Spatzimaus

[quote who="-Ue_Carbon" reply="4" id="2071929"]Add another for the Vasari. Im starting to feel the a lack of love for the TEC. At least we still have the Marza.[/quote] Also note that the Vasari took a major hit in this last patch, as the damage percentages vs. structures was decreased for most attack types (100% down to 75%, 50% down to 35%, etc.), so the Vasari are even less effective against starbases than they used to be, unless they can manage to spend almost three minu

[quote who="Mazuo" reply="5" id="2071481"]Ships in gravwells aren't really manipulating subspace, but instead just using conventional chemical or ion drives, so some sort of subspace inhibitor seems silly from how I understand it.[/quote] Sorry, I think you have that backwards. Ships moving in a gravity well ARE manipulating "subspace"; in Star Trek, the subspace drives were the sub-FTL movement drives for in-system travel, and presumably this game is using similar concepts.

[quote who="Silfarion" reply="12" id="2066915"]The vasari have their starbase, remember. With the faster build times and better attack... then it becomes even more advisable to use their starbase as an offensive platform.[/quote] I'm REALLY concerned about exactly how the Vasari are supposed to use their SB to take out entrenched defenses including an enemy SB. Let's take the worst case: Attacker: me, with a fleet Defender: Vasari player with fully-upgraded comba

The anti-structure change worries me a bit too, as a Vasari player. If you're neutering the anti-structure damage of ships, AND increasing starbase damage-dealing abilities, then the ability to defeat starbases using standoff weapons (torpedoes or strike craft) becomes even more important. And since the Vasari don't get a torpedo ship, you make it even more of a necessity to build our own starbases within each well before assaulting its defenses. (Against another Vasari play

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="13" id="2066080"]But beside that, Sins always had an issue with scalability. Defenses are pretty static. Three hangars early game are still the same three hangars late-game. At the same time, a player's fleet can grow from 10 carriers to 30. Likewise an upgraded starbase does not scale in effectiveness even with hull/weapon upgrades as well as fleets do.[/quote] That's an excellent point, but does it HAVE to be that way? Can a starbase be made to sc

[quote who="CreditSuisse" reply="4" id="2064034"]Remember we don't want to nerf strike craft, we want to nerf the LIGHT CARRIER (which is spammed like hell) and make Strike Craft counterable, we're not reducing Strike Craft hp/attack or anything. The Light Carrier currently has more hp/sheilds than a Kiodiak melee close up heavy cruiser. [/quote] Three caveats to that: 1> While the Light Carrier might have more listed HP/shields than a Kodiak, it's in a

Flaks already gained a bit of a boost in 2.5, in that they're now one of the best mine-clearing ships in the game; you're more likely to have a few on hand for that. But I agree that boosting them would be a great way to help with the carrier spam. However, I don't think increasing their offense outright is viable, because then we go right back to the situation we had before, where they're great frigate-killers. So here are a few suggestions: 1> Giv

[quote who="Exterm123" reply="6" id="2062258"]If you need the extra 10 tac points for defense as Vasari, then the phase stabilizer upgrade to the SB might be worthwhile.[/quote] Unfortunately, no. Prior to the 2.5 update, yes, you were better off using one SB slot for the stabilizer and using the ten spare tac points for two hangars and a nano jammer (or PJI if you didn't have one yet). This was ESPECIALLY true back when SB hangar upgrades only gave two squadrons, but even

As [b]harpo99999[/b] said, you need to buy one of the other abilities that supply antimatter. The Frontal Deflector Shield and Debris Vortex both add 150/300, and the phase stabilizer costs 100 I believe, so one rank of either would suffice. (I recommend the deflector shield, myself. Even one rank of it makes a huge difference.) While the stabilizer used to be a must-have back when it was a passive, now I almost never bother with it, as it requires too much micromanage

[quote who="the_only_normal_1" reply="2" id="2057501"]I think it only makes logical sense that the destructiveness of these massive weapons be preserved, even against ships (why would said weapon do 1% the damage to a small frigate that it does to a massive, fortified SB?[/quote] Because these are giant, nearly unguided torpedoes that can only easily hit stationary targets. Anything mobile just gets out of the way. Would you prefer them to code it that 99% of the time the

> They might have artifacts. Don't underestimate this one; unless you're playing on a huge map, you need every chance you can get. > With Entrenchment, you can now put a starbase around them. That can mean trade ports and colony pods, in addition to the tactical bonuses. Very expensive to do this, though. > It's nice to have a front-line system where you know that if the planet gets bombarded half to death by raiders, it won't cost you much to rebuil

[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="1" id="2055209"] In fact, I've tried this numerous times, but so far I have not been able to kill an enemy sb with a vasari sb.[/quote] Strange, I do this all the time. One of my standard late-game tactics is to put vasari SBs at each of my allies' key planets, along with the occasional minefield; when the peace inevitably fails, my fully-upgraded SB (2 attack, 4 defense, 2 deflector) often wipes the floor with the SBs they have (as other play

