But PD isn't helpless against ships. If there are no missiles/fighters, all that PD firepower now attacks ships. It may not be 'ideal' DPS, but in numbers they will still tear ships up.

I think missiles/torps and fighters compliment each other very well. Not every ship can carry fighters, but almost every one can carry missiles/torps. So you have carriers supported by missile/torp ships and both are made more effective. Mix in a few gun ships to kill off enemy PD and you're really cooking with gas.

And that leads to combined fleets being better than homogeneous fleets which is where I think it should be. My games tend to see my main productions worlds pushing out the CVs and BBs but almost every non-dedicated mining world tends to produce DDs when not doing something else during war. And that gives me a pretty solid and balanced fleet for dealing whichever AIs I run into.

Uncle_Joe wrote:But PD isn't helpless against ships. If there are no missiles/fighters, all that PD firepower now attacks ships. It may not be 'ideal' DPS, but in numbers they will still tear ships up.

I think missiles/torps and fighters compliment each other very well. Not every ship can carry fighters, but almost every one can carry missiles/torps. So you have carriers supported by missile/torp ships and both are made more effective. Mix in a few gun ships to kill off enemy PD and you're really cooking with gas.

And that leads to combined fleets being better than homogeneous fleets which is where I think it should be. My games tend to see my main productions worlds pushing out the CVs and BBs but almost every non-dedicated mining world tends to produce DDs when not doing something else during war. And that gives me a pretty solid and balanced fleet for dealing whichever AIs I run into.

It is true that PD are not completely helpless against ships, but they have even less range and damage than normal beams, and beams are already slighty weaker then kinetics and much weaker then fighters.
Also, I didn't say missiles and torpedoes are completly useless, instead I say they are too weak and fighters are too strong. maybe additional missile fire may attract some PD fire for fighters, but I'm not sure how much help can they provide (as missiles are much easier to shoot down), and I guess it is much better to replace all missile ships with additional carriers.

There was actually discussion on Yoral Torpedo Cruiser being an OP design due to its torpedo loadout
There is also the Colonial and Yoral destroyers bringing 2 torpedoes to the field - en-mass, these torpedo boats are just as effective as bombers as they basically carry exactly the same offensive capability + respam compared to bombers + carry medium weapon hardpoints.

There is no difference in their torpedo damage output, and while bombers can make a more powerful first strike, they can be nullified in the second round with potent defense

You also have to take various faction specs into consideration: some are better suited to fighter combat (colonials and upcoming Tinkers) and some are better in torpedoes (Yoral) and have little in the way of carrier capability

So it is difficult to say if any one tech is OP at this point. Played countless games so far myself and found that a balanced fleet is the only sure way to win and every other one-sided configuration has its counter

zolobolo wrote:There was actually discussion on Yoral Torpedo Cruiser being an OP design due to its torpedo loadout
There is also the Colonial and Yoral destroyers bringing 2 torpedoes to the field - en-mass, these torpedo boats are just as effective as bombers as they basically carry exactly the same offensive capability + respam compared to bombers + carry medium weapon hardpoints.

There is no difference in their torpedo damage output, and while bombers can make a more powerful first strike, they can be nullified in the second round with potent defense

You also have to take various faction specs into consideration: some are better suited to fighter combat (colonials and upcoming Tinkers) and some are better in torpedoes (Yoral) and have little in the way of carrier capability

So it is difficult to say if any one tech is OP at this point. Played countless games so far myself and found that a balanced fleet is the only sure way to win and every other one-sided configuration has its counter

