Stronger Stations

posted on February 18th, 2006, 11:54 pm

true, besides even if their force is so very strong than you simply sacrifice your ships to take out those artie's. They die relativelly easy

posted on February 19th, 2006, 6:10 am

true.

however, my hunting parties usually takedown the arty ships anyway, before they get anywhere near my base. i also like to hunt small groups of enemy ships that same way. cloaks make it far easier, unless you play someone who puts sensor stations everywhere

posted on February 19th, 2006, 4:35 pm

that would be me

posted on February 19th, 2006, 11:18 pm

same here.

[Cpt Ryan]

posted on February 24th, 2006, 5:13 pm

Last edited by Cpt Ryan on February 24th, 2006, 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

er yeah anyway back on topic, i think that if the station shield strength is increased & perhaps lower the hull points (a bit maybe). them perhaps multitarget weapons (say about 3 max so as not to go mad), maybe secondary weapon like torpedoes maybe granted by the aggresive avatar.

about the avatar, seems to me that there are about 2 types of avatar:
i) agressive
ii) defensive/conservative

perhaps the starbases could be eqipped differently depending on which avatar you choose. Perhaps after you have chosen the avatar a new build button appears that will allow you to "upgrade/refit" your starbase according to what avatar you chose.

forgot to say that those sugestions at the top dont have to be used at the same time, e.g. the aggresive avatar grants your starbase multitarget weapons & secondary torps (not multitarget) at the expense of hull points, cos more space on the hull is being used or something like that (insert techno babble ). or maybe the defensive avatar grants stronger shields, increased repair rate (both hull & system), increases boarding party strength (on the station only) or something like that. or maybe a combo of those things what do ya think?

posted on February 24th, 2006, 5:17 pm

im with cpt ryan that sounds like a good idea

posted on February 24th, 2006, 5:33 pm

I concurr.

Although I still think there should be a way to defeat stations without having to rush them...encourages mobility with fleets, y'know...towers should be killed easily with artillery units. In addition, because of their huge range, other ships might not be able to touch artillery ships until the battleships roast them.

While Towers can prevent early rushes, they cannot become the primary defense of the town. One Demolisher can kill a town full of Towers if there are no units...to defend the town. Towers need to be your backup system for when your forces are defeated or when your forces can use some help.

posted on February 24th, 2006, 5:38 pm

I concurr.

Although I still think there should be a way to defeat stations without having to rush them...encourages mobility with fleets, y'know...towers should be killed easily with artillery units. In addition, because of their huge range, other ships might not be able to touch artillery ships until the battleships roast them.

artillary ships already do double damage to stations.

posted on February 25th, 2006, 6:24 am

That's true, but it doesn't often seem enough. You need a whole battery of artillery ships to destroy even a turret, in 7 or 8 barrages. I find it's quicker to just send in all your ships and smash the turret (and lose a lot of ships in the process!) It shouldn't take 3 artilleries 5 minutes to blow a tiny phaser array.

In addition, turrets shoud NOT be able to reach artillery ships with their normal attacks. The difference between long and artillery range should be substantial so that there's no margin for error (as sometimes the ships "slide" closer to the target)

As a result, in addition to their slower speed and higher attacking power, maybe less LOS so that spotters are required to attack stations out of sight.

Same with Starbases.

In addition, I think turrets have too much attacking power. While on their own, 20 doesn't seem like a lot, 20 quickly adds up to 80 per volley in even small groups like 4. (not to mention other defending ships) Slightly less is all I think is required, slightly stronger than your average ship (10-15, maybe). For their power, they certainly attack quite quickly. Which is why I think artillery ships are necessary at cracking base defences that are so strong.

posted on February 25th, 2006, 2:09 pm

about the avatar, seems to me that there are about 2 types of avatar:
i) agressive
ii) defensive/conservative

perhaps the starbases could be eqipped differently depending on which avatar you choose. Perhaps after you have chosen the avatar a new build button appears that will allow you to "upgrade/refit" your starbase according to what avatar you chose.

forgot to say that those sugestions at the top dont have to be used at the same time, e.g. the aggresive avatar grants your starbase multitarget weapons & secondary torps (not multitarget) at the expense of hull points, cos more space on the hull is being used or something like that (insert techno babble biggrin.gif ). or maybe the defensive avatar grants stronger shields, increased repair rate (both hull & system), increases boarding party strength (on the station only) or something like that. or maybe a combo of those things smile.gif what do ya think?

I like this idea! ^_^

That's true, but it doesn't often seem enough. You need a whole battery of artillery ships to destroy even a turret, in 7 or 8 barrages. I find it's quicker to just send in all your ships and smash the turret (and lose a lot of ships in the process!) It shouldn't take 3 artilleries 5 minutes to blow a tiny phaser array.

