PeskyFly

@Bobucles, "and to navigate through hostile space they'd be the slowest." WRONG. Large ships have larger engines and more fuel, and probably larger and more powerful Bussard ramscoops if you consider that piece of tech to be present. They can attain higher top speeds and go further, even though smaller ships might be able to accelerate and turn faster thanks to their lower mass. "Good luck docking with an enemy ship while it's still shooting at you."

[quote who="apricotslice" reply="8" id="1900029"]The need for fuel is imo, too limiting. I've always had a problem with space games that had a requirement for refueling. By the time we get to an era with space combat of the likes of most games, the engines will be in existance that do not require fuel of the sort that runs out. I dont know why people keep getting hung up on the fuel issue, which is a now thing. We dont now have the ability to power a ship with a fusion drive, or ma

As much as I wish otherwise, space fighters won't be of much use. Why? Because, regardless of their thruster area being more in relation to their volume as compared to large ships, their small size allows them to carry much less fuel. Fuel provides acceleration(by providing reaction mass while getting rid of some mass on the ship), fuel provides Delta-V. Of course, you could always say that larger ships require a LOT more fuel to move their MUCH fatter rumps. But those larger ships do

[quote]instead focus fire on priority targets until the were damaged enough not to qualify as priority targets any more, due to their degraded combat effectiveness. So still focus fire, just a lot of half dead burning ships floating around being useless in the middle of a battle. I think this might be a pretty cool mechanic: if you're attacking a fleet, do you concentrate on completely destroying ships (at the cost of wasting firepower on effectively worthless targets) or concentrate on reducing

We don't know what the "Shields" in Sins are made of, so we can't tell if a magnetized projectile shot from a coilgun or railgun will actually do anything to them.

[quote]70 cobalts vs 80 diciples..... try using about 100 diciples vs 75 cobalts[/quote] It would be 70 Cobalts vs. 87 Disciples, based on cost and supply(same result for both). Since we see 7 Cobalts survived here, with one of them probably damaged, it would be a damn close fight if 7 more Disciples were to be in the mix from the start(since they'd be contributing their firepower all the time). This is without any support from capital ships or structures, of course. [

[quote]use lots of units and fighters[/quote] Neither Fighters or Bombers work against Light Frigates. Fighters are worse than Bombers at it. Despite their name "Light Frigate", they don't actually use Light armor. [quote]Do you think the improvement of the Illuminator in the next patch might even things up?[/quote] Frogboy's words: [quote]- Illuminator: -Hull points increased from 520 to 620. -Shield points increased from 450 to 550. -Attack type ch

[quote]My response is AFTER your deleted thread.[/quote] Thread? I never created a [I]thread[/I] about Subverters. Yes, there is indeed a thread about Subverters in the Strategy forum, and it's not by me(it's created by Arsonestic). I did make a post about them in this thread in reply to Ganondorf, Reply #65, which I deleted. See, [quote]My original statement was that RA and Subverters counterbalance the crappy aspects of the Vasari game. YOUR counterargument that foll

[quote]For the love of god can you be more incorrect. You'd think if you have the guts to post 90 times per day you'd bother to check your facts.It's tier SIX, not tier 7. Which means among the HC specials, it's low level and low cost. Let's compare subverter special with other support cruisers like the command cruiser and whatnot. It's not even close. AOE stun? Shield reduction?Vasari has serious problems with other areas of the game, so it's reasonable that subverters

Sorry bout that, Hunting. Tell me all the mistakes.

[quote]healthy amount of damage these things counter almost every frigate unit with ease[/quote] Wrong. They can't scratch Light Frigates. If a Defense Vessel has ALL 4 guns firing at different Light Frigates, it would be able to manage a whopping total of 5.55 DPS. Before Shield Mitigation and Regen/Repair are factored in. One gun would only do a pitiful 1.39 DPS. The Light Frigates also get a 35% damage bonus against Flaks, and will just kill them for just about no damage to

[quote]I've done some more testing that surprised me regarding LRM's VS C.Carriers. First I'm trying to find a conversion factor that works across all units as far as cost effect in battle. I'm assuming the Metal is worth 150 credits per 100 and crystal is worth 175 per 100. So A dicipline is 310. (250cr + 40 Metal = 310) A vasari Assailant = (400cr + 65 Metal (97.5) + 45 Crystal (78.75) = 576.25 A Advent C.Carrier = (450cr + 100metal + 50 crystal) = 687.5

Deleted double post. The Sins and GalCiv2 forum are both severely spammed with double posts now. The Stardock forum system must have something seriously wrong with it... my first post ended in a "problem loading page", so I hit Refresh and ended up sending the post again.

