Home » Primary Racial Traits » IS » Croby FF vs Wolv CC
| |
Re: Croby FF vs Wolv CC |
Thu, 28 February 2008 17:54 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](theme/Stars/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](theme/Stars/images/down.png) |
|
|
Incidentally, I think the CC wants colloidals more than the FF does.
FF can get away with bazooka, since due to lowest weight moving last they can choose the range vs CCs (with the random weight adjustment taken into account...)
I learned this the hard way in one of my recent games, where colloidal DDs dominated my bazooka croby FFs, since it took my a long time to get into range (the FFs had to back the DDs into the corner before they could close to range, and this was despite the FFs being much 'faster' than the DDs. You only have to have move 1 or more, and weight less, to have this edge. This is why range 0 ships are often so crap.)
Generally, I think CCs are better than croby FFs. However the croby FFs are available earlier in the game and have a lower weight than crusiers (gateable, and can pick range vs cruisers.)
I'm recently starting to question the value of range 2 croby FFs - they get minced by range 3 non-croby FFs/DDs. But their extra survivability against same range ships, or against jihads, is pretty lovely, of course.
Croby FFs feel a lot nicer if you have a nice cheap, fast, prop8 or prop9 scoop to put on them. They're still heavier than a non-croby FF, but at least they get in range of the back line nice and quick so they don't get pounded for too long.
[Updated on: Thu, 28 February 2008 17:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Croby FF vs Wolv CC |
Fri, 29 February 2008 04:59 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](theme/Stars/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](theme/Stars/images/down.png) |
|
iztok | ![](images/commander.gif) | Commander | Messages: 1218
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
knightpraetor wrote on Wed, 27 February 2008 23:06 | Croby FF vs Wolv CC - what are the adv/disadv of each
|
Assuming weap-8 and prop-5.
Croby FF: better firepower per costs, gateable, moves last, obsoletes quite fast.
Wolverine CC: better defense per cost, fires first, slightly more lasting design.
Assuming weap-10 and prop-7.
Croby FF: gateable, moves last, only one type of weapon, too easily counter-designed (bazooka + wolverine DLL-7 FF).
Wolverine CC: better defense per cost, but weak ship-killing power, fires first, versatile with sappers and colloidals (good to bring down shields for soon-to-come Jihads), more lasting design.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 29 February 2008 05:00] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Croby FF vs Wolv CC |
Wed, 20 July 2011 19:08 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](theme/Stars/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](theme/Stars/images/down.png) |
|
Void | ![](images/ensign.gif) | Ensign | Messages: 369
Registered: January 2011 Location: California, GMT -7 | |
|
Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 28 February 2008 14:54 | I'm recently starting to question the value of range 2 croby FFs - they get minced by range 3 non-croby FFs/DDs. But their extra survivability against same range ships, or against jihads, is pretty lovely, of course.
|
I've been contemplating playing IS in my next game, and this Croby Frigate notion seemed quite appealing.
It seems to me, and I'd appreciate someone with actual game experience chiming in here, that Croby FFs get eaten up by Jihads. Not nearly as fast as shielded FFs, of course, but still pretty fast. Considering that getting from W8 to W12 doesn't take that long if you have weapons cheap, it would have to be a really surprise attack - or an absolutely massive one - to compete with Jihads.
Or, as is likely, what am I missing?
Cheers,
Void
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | |
Re: Croby FF vs Wolv CC |
Tue, 12 September 2017 12:44 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](theme/Stars/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](theme/Stars/images/down.png) |
|
ludek | ![](images/crewman_1st.gif) | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 23
Registered: December 2009 | |
|
Hm.. why people forget about minigun, it have range 2 and better initiative than W8 beam, it lower research costs, and with FM can be cheap enough and
light to compete with most R3 designs. Also being galting it can fire at all targets in range with can increase it's firepower at times.
