy for your fleet to arrive. I could write as much as I've already written about the general theory of static defence and how it applies to Sins, but not just now. I will say that Gauss Defense Platforms, Repair Platforms, and Hanger Defenses are all excellent in their own way, but for TEC Loyalists the Twin Fortresses are the real shining stars. Unlike the AI, though, it takes thought to force a human player to deal with static defences instead of circumventing them. Flanking a Phase Jump Inhibitor with Argonev Starbases and surrounded the whole in a knot of Repair Platforms and Hanger Defenses (and a few Gauss Turrets) is one possibility, especially if Auxiliary Government is upgraded on one of the starbases. Ultimately, though, it takes a fleet to fight a fleet: don't over-estimate the impregnability of defences, even while learning how to get most use out of them.

----

Once again, I didn't get to everything I wanted to, but I'm too tired to keep writing and editing. It'll have to wait. Remember that no matter how stridently I present my case, the proof is in testing. I make no claims to infallibility* and encourage testing and feedback. Theory only goes so far! Even compelling, sexy, iconoclast theory, sadly.

*To prove the point, I spent a year trying to theorize an effective counter to the dreaded Pikemen/Trebuchet combo in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Eras of Empire Earth, after trying many things I was forced to stubbornly concede that there wasn't a counter. It was a serious flaw in the game - and a colossal waste of time.