Ship Specs Page up

[zramn]

[WarMongrel]

Does anybody know if upgrade points can be used to add hardpoints, or more importantly, scanners (if you can get scanners that aren't on hardpoint 3)?

[Mattheus]

@segomo. Yes to all, at least mentioned at one point as being possible. You should really read Ben lesnicks ask the dev q&a thread. Its 30 pages of answers.

Ret vs Connie - the Connie could just be the most modular ship around. It could have the most paper thin hull to start, or a huge open canvas to be what you want it to be with its 20 upgrade points.

The ret by design is a war vessel. It could already come with thick srmor, which may cost the Connie 5 slots to imitate.

They've already said they have drawn reference from real planes to design the ships. The ret is the b52 bomber. Heavy duty. Lots of twin turret mounts. Designed for a single purpose

Connie I believe was like the large cargo plane. Tons of room (upgrade points) able to converted into many different roles

[braindonut]

Ret vs Connie, how I interpret the firepower:

There are 6 maximum hardpoints for missiles on a Constellation, 12 on a Retaliator. And the retaliator mounts will accomodate anti capital ship torpedoes. That's a pretty huge difference in firepower.

It is true that the Constellation has 2 turrets plus 4 lasers, for a total of 6 hardpoints for guns. But these are not created equal either. Personally, I'd rather have 5 turrets than 2 turrets and 4 forward facing (though gimbaled) lasers. We also don't know what kinds of turrets these will be, yet, which makes it hard to judge. But in general, I'd always rather have a turret on this sort of ship. (It allows for much more tactical mobility, when you don't have to fly towards your target to hit it)

Just looking at hardpoints, it seems the Connie has 8-12, but the Retaliator has 17. But just looking at hardpoints alone doesn't tell the whole story, either. What's on those hardpoints makes a big difference.

So, if I were to make a bet on which would win in a fight, a fully manned connie vs a fully manned retaliator, I'm actually thinking the retaliator may come out on top, but I wouldn't expect it to be an easy fight.

The only advantage that connie has is the P52, imo. That's a lot of extra flexibility. Could just tip the scale. If I were in the retaliator, I'd probably have all the turrets and missiles focus fire down the constellation first, then toy with the P52 for a while.

Of course, we'll be able to find out for sure with the dogfight module. I'll bring the retaliator, who wants to bring the constellation?

[Siycle]

Ok not going to argue about this one , but every bit of information I can find on the Retaliator tells me that it is meant for large, slow moving targets. With its limited upgrade slots there won’t be much else you can turn it into; and if you do it only limits the ship. I would not purchase it if it comes out again unless we plan on taking capital ships (in which case this thing is a necessity).

Truth is that there are no bad ships, some are meant for specific tasks, a few are very similar (Cutlass and Hornet).

Retaliator is good but after reading up on both ships, it’s really apples and oranges. Pitting a bomber up against an “all-arounder” is moot. Much like figuring out if the hornet is “better” than the freelancer.

[braindonut]

I guess we'll see

[Siycle]

I do have a Connie tho Brain I say we test things out when the dogfights comes out reguardless!

[braindonut]

Oh, you know it. I look forward to learning the capacity of our fleet, and how best to utilize each ship.

I'm curious, what would your tactics be for taking a retaliator on?

Taking on a Connie, I'd either try to keep them at a distance and overwhelm them with missiles, or try to pull them in very close and plunk away with turrets, keeping them moving and close so that they can't use their main guns. If they broke away, I'd immediately reposition to acquire a missile lock, forcing them to break, or close back in. If I keep them busy shooting down missiles, the turrets can do the rest. If they don't shoot the missiles, they'd have to be taking far too much evasive maneuvers to be able to effectively use their main guns.

If I were in a Connie, taking on a ret, I'd try as hard as I can to stay tight in as close to a blind spot as I could, firing main guns. This would be tough and likely costly. Or I'd distract their fire long enough for the p52 to bring down shields, then I'd go after the turrets. Eliminate those turrets and the ret is useless.

Either way I walk through it in my head, it sounds challenging for either pilot. It also greatly depends on countermeasure mechanics and how shooting down torpedoes will work...

Sorry, I'm not arguing - just fun to think this stuff through. It's all bullshit

[Siycle]

I feel ya. Thing is tho, all that is just assumptions. Only real thing i can tell you right now is that the Connie is faster and more maneuverable. Ret would be s sitting duck (especially with cinnie's snub). Head on tho i can see ret overpowering connie. With what we know now i imagine large ships like ret and connie being pretty much helpless against small, agile fighters like a hornet (i assume that's why Connie comes with 52). Well maybe not totally helpless but they would struggle. Ret is s bomber, it was not designed for flying solo dogfights.

Take idris for example: big badass ship. But if some jackass takes it out solo with no fighters he's losing the ship.

[braindonut]

Yes, true, assumptions... but theorycrafting is fun

I think there's enough information at this point, combined with our knowledge of other space combat games, to have a fun conversation about how you'd actually approach these different ships. Whether or not it ends up being even remotely true, who knows.