So, I see the great scorn for this unit and I have to say, most points I see are valid. Dreanoughts are overpriced, lack the firepower, movement, you can build War Suns instead, etc. Nevertheless, having played through the years, I regularly see people build them. And while I am sure this sin't the first place this is pointed out, it's my place to wonder about it and I bet there are several smart posters who could add to the discussion.

The question is why build them? Well, while I agree with the general negativity towards them, and agree they could have been designed better, I still see a role for them in the game. Sometimes, and in certain moments, there just isn't a better thing to build. Maybe you are producing a low number of units and yet have several resources to use. Maybe movement isn't as big a factor when you build them. Where else would you put an admiral? The problem I see is that their uselessness is generally pointed out in a vacuum. As in, "For the same tech to make them effective, you can build War Suns instead." Yes, and I build the War Suns. But there are inefficiencies in the game. Maybe you can't tech up something better because something another player did, and maybe you have a ton of red tech planets? Or "Why would I spend the resources on dreadnoughts when I can build War Suns? Because maybe your WarSuns are on the table, and you can't build infinate cruisers without busting your fleet size limit.

All I am saying is not everybody has the perfect situation in every game they have of Twilight Imperium. In fact, if your opponents are good, the sheer changes in each play of the game will lead to situations where you will need them. And red-headed stepchild though it may be, I don't see a justification to entirely abolish or ignore them. Am I alone?

KelRiever said:

A valid discussion, I suppose, albeit it does feel like beating on a dead horse for those of us who've experienced the more or less annual wave of Dreadnaught evaluation. Nevertheless I hope my own stance will be proven wrong.

I dislike Dreadnaughts for a host of reasons. I've recently reiterated those several times in other topics, hence I'll try to summarize my points as much as possible both for the sake of regular readers of this forum and newcomers.

* Dreadnaughts are incredibly weak in terms of firepower in relation to their cost; 5 destroyers, 2 cruisers+1 destroyer, 1 carrier+4 fighters all beat it to pulp in terms of raw firepower.

- The only saving grace would be that in relation to Fleet Supply, Dreadnaughts are only exceeded by Carrier + Fighter supplements and War Sun + Fighter supplements if you do not fight against an enemy with several Fighters in the fleet (ie. almost all fleets except for Stasis Cruisers and suicide Destroyer fleets, both heavily used and very viable). Why? Because 1 Destroyer > 1 Dreadnaught statistically if you fight against, say, a fleet with 1 Carrier + 6 fighters (pretty standard). This is exacerbated if the Destroyers are boosted by Hylar V Assault Lasers and Automated Defence Turrets, both regarded as core techs and amongst the best and most versatile in the entire game.

* Dreadnaughts require an exorbitant amount of technologies to reach a relatively decent fighting potential. However, even fully upgraded (a ludicruous scenario considering the amount of techs needed, but to illustrate the argument let's assume all Dreadnaught related technologies and Duranium Armor applies), Dreadnaughts are still weaker than a War Sun with Duranium Armor, which is infinitely easier to acquire technology-wise. 3 Dreadnaughts = 15 Resources = 1 War Sun + 6 Fighters. The War Sun + Fighter complement is still superior compared to fully upgraded Dreadnaughts, despite having far less technology requirements. On top of that, it has - until the ridiculously high-tier tech Type IV Drive - speed advantage, bombardment advantage, carrying capacity advantage (= invasion advantage) and so forth. Dreadnaughts are simply not viable to pursue technologically because their technologies are too spread out and too limited in scope. An example is Assault Cannons; Good on paper, but how many pre-combat shots do you actually receive the benefit? You have to engage in an extraordinary amount of combat for those pre-combat shots to actually translate into an advantage since most often it'll result in a few fighters dying - and if that's the outcome, why not, again, take the far superior Destroyer?

* The objective deck features alot of spend objectives. To meet those spend objectives, be it influence, resources, trade goods or command counters, you need to conquer territory or save up. For conquering territory, Dreadnaughts are probably the worst unit imaginable in the game due to its slow speed and lack of carrying capacity unless you acquire Stasis Capsules, in which case Cruisers are superior, 'coz any good player will likely dump a PDS or similar on bordersystems if he sees a lumbering DN fleet waltzing slowly away from its homesystem. War Suns are infinitely more superior for conquering territory not only because of their superior firepower, but also because of their carrying- and bombardment capacity.