In addition, turrets shoud NOT be able to reach artillery ships with their normal attacks. The difference between long and artillery range should be substantial so that there's no margin for error (as sometimes the ships "slide" closer to the target)

As a result, in addition to their slower speed and higher attacking power, maybe less LOS so that spotters are required to attack stations out of sight.

Same with Starbases.

In addition, I think turrets have too much attacking power. While on their own, 20 doesn't seem like a lot, 20 quickly adds up to 80 per volley in even small groups like 4. (not to mention other defending ships) Slightly less is all I think is required, slightly stronger than your average ship (10-15, maybe). For their power, they certainly attack quite quickly. Which is why I think artillery ships are necessary at cracking base defences that are so strong.

Increase arties strenght, dont decrease turrets strenght. Plus in one newsflash there is also presented a dominion arty which should pack quite a punch

posted on February 25th, 2006, 4:29 pm

well perhaps the arty should be extremelly powefull, but with a long recharge rate(something in the neigbourhood of 20sec or so, but it would pack a punch that could destroy a turret with 2 shots.

[Arrow]

posted on February 25th, 2006, 5:27 pm

Last edited by Arrow on February 25th, 2006, 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Qualities of a good artillery unit (IMO anyway)

• Destroys turrets relatively easily (not 1 or 2, maybe 4 or 5)
• Low refire rate (its current refire rate is pretty good)
• Does considerably more damage to stations than to other units (damage should be still noticable on other units though)
• Slow movement rate (this looks good as is)
• Low shields and hull (looks good as is)
• Splash Damage (Some do, but others like the Steamrunner surprisingly don't)
• Long range (should be able to outdistance all stationary defences and non-artillery ships)

The last point I think is particularly important since it encourages defending ships to come out and fight instead of hang around behind turret walls...which, if they have the same range as artillery ships anyway, will simply blow them up because of their low shields.

posted on February 25th, 2006, 10:02 pm

Qualities of a good artillery unit (IMO anyway)

 &nsbp; &nsbp;* Destroys turrets relatively easily (not 1 or 2, maybe 4 or 5)
 &nsbp; &nsbp;* Low refire rate (its current refire rate is pretty good)
 &nsbp; &nsbp;* Does considerably more damage to stations than to other units (damage should be still noticable on other units though)
 &nsbp; &nsbp;* Slow movement rate (this looks good as is)
 &nsbp; &nsbp;* Low shields and hull (looks good as is)
 &nsbp; &nsbp;* Splash Damage (Some do, but others like the Steamrunner surprisingly don't)
 &nsbp; &nsbp;* Long range (should be able to outdistance all stationary defences and non-artillery ships)


The last point I think is particularly important since it encourages defending ships to come out and fight instead of hang around behind turret walls...which, if they have the same range as artillery ships anyway, will simply blow them up because of their low shields.

If it is as strong to destroy a turret in like 4 shots it should have EXTREMELLY slow recharge rate, it should be WAAAYYY longer than it is now.

About the splash dam. Remember this all is happening in SPACE and they are shooting at a stacionary target and they have VERY good targeting mechanisms. Why would they do splash dam and waste A LOT of energy when instead it could be all directed into the target you are aiming at.
However, there could be a special arty type, which could be used against fleets and that one would do splash damage and maybe have a little higher reload rate, but do less dam. This is the only way splash dam could be usefull in space IMO

It already does outdistance of stationary defences and non-arty ships. And I am really not a fan of extreme ranges, because u wouldnt even know where from are they shooting at you. Maybe a bit more than it has now, but really only a bit

posted on February 26th, 2006, 1:24 am

IMHO i really think the arty ships need a secondary weapon, like a phaser (stock A2 steamrunner), cos at the moment they are just cannon fodder to just about any other class of ship one on one.

i remember destroying several rommie Serkas arty ships in quick succession with a single monsoon (no repairing but not at the same time) mg:

posted on February 26th, 2006, 2:12 am

That's why they should be constantly escorted by warbirds or other ships.

Splash damage is just something I've noticed, that's all. I honestly don't really care about it.

Okay, I've thought that bit over, maybe six or seven. Maybe...an artillery ship should be able to destroy a turret without a scratch in no more than half a minute.

I personally enjoy ranged firefights in general, but I like artillery ships because of their ability to just loll around and lob shots into the firefight, kinda like the trebuchets from 3rd LOTR movie.

One last point - every side should have an artillery-ranged ship of some kind, since every side has a turret too. (I've recently noticed the Klingons lack an artillery ship. The Borg might not need one, but there's one in the original Armada, so why shouldn't there be one here?)