Also, if an expensive fighter carries a fighter pulse laser, and the cheaper fighter carries a fighter pulse laser, not only is it one more fly to swat, it’s one more stinger…
14 creds doesn’t sound like much but if you have 16 fighters in a squadron then it becomes 224. The cheapest fighter money can buy is 67 credits, the most expensive is 190 credits, now you’ve got almost a 2000 credit price gap between one squadron. So if you just want a cheap fighter to dogfight with the others rather then a ship killing heavy bomber you could get two of the cheap squadrons and an extra cruiser.
In terms of fighters it makes a difference, but with cruisers, there are some cruisers hull types which are simply, quantifiably worse than others, plus frigates don’t seem all that useful in comparison. I would personally suggest lowering the price of all modules by a fraction and upping the cost of hulls, particularly cruisers, to give a bigger reason to use frigates and cheaper, less capable cruiser hull-types.
You’re still going to end up with a model thats the most cost efficient. Rather to emphasize this games strategic thinking and planning aspect while giving the other hulls a meaning you could make the different hulls have different allotments of systems and weapons segments. So this cruiser might only have 16 segments compared to the other’s 18, but it had 9 weapons emplacements to the other’s 7, and vice versa. So you might chose a lower slot hull because of the weapons versus systems ratio it has. That way it’s not just a numbers game but a thinking game too.
I think all hulls should have completely different bonuses that actually made a big impact. Right now there are some small bonuses like hull integrity boost or speed boost but those don’t really make the hulls unique. Perhaps some hulls would be very resistant to missiles while others would be designed to be more resistant to beams. Hulls could also have different weapon bonuses such as more missile damage or more beam range.
While frigates are actually moving, they’re a lot harder to hit with anything significant compared to cruisers. Try putting frigates on Escort so that they move around a bit more. It also keeps them from running off, which is good. A general stay together order would be handy, though.
I do like Bossman’s suggestion of hull types with more differentiation on them though. Not only would it make hull choice mean something, it would also give a more strategic feel to challenges, as you can (with difficulty, in case of frigates) spot which types of hull people are using. If you saw three Annihilator model cruisers and knew that they have +50% missile damage, you’d probably know to go in with some point defenses…
I’ve been using them for cheap PD ships. Loading them out with nothing but anti-fighter/missile PD and armour. Rather than being useless once the enemy fighters are destroyed, they have a tendency to try and close to attack the larger ships, causing them to move ahead of the fleet and seemingly become target priority number 1. Thanks to the armour it takes quite some time to grind them down, and in the meantime the rest of the fleet is ripping the enemy apart without retaliation.
I wonder if a decoy class might be worthwhile; a cheap hull with nothing but defences to basically sit in front of the fleet and soak up as much damage as possible before exploding. If it can hold together long enough to take out some of the enemy cruisers …
don’t want to harp on this too much, but I’ve finished most of normal (and the first and last mission on expert) with fighters and frigates only. Before coming here, I was actually of the opinion that frigs were overpowered
My issue is less with hull types (though for the record I don’t bother building Frigates or Fighters any more) and more with weapons. Setting aside missiles for the moment, Fusion beams beat Heavy Plasma launchers, and Heavy Plasma Launchers beat everything else by a mile. For me, so far at least.
Well, obviously a human player can counter these overpowered tactics but the AI in the premade missions cannot. I think most players will get bored pretty quickly if one tactic can beat all challenges except those few that are specifically designed to counter the plasma spamming.
But as I understand it, the initial missions are simply a learning curve for you to begin to understand the game. They’re not necessarily there to be the be all and end all of the game.
I like to take the wolf frigate hull and put the iPoint point defense system on the front and two torpedo launchers on the back. I also load it up with the best armor I can and the biggest shield generator. It isn’t much, but when 4 of them are defending every battleship there is no need to waste precious module space on a point defense computer and guns. I also have an Mk2 variant with AA missiles instead of torpedos, with these two types of frigates in groups it greatly increases the survivability of my battleships. They are however very expensive for a frigate, I always sprinkle in a super cheap multi-purpose frigate that I have made up.
With that said, I would do well at all in this game without frigates. I make a big wedge with them and put my more vulnerable missile cruisers and AA ships behind them, all the missiles and fighters are screened forming a protective bubble around my ships. I also like to make the point of my wedges with a super up armored, lightly armed battleship, that really makes them effective.
Fox Frigate
Cost: 120
Power: 9
Length: 90 m
Standard: 7
Hardpoints: 4
Hull Int. Boost: 10%
Why would anyone use the Fox Frigate over the Puma when the only difference is that it has a longer layout, produces less power and is ten meters longer? There should at least be a slight adjustment in the price.
I have different hulls for aesthetic purposes, and for quick identification for what I’ve designed ships to do. Length matters a little bit for turret range, but I do agree there should be more difference between chassis.