A normal 'ladder' approach in terms of unit building often starts with cheap units (stasis cruisers + destroyers + carriers w/ fighters/GF's) and either stays this way (a perfectly viable tactic) or transitions into War Suns (often an equally viable tactic). Why? Because of movement consistency.

To return to the original point, there's alot of "Spend X of Y" objectives. Dreadnaughts are ill-suited to acquire territory to claim these, but they're also very expensive; people who buy them are usually inexperienced players who haven't done the math in the given situation to determine the best approach, and thus seek to simply empty the resources. The alternative to emptying the resource pool, in which case Dreads are 'effective'? Spend more planets on acquiring Command Counters from Leadership. So what if you have to sacrifice a 2/2 Planet to acquire 1 more Command Counter? Nobody says you have to participate in an ill-conceived arms race by buying utterly terrible units. You could just as well prepare - or qualify for! - a Spend Command Counter objective. Or exhaust your Trade Station to acquire Trade Goods rather than keeping it for production purposes. Or simply not buy more than, say 1-2 destroyers for a round rather than a Dreadnaught and perhaps instead qualify for a resource/trade good/influence spend objective.

And to the original post quoting the following:

KelRiever said:

If you possess such a fleet, you're either playing extremely passively because you've got a reason to (i.e. you've got the resources/influence/trade goods needed to fulfill any spend objective and thus benefits more from saving up and holding what you've already acquired), or because you're simply an inexperienced and inefficient player whose grasp of the game is still in development; Even in terms of Fleet Supply, 1 Destroyer with Automated Defense Turrets > 1 Dreadnaught in terms of firepower unless the enemy has zero or just 1 Fighter(s) in his fleet, an unlikely scenario in and of itself. Besides, why wouldn't you buy Carriers with supplements before Dreads? Why wouldn't you want to spread out Destroyers and Cruisers to stall in border-systems, thus deterring an enemy invasion? Why wouldn't you create cheap, dedicated anti-fighter fleets that can quickly de-fang a Fighter Swarm baring it's teeth? Why wouldn't you have small Stasis Cruiser fleets ready to capitalize on enemy fleet movements opening holes that allows a quick invasion of a planet or two or deeper occupation into enemy territory?

The Dreadnaught has no niché and ultimately no purpose. It's a waste of plastic the moment it hits the table, to the point where it's the running joke amongst most experienced gaming groups to see if newcomers become fascinated with the wedge-shaped Star Destroyer equivalent that we would all love to love, but simply can't because it's a terrible investment. The only reason to build a Dreadnaught - and only one - is having an Admiral, in which case it can be worthwhile. Otherwise it is not except in freak-case scenarios.

Iorveth said:

Or if your Secret Objective demands it. This game is all about the VP. If teching up to Warsuns would require me going too far out of my way to completing Objectives, I don't do it. Dreadnoughts are available from the get go. They require little fleet supply, and little production capacity. I see a niche in the Dreadnoughts as a defensive reinforcement ship. It's the 'oh ****, what do I do!?' ship. In our games, whenever someone is closing on on someone's home system, that person usually starts churning out the dreadnoughts. Used defensively, that low speed doesn't really matter. There's no ship that checks them (destroyers vs. fighters for example) and they sustain damage. They can take a hit and help preserve your firepower past the first round. Any other non-Warsun ship is toast when it takes a hit. (aside from Sol's Advanced Carriers that is.)

L1Z1X is good with dreadnoughts, and thanks to their new racial tech, Letnev gets a nice boost from them too. You said so yourself that any race with an admiral could also benefit from one, and admirals are very common among the races. They're CERTAINLY not the best unit. But I think they're far from useless like everyone seems to be saying ad nauseam.

As you suspected, this issue has come up before on other threads here, for example--

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=34&efcid=1&efidt=513866&efpag=0#516837

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=34&efcid=1&efidt=518549&efpag=0

But since those weren't exactly the same focus, I'll paraphrase of what I've said there:

I've seen the numbers drawing some to conclude that Dreadnaughts are a horrible investment. Others say that Cruisers are often a horrible investment. In real combat, when a Dreadnaught or two is the backbone of a fleet, I just haven't seen this disadvantage manifest itself yet. "For the money" comparisons are misleading because game elements like fleet supply, production capacity, and others tend to make things more complicated. I see how if a player decided to spend most of their resources building Dreadnaughts early in the game, or if they were expecting them to stand on their own and scare experienced players away, they would get massacred. The sustain damage ability and the bombard ability, in practice, have substantial value in several situations. The time to start cranking them out is at about the same phase of the game where you will probably have acquired some of the techs which enhance them. Also, in FFG's defense, they did add the Duranium Armor tech with SoT, which is a substantial advantage for Dreadnaughts.