Wait, you said that diffierent faction have different advantages, some don’t have excellent carrier but have better torpedo boat —— but which faction exactly have the anti fighter capability it takes to defend against fleet carriers effectively? There do are factions which do have good escort cruisers, though. The yoral escort cruiser can only mount 8 PD guns.
I’m not sure how powerful the yoral torpedo boats are, but a combination of heavy cruisers and escort cruisers should be enough to handle them. After all, the torpedoes are slow and relatively easy to shoot down. Can they track their targets and find new targets when the current one is destroyed? Fleet carriers, on the other hand, can bomb a fleet of escort cruisers which worth nearly the same as themselves to death, and I suppose this will become even easier when the scale of battle grow and escort cruisers can’t defend each other effectively.
The ashdar and phidi have excellent fleet carriers which have 18 fighters, a maximum of 1560 shield points and the cost of battleships, maybe so does the upcoming tingkers. Most other factions also have carriers with 12 fighters and the cost of battle cruisers, which are also not so bad. All those carriers can sustain not less damage then those direct fire warships, as the low energy cost of fighters means carriers only need one reactor while large direct fire ships need 2, so that they can equip one more shield generator. So which faction exactly can’t use carriers as the backbone of the fleet?

zolobolo wrote:There was actually discussion on Yoral Torpedo Cruiser being an OP design due to its torpedo loadout
There is also the Colonial and Yoral destroyers bringing 2 torpedoes to the field - en-mass, these torpedo boats are just as effective as bombers as they basically carry exactly the same offensive capability + respam compared to bombers + carry medium weapon hardpoints.

There is no difference in their torpedo damage output, and while bombers can make a more powerful first strike, they can be nullified in the second round with potent defense

You also have to take various faction specs into consideration: some are better suited to fighter combat (colonials and upcoming Tinkers) and some are better in torpedoes (Yoral) and have little in the way of carrier capability

So it is difficult to say if any one tech is OP at this point. Played countless games so far myself and found that a balanced fleet is the only sure way to win and every other one-sided configuration has its counter

OK maybe I am mistaken, my recent test shows that it takes 4 rather than 8 PD to shoot down each aircraft each turn, therefore PDs are more effective against aircrafts then I think them to be. However I believe there is still no doubt that missiles and torpedoes are not as powerful as fighters.

But should they be? I mean, Fighters basically take a dedicated ship to field. Also, they are ‘on and off’ weapons…ie, they strike, then have to fly back to reload before going back out to strike again. In addition they are ‘one and done’ as well…ie, once you kill them off with PD/AMs, there is nothing else coming behind them, unlike missile/torps which will fire for as long as the ammo hold.

I still think the balance between fighters, seeking weapons, and direct fire is in a pretty good place. I’d like to see a bit more variance on how the direct fire weapons perform, but I think the balance is fairly solid between them right now.

If you tone fighters down too much, they’ll go back to being fairly useless in fleet battles since the volume of PD/AMs will wear them down very quickly (as can already happen if you make a few dedicated classes to taking them down).

Uncle_Joe wrote:But should they be? I mean, Fighters basically take a dedicated ship to field. Also, they are ‘on and off’ weapons…ie, they strike, then have to fly back to reload before going back out to strike again. In addition they are ‘one and done’ as well…ie, once you kill them off with PD/AMs, there is nothing else coming behind them, unlike missile/torps which will fire for as long as the ammo hold.

I still think the balance between fighters, seeking weapons, and direct fire is in a pretty good place. I’d like to see a bit more variance on how the direct fire weapons perform, but I think the balance is fairly solid between them right now.

If you tone fighters down too much, they’ll go back to being fairly useless in fleet battles since the volume of PD/AMs will wear them down very quickly (as can already happen if you make a few dedicated classes to taking them down).

You do have figured out some of the fighter’s weak points, and I admit I over estimated how OP they are. I thought it takes 8 PD to shoot down each fighter each turn but actually it takes 4. However I still don’t think they are well balanced.
A carrier can destroy a capital ship as expensive as it own in a single bombing run, as each fighter do slightly more than 100 damage in late game (that means 2000 damage to a battleship without escort). PDs do are effective against fighters, but in huge battles PD seems less useful as ships can’t protect each other with PD fire effectively, and Carr can choose where to strike.
Also, fighters do not suffer increased cost of energy and metal when they become more powerful in the late game. Low energy cost means the capability to take more shields then the battleships. Carriers have 1560 shield points when installed with 3 shield generator, that is as much as super dreadnaught and makes them tougher then those battleships with 2 shields and 2 power generators, which have 1040 shields.

