Post reply

Topic Summary

Posted by: Corey

« on: September 29, 2016, 03:26:21 PM »

Insert Quote

1. As Revanchist says, the ships with anti-fighter capabilities are a lot more fragile, but also the NR ships in general tend to not be as good at direct ship-to-ship combat. That amount of lasercannons (which are taken from canon armaments) is offsetting their ability to put out damage against larger ships, so while they do have better fighters, they still typically have less of them, and those fighters/bombers to some extent have to make up for deficiencies in their fleets to an extent that the other factions don't need. For other factions, you still tend to have the potential for a lot more fighters (both in command and supply), so fleet tenders are fairly important, especially for the PA.

2. The amount of fighter supply is determined by canon amounts of fighters the ships could hold. The amount of fighter command points (how many you can field at once) is standardized. Frigates/cruisers get 1 point, dedicated carrier frigates/cruisers get 2. Capital ships get 2, dedicated carrier capital ships get 3. The Venator, as a carrier cruiser, gets 2. The only difference is the numerical superiority ability, which we're removing from almost every ship.

Posted by: Revanchist

« on: September 29, 2016, 03:16:17 PM »

Insert Quote

1. The New Republic does seem to have really good anti-fighter capabilities. However, of the ships you mentioned 3 of them (MC 30c, Quasar, and Neb B) are quite fragile and can be taken out of the equation quickly. I tend not to notice fighter supply problems as the PA (because they have so stinking many fighters), though I have on occasion on the EotH (unless most of my fighters come from Aur'riettes and can do micro-jumps), and on the IR. Generally what this meant for me is that my fleet composition was lacking sufficient fleet tenders, but YMMV.

2. It is odd that the ISD 2 can, with little effort, get more fighters on the field at once than the Venator, especially seeing that unlike the Remnant (where the ISD 2 doubles as the mainstay cap ship as well as a battle carrier), the PA already has 2 fantastic carrier cap ships (Lucrehulk to spam Skiprays, Secutor for a battle carrier). The Venator does have twice the fighter supply of the ISD 2 and doesn't have to share it with too many extra abilities, so it can pump out the fighters longer.

Posted by: Tortique

« on: September 28, 2016, 07:59:54 AM »

Insert Quote

1. NR anti-fighter capabilities. I don't actualy know how Sins works, but I assume that anti-fighter capability of ship is determined by it's laser damage since dedicated anti-fighter ships such as Lancer frigate have only this specific type of damage. If my assumption is near to how things actualy work then isn't amount of laser damage that NR's ships can bring is too high combined with their already superior fighters? IIRC Laser damage is available on Endurance, MC30c, Assault Frigate, Nebulon-B, Quasar. And values are high. After some games I've noticed that fighting with NR's fleet drains fighter supply extremely fast. Ofcourse one can just hold fighters in hangars until NRs fleet suffered some damage but bombers help a lot and if it is late game with big fleets microing your fleet becomes very hard considering lags. Excuse me and correct me if I am wrong though.

2. Venator SD. It's amount of fighters seems a bit low especialy when you look at ISD II with it's "Numerical superiority" ability. May be it is done to prevent some lag with compensation in form of fighter supply but still, for me seems a bit weird.

And additional question: if I want to replace Lucrehulk with ISD I in PA's roster, how can I do this (realy hate lucrehulks, they're ugly)?