I usually don't bother with subfleets; the only times I've ever wished I could control fleet components individually was with the carrier cruisers. (And with Entrenchment, the scouts). Since you can ALT-click to select all ships of a given type, there's not as much need to separate out ship types into subfleets. That being said, I tend to structure my fleets in complementary ways anyway. For instance, here are the hotkeyed fleets on a large, late-game

[quote who="Darvin3" reply="5" id="2054157"] I don't see why the Vasari Carrier can't get extra bomber squads passively, either.[/quote] Well, they get strike craft survivability passively, which isn't a minor benefit. It's not purely offensive like the other two races' passives, but it's very useful regardless, since it applies to all friendly craft within the radius, including the bombers sent in by your supporting carriers. Same goes for the healing effect: it heals all

[quote who="Zanosan" reply="18" id="2049576"]Wait a minute. from your post sounds like your own ships don't get hit by the cannon effects? I thought everyone gets hit. Is this also true for your allies ships too?[/quote] Originally, every ship in the well would be damaged. This meant that in the late game, you'd have to turn off all your cannons just to keep them from obliterating your own fleet once you got to the last couple planets. In a patch (1.05?) t

[quote who="Peter Ebbesen" reply="3" id="2049238"]I'd love a simple icon denoting a starbase for every system in which a starbase has been observed. It is the sort of structure that is definitely worth noticing on the strategic level of zooming.[/quote] Absolutely, I'd love a dedicated icon of some kind for starbases. Put them at the top of the "ship" bars on the left and right, for instance, with a distinct color... And I don't build hangars on most of my bases any more

[quote who="Uranium - 235" reply="15" id="2048830"]The problem is the 'freeze' time is only like, fifteen seconds, so you'd need four or five of the damn things, or impeccable timing.[/quote] That's only true if you're looking to get a complete lockdown. Kosturas are VERY useful even without that; my fleet attacks a well-defended system and engages an even-match enemy fleet. Normally this'd be risky, with a lot of losses, but if the planet is hit by two or three kostura st

While it is inconsistent, I actually like it. It's a very easy way to remember which systems have starbases and which don't; the starbase systems stand out this way. My bigger complaint is that with hangar defenses you can select the fighter/bomber makeup BEFORE the hangar is built (i.e., do it when you queue the building), but with starbases you have to wait until after the hangar upgrade is complete before selecting. It's annoying to have to go back through each base's sys

IF it turns out that the Vasari need more anti-structure capabiiity, I don't want to see the sort of flat bonus the OP was asking for. That's because I'm pretty comfortable with how the Vasari are balanced currently; any outright boost would have to come at the expense of other things. That being said, here are a couple of the suggestions I've seen that I liked: > Give Vasari hangars (defense structures, starbases, capships, and carriers) a third option besides fighters

[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="20" id="2047231"]I think a phase jump DENIER (not inhibitor) should be buildable on the SB itself. Then it has to be faced, and taken out, before an enemy jumps further into a system. Then their point about moving tec and advent SBs becomes nil. [/quote] This is a nice idea, although again, I'd like to see the races have something different, not just give every race the same thing. Vasari don't need a denier like that at all; their

[quote who="Alluceanot" reply="8" id="2046024"]In one post I see people saying Vasari are horribly OP because of their moving starbases. Next thread is about the huge disadvantage they suffer from not having anti-structure ships. I wonder if maybe Vasari are just not meant to be completely analogous to the other races point for point?[/quote] It's like the Terrans and Advent saw the war bog down into a stalemate and found ways to fortify their systems heavily, hence "Entre

[quote who="WarlokLord" reply="20" id="2047680"]I haven`t tried it myself yet, but I imagine the energy cost for Vasari Starbase Phase Gate utility is mindful of the ability to deploy a Starbase *inside* enemy territory and thereby use Phase Gates offensively... which unmitigated strikes me as potentially an unfair capacity of the Vasari (and I`m a Vasari!). Making it cost energy seems like an excellent balance of that potential.[/quote] The flip side of that is that it makes it

In the late game, once I have effectively unlimited resources, I have a tendency to put a Vasari starbase around every planet of the races I have Cease Fires with (I never make actual Alliances, as it breaks all of the vision/ceasefire/trade pacts when they fail). I then give each a phase stabilizer and lots of combat upgrades (2/2 weapon, at least 3/4 health, and 1 rank of Frontal Deflector; the final upgrade is either the fourth health or the debris vortex). Since I'm not at war

Overall this patch seems like it'd be an improvement, but I still have some issues. > The Ruiner (Vasari minelayer) was made even worse, by removing its weapon. Granted, said weapon got it into a lot of trouble, but the fundamental problem IMO was that having such a specialized ship made it nearly useless, since the very creation and movement of one would be an exercise in micromanagement. At 7 points per it's not a huge investment, but the amount of time needed to get

[quote who="Peter Ebbesen" reply="9" id="2042351"]One thing I really miss playing Vasari is to have, say, two mutually exclusive options that could be enabled with autocast for a minelayer[/quote] There needs to be SOME sort of automation. I should be able to tell a ship "fortify this system" and have it do so without user micromanagement. It'd seem fairly straightforward to create a minelaying "rally point" for a system, where any mines laid in the system will be placed i