Uncle_Joe wrote:But should they be? I mean, Fighters basically take a dedicated ship to field. Also, they are ‘on and off’ weapons…ie, they strike, then have to fly back to reload before going back out to strike again. In addition they are ‘one and done’ as well…ie, once you kill them off with PD/AMs, there is nothing else coming behind them, unlike missile/torps which will fire for as long as the ammo hold.

I still think the balance between fighters, seeking weapons, and direct fire is in a pretty good place. I’d like to see a bit more variance on how the direct fire weapons perform, but I think the balance is fairly solid between them right now.

If you tone fighters down too much, they’ll go back to being fairly useless in fleet battles since the volume of PD/AMs will wear them down very quickly (as can already happen if you make a few dedicated classes to taking them down).

And instead of the fighter problem, I would rather to talk about the dread star.

eric wrote:which faction exactly have the anti fighter capability it takes to defend against fleet carriers effectively?

I would say, the ones that have good escort cruiser layouts: Ashdars and Gremak seem like a good fit
I mostly counter them though with simple destroyers (applicable for all races) + escorting fighters where possible

eric wrote: Can they track their targets and find new targets when the current one is destroyed?

Yes, research tech: "Retargeting System". This will enable fighters, torpedoes and even small craft to select a new target

eric wrote: which faction exactly can’t use carriers as the backbone of the fleet?

Orthin and Human. Yoral also get it later down the tech tree and with a less then impressive capacity

zolobolo wrote:

eric wrote:which faction exactly have the anti fighter capability it takes to defend against fleet carriers effectively?

I would say, the ones that have good escort cruiser layouts: Ashdars and Gremak seem like a good fit
I mostly counter them though with simple destroyers (applicable for all races) + escorting fighters where possible

eric wrote: Can they track their targets and find new targets when the current one is destroyed?

Yes, research tech: "Retargeting System". This will enable fighters, torpedoes and even small craft to select a new target

eric wrote: which faction exactly can’t use carriers as the backbone of the fleet?

Orthin and Human. Yoral also get it later down the tech tree and with a less then impressive capacity

OK maybe I am mistaken, my recent test shows that it takes 4 rather than 8 PD to shoot down each aircraft each turn, therefore PDs are more effective against aircrafts then I think them to be. However I believe there is still no doubt that missiles and torpedoes are not as powerful as fighters.
Can’t we talk about the dread star?

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of experience with Dreadstars. I have only used them one or twice and by the time I got that far, the game was already over except for the crying so I really didn't have a chance to see any potential balance issues with them. They were just tagging along with my already ridiculous fleets.

Uncle_Joe wrote:Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of experience with Dreadstars. I have only used them one or twice and by the time I got that far, the game was already over except for the crying so I really didn't have a chance to see any potential balance issues with them. They were just tagging along with my already ridiculous fleets.

The game is usually comming to the end when dread star is unlocked... I think this is another reason to make them more powerful.

Its an end- game tech and unbalanced like planet building. Probably serves as an exotic for role-playing

If it was to be made stronger it runs the danger of putting off the existing balance for those who do not only play sandbox, but actually drag out the combat till late-game:
1. If it is stronger, it will kill off the combined fleets that make up the main game mechanic
2. If it is made cheaper, it will replace capital ships in the fleet and make them look silly

If anything, at this point, I would only make the stellar Surge Beam, a Dread Star exclusive to give the unit a strategic niche
Spur-dread can still host siege weapons, so shouldn't really be a considerable rebuff for it just need to make sure that the Surge Beam is not as good against ships as normal siege guns

zolobolo wrote:Its an end- game tech and unbalanced like planet building. Probably serves as an exotic for role-playing

If it was to be made stronger it runs the danger of putting off the existing balance for those who do not only play sandbox, but actually drag out the combat till late-game:
1. If it is stronger, it will kill off the combined fleets that make up the main game mechanic
2. If it is made cheaper, it will replace capital ships in the fleet and make them look silly

