Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 11:04

Are they any good as a kind of "large cruiser"?

No.



mch

Report message to a moderator

Micha wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 19:10

No. mch

Why?

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 02 July 2010 11:13]

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 17:12

It is with some trepidation that I disagree with the inestimable Micha on this.

And when it comes to diplo I'm the one trembling looking at you! You think too high of me.

Quote:

Galleons are IMO marginally better than cruisers overall and specifically when you have Jihads/BSC, but won't have BBs soon enough to deal with an opportunity/threat. I've had Jihad galleons remain usefully employed as suicide SB killers and armed troop transports even well after I've attained BBs extending their usefulness beyond that of the cruiser. The Jihad galleon is more robust and more accurate than the cruiser making it the better platform.

My short reply and smiley were mostly for fun (now time for a quick but longer reply). The best thing about Stars! is that there is almost always an occasion where something different can be quite useful.
I generally prefer CCs above galleons. Reasons being (in random order):

- engines, CC needs 2, galleon needs 4. Engines are at that point in the game about the most expensive part on a ship. There are of course exceptions when you use FM instead of DDL7 or AD8, in cases when you don't need/want the battle movement or are willing to use more jets (trading for defense/offense) ... or are a WM. (you would of course use BCs)
With certain designs however I agree that you can for example make a 200 resources costing CC that only has half the firepower of a 300 resources costing galleon ... even with more engines.
Galleons also cost more iron to start with than CCs ... 35kT for CC, almost double for galleon ...

- gatability, beamer CCs weigh 130-140kT which I happily throw around through 100/250 gates. Beamer galleons start at around 200kT ...
Missile CCs weigh around 270kT, again with 300/500 no problem, unlike missile galleons are most likely above 400kT.
Mobility is a very important factor. Again for uses as SB killers as vonKreedon mentions those can be build close to the front and don't need to come from far, unlike a mainline warship that you want to build everywhere as much and as fast as possible.

- research, when I'm at con11 already that either means con13 is very close with cheap con, or my ally is scrapping con12 in my orbits ... If not urgent I'd rather wait for BBs ...

Those are about the first things that come to my mind ...

Galleons are indeed nice to out-init CCs, if needed you can give up a "weap" slot on the galleon ... I'd consider that a specialist design, not main line warship. Same as getting high battle movement. Gallons are more flexible for special designs.
Armed troop transports I would consider their primary use (after max cloaked running around with scanners).

mch

[Updated on: Fri, 02 July 2010 15:24]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Quote:

When I build armed Galleons it's always with Jihads and BSCs

BSC at elec-10? Isn't the whole catch of the push to Jihads to cripple your opponet(s) with them ASAP? And you said you're investing in elec-10 before you field them.

Obviously I'm missing something here, because I my book there's only one early Jihad design: a CC with 4 Jihads, 4 BCs and 2 shields. Even this I'll not build in numbers, because the BB with 12/16 Jihads and 7 BCs will render it obsolete in about 5 turns, and the Galleon of the similar design in 4.

BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Fri, 09 July 2010 02:35]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Micha wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 15:24

I generally prefer CCs above galleons. Reasons being (in random order): - engines, CC needs 2, galleon needs 4. Engines are at that point in the game about the most expensive part on a ship. There are of course exceptions when you use FM instead of DDL7 or AD8, in cases when you don't need/want the battle movement or are willing to use more jets (trading for defense/offense) ... or are a WM. (you would of course use BCs) With certain designs however I agree that you can for example make a 200 resources costing CC that only has half the firepower of a 300 resources costing galleon ... even with more engines. Galleons also cost more iron to start with than CCs ... 35kT for CC, almost double for galleon ... - gatability, beamer CCs weigh 130-140kT which I happily throw around through 100/250 gates. Beamer galleons start at around 200kT ... Missile CCs weigh around 270kT, again with 300/500 no problem, unlike missile galleons are most likely above 400kT. Mobility is a very important factor. Again for uses as SB killers as vonKreedon mentions those can be build close to the front and don't need to come from far, unlike a mainline warship that you want to build everywhere as much and as fast as possible. - research, when I'm at con11 already that either means con13 is very close with cheap con, or my ally is scrapping con12 in my orbits ... If not urgent I'd rather wait for BBs ... Those are about the first things that come to my mind ... Galleons are indeed nice to out-init CCs, if needed you can give up a "weap" slot on the galleon ... I'd consider that a specialist design, not main line warship. Same as getting high battle movement. Gallons are more flexible for special designs. Armed troop transports I would consider their primary use (after max cloaked running around with scanners). mch

Hi mch,
I agree with most of your points about CC's being better than Galleons, but even though you agree that galleon specialist designs might be good enough, I think you're not giving them your full support

For eg lets talk about jihad galleons..
As a response to existing enemy jihad CCs, the option of having this:
Jihad Galleon 900 armr, 336 shields, 3 Jihads, 5 comps, 4 shields, 2 Deflectors, 9 int, 0.75 mvt, 265 mass so it's a gatable armed transport.
would be a good defence fleet that would double as an armed transport too.

