Show Posts
1
Ascendancy Discussion / Bombers Underpowered? Yes!
« on: January 01, 2017, 06:25:51 PM »
It's true: fighters and bombers are generally not worth it. Far greater DPS and cost-effectiveness is found by simply producing the pure combat ships rather than carriers. Let me put it in perspective. In a test battle with the New Republic, which is supposed to have superior fighter and bomber capabilities, 1 squad of K-Wings dealt 228 damage in one pass to a capital ship, taking about 27 seconds to come around and do it again. In other words, the carrier capital ship (Endurance Carrier) receives about an additional 50 DPS with its 3 squadrons in operation. This is with all researches maxed and in neutral territory. The B-Wing fares better, dealing 197 damage in one pass and taking only about 17 seconds to come around again. So, the carrier capital ship now receives about an additional 70 DPS. Now this is adequate for those who want to sit back and pester enemy installations on faraway planets with squadrons of bombers, but in a serious slug-fest their utility is minimal, at least for the New Republic. I don't really have much experience with any of the other factions other than the IR, and to some extend the NR, so I can't say much about them. The Imperial Remnant bombers and fighters are even more awful for sure. How all this works out in a capital battle is this: the Endurance has a DPS potential of 412.5 versus other capitals, and with the best bombers, a DPS of 482.5. The most powerful capital, the MC90, has a DPS potential of 747 versus other capitals, and with its one bomber squadron, 770 DPS. Add to this the MC90's far more damaging abilities and its vastly greater health, along with the fact that it costs less Tibanna, and the best ship is obvious. Cost-wise, the Endurance costs a total of 1817 credits taking into account a resource-to-credit ratio of 2.35 on average. The MC90 costs 2170. So, it costs about 19% more but is about 60% more effective in terms of DPS, not including abilities or health, which favors the MC90. Also, the MC90 only takes 117% more fleet supply. The resource cost isn't even including the several time-consuming and resource-intensive bomber researches needed to get the bombers as good as they can be, or all the fleet tenders which are necessary for replenishing bombers. Much the same scenario plays out in the contest between the frigate carrier and cruiser combat ship. The Dauntless, the most DPS-intensive and bulkiest cruiser, costs 233% more but is 375% more effective in terms of DPS alone than the Quasar. For those of you who care about fleet supply, the Dauntless only requires 267% more. Again, none of this is including health or abilities, which never favor the carriers except in the case of Force Push. Several Dauntless capital carriers in your fleet are crucial just because of this ability, it will limit incoming damage from frigates and cruisers as long as the Dauntless capitals can remain alive. This ability is mostly for utility purposes though, the MC90s Close Quarters ability is much more devastating in terms of damage. Don't even get me started on fighters, those things are utter trash. In conclusion, bombers are great to troll with as part of a skirmishing strategy, but in head-on fights, don't bother. Also keep in mind that DPS values are based on maximum possible DPS with enemy ships on all sides so that all banks can fire. If this is not the case, then the focused damage of the bombers can actually trump the DPS of the destroyers if less banks are used.