If cost is factor it can be build with only two galtings , latter it can be made decent sweeper/scrimisher (though I suggest FM scout with minigun as
sweeper as most cost effcient design), can make good horde with and it's low firepower it will do better vs jihads (more damage is needed to drop stack firepower)
For non RS -f IS I would seriously think about R3 frigate/destroyer with carbonic armor and W10 beam, for RS one .. maybe just destroyer based especially if you
think your shields will be sapped fast.Without RS Destoyer can have about 2/3rd crusier armor with armor slots used or about cruiser armor if GP slot is used too.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Croby FF vs Wolv CC |
Wed, 13 September 2017 04:43 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](theme/Stars/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](theme/Stars/images/down.png) |
|
magic9mushroom | ![](images/commander.gif) | Commander | Messages: 1367
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
ludek wrote on Wed, 13 September 2017 02:44Hm.. why people forget about minigun, it have range 2 and better initiative than W8 beam, it lower research costs, and with FM can be cheap enough and
light to compete with most R3 designs. Also being galting it can fire at all targets in range with can increase it's firepower at times.
I think people are assuming that, by the time you are deciding whether to build Cruisers or Croby Frigates (the OP's question), you will have Weapons 8. You may have Croby Frigates earlier, and the Mini Gun may indeed be a great weapon on them, but you usually won't be weighing them against Cruisers (though I suppose it depends somewhat on whether you went for early LFs).
As for armour, it tends to be somewhat rare on destroyers and cruisers in practice due to a few unfortunate disadvantages compared to shields:
1) Armour is heavy, weight determines fuel use, and in the pre-cruiser and cruiser eras running out of fuel is a serious hazard. It also affects speed and move order, though that's more complicated.
2) You generally want at least some shields, because of shields' ability to "stack"; shields are pooled across an entire squadron/token of ships, which means they can disproportionately reduce ship-kills in the early rounds of a battle.
3) Shield damage isn't permanent; shields recharge fully after each battle. Hull damage has to be repaired, which always requires at least one turn without combat and may take far longer depending on conditions and severity.
There are certainly some cases in which armour is worthwhile, but there are good reasons it's not particularly common.
Thanks for weighing in, though.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Croby FF vs Wolv CC |
Wed, 13 September 2017 14:56 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](theme/Stars/images/up.png) |
|
ludek | ![](images/crewman_1st.gif) | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 23
Registered: December 2009 | |
|
I know .. i'm pointing advantages of using such elements in your fleet (as we both now one design fleet in stars! not just ships)
To recap:
Armoured(carbonic/Organic armour) frigates/destroyers
- Armour is quite light, organic one especially on Destroyer/frigate fighting vs Cruisers can still be on lighter side
- Uses germanium with makes it effectively free on mineral side for -f it's advantage over corby armour with uses up
ironium (with can be used to build more Delata torps or Jihads latter )
- While it lacks stacking capability as shields do after sappers are deployed shields last 1-3 shots if fleets are
properly backed up with sapping ships.Also if you sap enemy shields fast _you_ will be at advantage with all your armour
- Destroyers with 3 organic armour and without RS LRT have over 700 armour, usually weight less than Cruiser designs and cost less.
- Frigates with 2 organic armour (no RS LRT) have almost 400 armour and cost much less
- Ships with no shields makes enemy investment in sapping power of fleet irrelevant .. as long you use only armour.
- If you really want shields destroyer with one slot of shields can be made but I think it weakens concept and efficiency
of armoured fleet .. and in most cases such shiels will be sapped fast.
- In case of armoured frigate/destroyer I would advise going with R3 beam it makes fleet less vulnerable to counterdesign ..
but if you are sure that enemy will be deploying heavier ships like cruisers ...
- Might be worth considering in specialised design employing R0 weapons .. probably way to counter firepower of Cruiser stack
- You can split your stack into many tokens in battle with may be useful if going against ships with lesser range .. especially
good if you use misisles/torps if will make enemy beam token chase your armored tokens all over battleboard.
Minigun
- Damage all stacks in range .. with may be great if enemy uses many tokens/designs .. good for limiting enemy opt
...
[Updated on: Wed, 13 September 2017 15:07] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Sep 07 20:55:20 EDT 2024
|