It works great when you are playing a defence game to get to better tech (BB BSC Juggs with possible jammers as counters to existing designs)..

Building the same jihad style (other Jihad CC's arent balanced) just to defend against enemy jihads is a short term response with no benefits for the future game.

The jihad CC having 4 BC, 4 jihads built as a response defence fleet would have a shorter shelf life and use cycle compared to the Jihad Galleon defence fleet.
1 Jihad Boat 700 168 4 Jihads 4 comps 2 shields 9 int


For first mover advantage, a Jihad CC is great, but otherwise a response defence Galleon fleet (which wont be needed to push to enemy lines) is a better option.

[Updated on: Sun, 11 July 2010 04:08]

Report message to a moderator

ironhair wrote on Sun, 11 July 2010 03:56

Micha wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 15:24 I generally prefer CCs above galleons. Reasons being (in random order): - engines, CC needs 2, galleon needs 4. Engines are at that point in the game about the most expensive part on a ship. There are of course exceptions when you use FM instead of DDL7 or AD8, in cases when you don't need/want the battle movement or are willing to use more jets (trading for defense/offense) ... or are a WM. (you would of course use BCs) With certain designs however I agree that you can for example make a 200 resources costing CC that only has half the firepower of a 300 resources costing galleon ... even with more engines. Galleons also cost more iron to start with than CCs ... 35kT for CC, almost double for galleon ... - gatability, beamer CCs weigh 130-140kT which I happily throw around through 100/250 gates. Beamer galleons start at around 200kT ... Missile CCs weigh around 270kT, again with 300/500 no problem, unlike missile galleons are most likely above 400kT. Mobility is a very important factor. Again for uses as SB killers as vonKreedon mentions those can be build close to the front and don't need to come from far, unlike a mainline warship that you want to build everywhere as much and as fast as possible. - research, when I'm at con11 already that either means con13 is very close with cheap con, or my ally is scrapping con12 in my orbits ... If not urgent I'd rather wait for BBs ... Those are about the first things that come to my mind ... Galleons are indeed nice to out-init CCs, if needed you can give up a "weap" slot on the galleon ... I'd consider that a specialist design, not main line warship. Same as getting high battle movement. Gallons are more flexible for special designs. Armed troop transports I would consider their primary use (after max cloaked running around with scanners). mch Hi mch, I agree with most of your points about CC's being better than Galleons, but even though you agree that galleon specialist designs might be good enough, I think you're not giving them your full support For eg lets talk about jihad galleons.. As a response to existing enemy jihad CCs, the option of having this: Jihad Galleon 900 armr, 336 shields, 3 Jihads, 5 comps, 4 shields, 2 Deflectors, 9 int, 0.75 mvt, 265 mass so it's a gatable armed transport. would be a good defence fleet that would double as an armed transport too. It works great when you are playing a defence game to get to better tech (BB BSC Juggs with possible jammers as counters to existing designs).. Building the same jihad style (other Jihad CC's arent balanced) just to defend against enemy jihads is a short term response with no benefits for the future game. The jihad CC having 4 BC, 4 jihads built as a response defence fleet would have a shorter shelf life and use cycle compared to the Jihad Galleon defence fleet. 1 Jihad Boat 700 168 4 Jihads 4 comps 2 shields 9 int For first mover advantage, a Jihad CC is great, but otherwise a response defence Galleon fleet (which wont be needed to push to enemy lines) is a better option.

1v1 sure they're better, but the larger galleons aren't as easily gate-able, some people prefer their defense force to be easily gateable so its harder to bypass/fork.

Report message to a moderator

ironhair wrote on Sun, 11 July 2010 17:56

Hi mch, I agree with most of your points about CC's being better than Galleons, but even though you agree that galleon specialist designs might be good enough, I think you're not giving them your full support For eg lets talk about jihad galleons.. As a response to existing enemy jihad CCs, the option of having this: Jihad Galleon 900 armr, 336 shields, 3 Jihads, 5 comps, 4 shields, 2 Deflectors, 9 int, 0.75 mvt, 265 mass so it's a gatable armed transport. would be a good defence fleet that would double as an armed transport too. It works great when you are playing a defence game to get to better tech (BB BSC Juggs with possible jammers as counters to existing designs).. Building the same jihad style (other Jihad CC's arent balanced) just to defend against enemy jihads is a short term response with no benefits for the future game. The jihad CC having 4 BC, 4 jihads built as a response defence fleet would have a shorter shelf life and use cycle compared to the Jihad Galleon defence fleet. 1 Jihad Boat 700 168 4 Jihads 4 comps 2 shields 9 int For first mover advantage, a Jihad CC is great, but otherwise a response defence Galleon fleet (which wont be needed to push to enemy lines) is a better option.

Did you testbed that Galleon design? I have a suspicion it won't win.

[Updated on: Wed, 14 July 2010 07:31]

Report message to a moderator