If anything, at this point, I would only make the stellar Surge Beam, a Dread Star exclusive to give the unit a strategic niche
Spur-dread can still host siege weapons, so shouldn't really be a considerable rebuff for it just need to make sure that the Surge Beam is not as good against ships as normal siege guns

What you have said doesn’t make it sensible to let the dread star to be even less cost efficient then ordinary warships. Dread star do should not replace all ordinary ships, however there are many more reasonable way to prevent this. They do should replace capital ships like battleships and fleet carriers considering their research cost, if they don’t have other functions which worth the investment, however currently they are completely unable to achieve this.

Reasonable ways to let the dread star useful but keep conventional ships useful as well may include the following：
1, make them more powerful, but very slow both in tactic mode and strategic mode.
2, make them extremely expensive and strong so that smaller fleets are needed.
3, let them become armed colonies which are not cost efficient in combat, but provide tax income, construction capacity and travel range like planets do.
4, let them become siege platforms which overkills several capital ships each turn but lack smaller weapons it takes to deal with destroyers and ordinance.
5, simply make them more powerful and limit their maximum number to one per several system.
None of these measures seems worse than making the dread star completely useless.

What’s more, as the result of the game is usually determined before the dread star is even built, why should we worry that they may replace conventional warships? Instead of letting them weak and useless, isn’t it better to make them super OP units which help ending the game, or as least as powerful as other late game techs do?


Also, super dreadnoughts can carry siege weapons while smaller ships can not, but this does not mean they doesn’t need buff, as these weapons are not unreplaceable at all.

The shield of super dreadnaught is laughable in comparison to their firepower. The super dreadnaughts have the fire power nearly the same as two battleships and a fleet carrier, but they have about 1500 shield and 1500 hull and armor, while fleet carriers have about 1500 shield and 750 hull and armor. They also lack PD guns even in comparison to other capital ships. These facts makes them really vulnerable targets.

The strength of destroyer, heavy cruiser and battleships are about 1 : 2.5 : 6, and it would be reasonable if the superb dreadnaughts are also 2.5 times as powerful as battleships and fleet carriers. It already have the firepower which is 2.5 times as powerful as fleet carriers and battleships, it is acceptable if they lack PD, and it is also reasonable for them to have a price 2 times as high as battleships and fleet carriers, because they are supposed to replace them. But they do need the shield which suits their price and firepower.

eric wrote: 3, let them become armed colonies which are not cost efficient in combat, but provide tax income, construction capacity and travel range like planets do.


What’s more, as the result of the game is usually determined before the dread star is even built, why should we worry that they may replace conventional warships? Instead of letting them weak and useless, isn’t it better to make them super OP units which help ending the game, or as least as powerful as other late game techs do?


Also, super dreadnoughts can carry siege weapons while smaller ships can not, but this does not mean they doesn’t need buff, as these weapons are not unreplaceable at all.

The shield of super dreadnaught is laughable in comparison to their firepower. The super dreadnaughts have the fire power nearly the same as two battleships and a fleet carrier, but they have about 1500 shield and 1500 hull and armor, while fleet carriers have about 1500 shield and 750 hull and armor. They also lack PD guns even in comparison to other capital ships. These facts makes them really vulnerable targets.

The strength of destroyer, heavy cruiser and battleships are about 1 : 2.5 : 6, and it would be reasonable if the superb dreadnaughts are also 2.5 times as powerful as battleships and fleet carriers. It already have the firepower which is 2.5 times as powerful as fleet carriers and battleships, it is acceptable if they lack PD, and it is also reasonable for them to have a price 2 times as high as battleships and fleet carriers, because they are supposed to replace them. But they do need the shield which suits their price and firepower.

I agree with Eric here. The dread star is end game and normally I only use it to "Mop up" when I know that I have won already. I do like the idea for them to actually be small "planets" for extra range, since I often use the star just to blow up planets so that I just kill the opponent.