[quote]- Siege Frigates: -Build costs decreased by ~15%.[/quote] Won't really help them since they'll still take a huge toll on fleet size. [quote]-Top speed decreased from 800 to 500.[/quote] Wow. Now the 6 carriers(3 caps & 3 cruisers) can actually outrun LR frigates, making Fighter attacks more effective. And the anti-capital deadliness of LRFs goes out the window as well now that we'll have Kols actually being able to simply fly away from Javs at will(without

[quote]how about create a anti-missle boat who's sole role is to create a shield against missles? That way it can't be used against other ships but will provide enough protection to get those heavy cruiser / light frigates in close[/quote] Bad idea. If you create an anti-missile vessel, that shoots at all missiles flying within it's range, you also have to create an anti-beam vessel that refracts/blunts/nullifies/blocks all beam all beams within it's range to counteract the Advent's che

It helps your Fighters and Flak hit enemy Fighters/Bombers more often, and helps to counteract -hit% abilities like The Rapture Battlecruiser's Vertigo and the Illuminator Vessel's Deceptive Illusion.

[quote]They look cool, attacking yoru enemy out of range sounds cool, but they do a pathetic amount of damage and the resources you spend building them can get you A LOT more firepower in other vessels.[/quote] Nothing damages static defenses and orbital structures like Bombers do. With all orbital buildings both tactical and logistical using VeryHeavy armor, the Phase Stabilizer/Phase Jump Inhibitor/Regeneration Bays/Frigate Factory/Defense Platforms you're using for buying time for an

[quote]What about Aeria Drone Hosts? Can't they spread out pretty well?[/quote] They can. But if you're going carrier-heavy, the Stilakus Subverters are not your main problem. Fighters operating from Lasurak Transporters maul Advent Bombers, and Junsurak Sentinels are good too. If the Vasari are wielding Tier 7 Warfare technology, it is inevitable that their Skarovas Enforcers will be armed with Inertial Fields. Once they catch the kiting Drone Hosts, there is no escape. <b

[quote]Take away gates and what are vas left with? they havr the smallest fleet size worst econ etc..[/quote] No, Advent has the worst economy. The Vasari in fact have the best resource economy. Also, their fleet cap is 16% higher than everyone else's. [quote]1) Vasari's ships are way more expencive then the other factions ships 2) Teching up to RA is hard, you need a bunch of planets for it to effectivly work, and the price for the labs and research is pretty large too<br/

[quote]4 civics is too painful to do normally.[/quote] So no going to Empire Tier 6 for an extra 16% supply either? The ultimate result of getting 320 extra supply points equates to 26 extra Enforcers worth. Or in that case, what about getting the Matter Processors at Tier 3, and all those double Extractor bonuses.

[quote]They are the most powerful unit in the game, though for the most part Vasari tends to have the weakest ships per cost/supply except for their HeavyCruiser.[/quote] Nope. The Assailant and Transporter are both better than their equivalents. The Assailant doesn't have much more DPS compared to the Javelis, but it had Phase Missiles to make up for that and is tougher. The Transporter uses equal supply to it's counterparts and has better strike craft. The Vasari heavy cruiser, the Sk

All capital ships are immune to cruiser abilities, AFAIK.

[quote]Transporters are amazingly slow[/quote] Speed of 500. The Subverter, Overseer, Devastator, Desolator, and Skirantra Carrier have the same speed(the Evacuator is slower and the Marauder can go faster if it wants). [quote]and they build strikecraft incredibly slowly.[/quote] Vasari Fighter Squadron: 96 seconds Vasari Bomber Squadron: 90 seconds TEC Fighter Squadron: 120 seconds TEC Bomber Squadron: 125 seconds Advent Fighter Squadron: 144 seconds<b

@James, If you want to see from a realism point-of-view, then yes, space fighters(or 'strike craft' as they are termed in Sins) are rather useless. They operate in the same medium as their carriers(space), and are only 5.4 times faster(Fighters) or 4 times faster(Bombers). Not ~30 times faster like the F/A-18 Hornet, which is considered a slow fighter. The F-14 Tomcat, before it was retired, was even faster(>Mach 2). In reality, naval fighters are severely more useful

[quote]?????????????????????????????????????[/quote] He just forgot to use the ol' [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags.