I was wondering what people preferred out of their ships, a specialized hull that is good at one job and excells at it when properly outfitted or a generalist ship that can do anything should you build for it?
Personally I fall under the Jack of all Trades is better than Master of One. Which is why I tend to reach for 'Quitens and Guppies. As they are the best all rounders for their respective factions, thus the best ships on their bases.
It depends on the list I am building and the objective cards
3 hours ago, Grathew said:Quitens
Great as they are, Arqs are pretty specialized.
They aren't a direct in-the-face bruiser, effective carrier, or battlefield control ship and probably will never be.
They're almost exclusively a ranged skirmisher with a couple support capabilities (PE, HoJ,) and the loadout you give them determines how hard they hit and can get hit.
Anyway, I'm going to echo @chr335 in saying it depends on what the fleet wants to do. If you're flying some kind of skew (maxed TIE Bombers) you might prefer a specialist ship as part of that puzzle (flak-oriented SSD or Quasar-2.) Whereas if you're flying a versatile threat (Sloane aces) you have a wider variety of threats to cover but fewer things to straight out compensate for, so the more flexible options pay off (ISD-2.)
I want a generalist fleet that has the tools and tactics to win against a wide variety of opponents. I don't like rock-paper-scissors matchups.
That can be done with generalist ships, but more often with ships that have specialized roles for the fleet, but the ability to flex into other roles as needed.
4 hours ago, Grathew said:I was wondering what people preferred out of their ships, a specialized hull that is good at one job and excells at it when properly outfitted or a generalist ship that can do anything should you build for it?
Personally I fall under the Jack of all Trades is better than Master of One. Which is why I tend to reach for 'Quitens and Guppies. As they are the best all rounders for their respective factions, thus the best ships on their bases.
Kittens as best all rounder... What?
41 minutes ago, shmitty said:I want a generalist fleet that has the tools and tactics to win against a wide variety of opponents. I don't like rock-paper-scissors matchups.
That can be done with generalist ships, but more often with ships that have specialized roles for the fleet, but the ability to flex into other roles as needed.
That's my position too I think. I don't worry about the ship being generalist rather than the fleet.
I enjoy powerful focused fleets too though
The more expensive the ship, the more I want it to do!
1 hour ago, shmitty said:I want a generalist fleet that has the tools and tactics to win against a wide variety of opponents. I don't like rock-paper-scissors matchups.
That can be done with generalist ships, but more often with ships that have specialized roles for the fleet, but the ability to flex into other roles as needed.
This this this
28 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:Kittens as best all rounder... What?
1 hour ago, The Jabbawookie said:Great as they are, Arqs are pretty specialized.
They aren't a direct in-the-face bruiser, effective carrier, or battlefield control ship and probably will never be.
They're almost exclusively a ranged skirmisher with a couple support capabilities (PE, HoJ,) and the loadout you give them determines how hard they hit and can get hit.
To respond to both of your comments. The Arquitens is a versatile ship, the command cruiser especially so. I can't deny the bias towards long range skirmishing, but it can get work done in any situation.
While they don't have the treating glare of the Gladiator or Mc30 they can still hit just as hard. Arquitens trade consistently for range in that regard. When compared to the Cr90A it is tougher and less reliant on ranging oppoents out while loosing on agility. For carrier work few ships close with Yavaris, but the command can at least compare to a genaric Nebulon-B, except you can add Grint for a third squadron every dial. Fleet support it is out classed by the Pelta, which it out guns and out runs. Not to mention the Command Pelta being a much better carrier.
That leaves the Raider and Hammerhead chassis for comparison. The Raider I is effectively a manned torpedo as is the Torpedo Hammerhead which neither have the survivability or range the Arquitens has. The Scout Hamerhead can't really survive as long although it can put out more reliable damage or take more large shots thanks to gunnery team. Raider IIs are blue dice specialists like the Cr90B and as such can't project as reliably nor have the survivability of the Arquitens.
Hence why I claim the Arquittens are quite versitle little ships. While another hull might be better in situation X, it's hard to get an Arquitens into a board state where it isn't competitive.
32 minutes ago, Grathew said:For carrier work few ships close with Yavaris, but the command can at least compare to a genaric Nebulon-B, except you can add Grint for a third squadron every dial.
I am sorry but the Arquitens is one of the very worst carrier among all imperial ships.
So I have this ginormous spreadsheet with ship and squad stats. Here is a little excerpt about carrier ability for every imperial ship.
As you can see the Arquitens CC is, measured in ship cost point per squad it can command (adding one offensive retrofit as one additional activatable squad), worse than every imperial ship with the exception of the GSD 2, the Kuat and both Interdictors. Even the Raider would make for a better carrier than an Arquitens if outfitted with more parking spaces (expanded hanger bays). It's really bad.
Edited by LordCola23 minutes ago, Grathew said:.
Hence why I claim the Arquittens are quite versitle little ships. While another hull might be better in situation X, it's hard to get an Arquitens into a board state where it isn't competitive.
What I read is that it is the best all rounded in its faction which feels weird given the ISD.
1 minute ago, LordCola said:I am sorry but the Arquitens is one of the very worst carrier among all imperial ships.
So I have this ginormous spreadsheet with ship and squad stats. Here is a little excerpt about carrier ability for every imperial ship.
As you can see the Arquitens CC is, measured in ship cost point per squad it can command (adding one offensive retrofit as one additional activatable squad), worse than every imperial ship with the exception of the GSD 2, the Kuat and both Interdictors. Even the Raider would make for a better carrier than an Arquitens if outfitted with more parking spaces (expanded hanger bays). It's really bad.
And without taking in consideration the nav chart, hard to fix while commanding squads.
51 minutes ago, Grathew said:
To respond to both of your comments. The Arquitens is a versatile ship, the command cruiser especially so. I can't deny the bias towards long range skirmishing, but it can get work done in any situation.
While they don't have the treating glare of the Gladiator or Mc30 they can still hit just as hard. Arquitens trade consistently for range in that regard. When compared to the Cr90A it is tougher and less reliant on ranging oppoents out while loosing on agility. For carrier work few ships close with Yavaris, but the command can at least compare to a genaric Nebulon-B, except you can add Grint for a third squadron every dial. Fleet support it is out classed by the Pelta, which it out guns and out runs. Not to mention the Command Pelta being a much better carrier.
That leaves the Raider and Hammerhead chassis for comparison. The Raider I is effectively a manned torpedo as is the Torpedo Hammerhead which neither have the survivability or range the Arquitens has. The Scout Hamerhead can't really survive as long although it can put out more reliable damage or take more large shots thanks to gunnery team. Raider IIs are blue dice specialists like the Cr90B and as such can't project as reliably nor have the survivability of the Arquitens.
Hence why I claim the Arquittens are quite versitle little ships. While another hull might be better in situation X, it's hard to get an Arquitens into a board state where it isn't competitive.
Generic Nebulon Supports are also poor carriers. 28.5 pts. per squadron commanded (poor cost efficiency), low total squadron value (poor upgrade efficiency and quality of activations), no offensive retrofit or weapons teams slot. Raymus and Grint are universally available anyway. While I agree with the comparison, it's not a good benchmark.
Glads and MC30s do much more damage at close range and are better equipped to survive there:
Avg. damage with a single reroll source on each (limited to black dice on the brawlers) and 1 attacking arc:
GSD: 6 (APTs), 7 (ACMs), 7.5 (External Racks)
MC30: 6.25 (APTs), 7.25 (ACMs), 7.75 (External Racks)
Torpedo Hammerhead: 5.25 (Racks and OE)
Arquitens: 3.74 (Slaved Turrets/Enhanced Armament)
Poor comparatively, worse on the double arc. It’s not that a jack of all trades should be expected to directly compete with specialists in their preferred environment, but they shouldn’t be doing half as much damage as ships in that price range.
I love the little buggers (own and have flown 5) but there are things I have learned not to expect from them.
Edited by The Jabbawookie47 minutes ago, LordCola said:I am sorry but the Arquitens is one of the very worst carrier among all imperial ships.
I didn't say it was good or even should, only that it could. At the point where Arquitens are becoming a main carrier for you I think you have bigger issues. But if you have a list the Arquitens can pick up some slack if and when needed, hence the inclusion of being a carrier at all.
47 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:What I read is that it is the best all rounded in its faction which feels weird given the ISD.
Yes and no, the ISD is more versatile but it's also much more expensive so I think they are better to specialize heavily. Where as the Arquitens can fit into more gaps because of its small size.
46 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:It’s not that a jack of all trades should be expected to directly compete with specialists in their preferred environment, but they shouldn’t be doing half as much damage as ships in that price range.
Much like my reply to LordCola, they can't compete up close and really shouldn't be getting close. For hopefully self evident reasons. But, a slaved turreted Arquitens could roll 8 damage, 10 with a con fire which would surpass or equal the max damage of most of the other brawlers. Likewise it doesn't depend on a single shot like External Racks does. Again it's trading consistency for range.
4 minutes ago, Grathew said:I didn't say it was good or even should, only that it could.
Yeah, but with a definition that open literally every ship falls into the category of generalist
16 minutes ago, Grathew said:Much like my reply to LordCola, they can't compete up close and really shouldn't be getting close. For hopefully self evident reasons. But, a slaved turreted Arquitens could roll 8 damage, 10 with a con fire which would surpass or equal the max damage of most of the other brawlers. Likewise it doesn't depend on a single shot like External Racks does. Again it's trading consistency for range.
It would equal that maxed damage, but the odds of that occurrence are
before rerolls and without accounting for the opposing ordnance slot.
A GSD has a 1 in 1,024 chance to hit that result.
Can the Arquitens push squadrons, or shoot at close range? Yes. Is it worse than most other ships in the game at doing these things? Also yes.
The point of being a generalist is doing a wide variety of things reasonably well relative to other ships.
If a ship is performing tasks less effectively (and efficiently) than most other ships in the game, it is not performing them well.
...We've probably hijacked your thread long enough, and it's asking a good question.
Edited by The Jabbawookie5 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:It would equal that maxed damage, but the odds of that occurrence are 1 in 32,768 before rerolls and without accounting for the ordnance slot.
A GSD has a 1 in 1,024 chance to hit that result.
Can the Arquitens push squadrons, or shoot at close range? Yes. Is it worse than most other ships in the game at doing these things? Also yes.
The point of being a generalist is doing a wide variety of things reasonably well relative to other ships.
If a ship is performing tasks less effectively (and efficiently) than most other ships in the game, it is not performing them well.
...We've probably hijacked your thread long enough, and it's asking a good question.
The raider is great!
It's not a Quasar but it may easily (and cheaply) command 3 sqiadrons.
It's not a glad but it may easily (and cheaply) split a nasty amount of black dice at close range.
It's not an ISD but may easily (and cheaply) "remove" key targets from the play area (heil BTVader!)
It's not a flotilla but may legally work as a lifeboat.
Dude, Raiders are OP!!
3 hours ago, Grathew said:Yes and no, the ISD is more versatile but it's also much more expensive so I think they are better to specialize heavily. Where as the Arquitens can fit into more gaps because of its small size.
When people point at the ISD as expensive, they are usually thinking of the 'default' ISD-II build (ECM, GT, LS). Which...yeah, not cheap as a baseline.
But take an ISD-I with OE? That's not unreasonably expensive at all, and you can get real work with it.
(Somewhat similarly, I'd argue the VSD-I as one of the best ships for 'perfect balance'. Decent firepower, pretty tanky, good command and engineering capabilities, cheap as chips - it's barely more expensive than the kitten to begin with)