Dreads ARE terrible offensively in their raw form. Their primary value is as the backbone of a defensive fleet or as part of a 2-stage assault in the role of support. Primary offensives need to be made by other, faster and cheaper ships. Then a Dread moves in with entourage to finish off a weakened system, hold it from counterattack, and assist with the invasion. They aren't great in a single-stage assault unless the opponent has not taken proper precautions or is parked too close to your fortified space-- something else they can be useful for. With tech enhancements, they can be more useful offensively. You don't need to collect the whole set of Dread tech upgrades for this to be the case either. There are some versatile ways to find them useful depending on what enhancements you decide to buy. I don't generally build many, but I do build them and think I get good value out of them when I do.

As for the common sentiment: "Just build a War Sun instead! More punch for the money, easy choice. " I don't quite follow. In most games I see, only one or two players ever eventually possess War Suns due to the concentrated tech effort required even to build one. In my opinions, there is a fairly diverse range of good strategies in the game which do not involve ever building them at all. Even then, there is a strict limit of only two of these units. The situation where you happen to have the simple option of building Dreads or a Sun rarely ever comes up, nor does it bother me when it does and War Suns win out. I feel justified in disregarding this objection out of hand.

Regarding fleet suppy restrictions, it isn't merely your own fleet supply limitations that can make them a viable choice, it's the fleet supply of other players who are likely to engage you. This helps determine the other types of ships that you are likely going to need accompanying them too.

Iorveth said:

Lorveth, my old pal! We meet again on the subject. Are you ready for that dose of x89 on your Homeworld yet?

Personally, I don't think you have to ridicule people for using the Dreadnought as newbs. Not to mention, it has the smack of arrogance. Besides, I think people who use it know, for the most part, exactly what they are getting into.

It is either last on the build list, or close to last, for me in a perfect setting. However, running small fleets is HARDLY the mark of either a passive or new player. Running small fleets depends on your faction and the strategy you are using. Personally, I find cruiser friendly space nations often use small fleets if the extra rules are being used. The point of it all is regarding dreadnoughts, however, and I find if things don't go as planned, which is as often as not if you are playing with smart people, then sometimes you end up building one. Even with all the ugly on it.

Perfect world? The order of preferred space units for me is more something like:

War Sun (plus fighters)

Flagship (plus fighters)

Carrier (plus fighters)

Cruisers

Dreadnoughts/Destroyers

I wouldn't rank destroyers ahead of Dreadnoughts at all until they have upgrades for effective anti-fighter barrages. Except, of course, if you just want a fast, non-cruiser for whatever reason, which isn't often. Hopefully, though, it doesn't come down to making those decisions.

Mighty Maltim said:

True that - Secret Objective can demand it, but it's relatively rare and only one of many, if memory serves.

We've removed the Dreadnaught Preliminary Objective; not because a dislike of Dreadnaughts, but because there's a huge gap in difficulty when it comes to the Preliminary Objectives. Demanding a 25 resource investment of one player is ridiculously harsher and crippling for the gameflow than many of the others.

KelRiever said:

I can live with that; it's an online forum, and while I do try to be cordial most of the time, I won't really try to sugarcoat arguments and put on velvet gloves when trying to get a point across that's been debated time and again for literally years, each and every time with a few random people maintaining Dreads have their niche, despite all evidence to the contrary from Pbem, PBF and F2F games.

KelRiever said:

Pbem and PBF games suggest otherwise; players that are decisively Dreadnaught-oriented come in amongst the last consistently (although it's increasingly rare that anyone even make a focused Dreadnaught effort as it's sunk in that Dreads are situational at best, horrible at worst).

KelRiever said:

Agreed and as far as I recall I didn't mention that small fleets were the mark of a newbie anywhere. If so then I apologize, as I consider it quite the contrary; small fleets allows much more tactical flexibility, and it's something most experienced players I know employ regularly rather than the "all eggs in one basket wrecking ball", which I'd consider risky and often suboptimal play, though exceptions occur.

KelRiever said:

If you have an Admiral that isn't on a Dread already, then I'd agree. Otherwise I can't in good consciousness agree; if you're facing off 2+ Fighters, 1 Destroyer > 1 Dreadnaught. It's really that simple; if you know you won't survive 1st Combat Round due to inferior firepower, you get most bang for your buck by buying a Destroyer.

Similarly, if you're royally screwed like you mentioned (defensive unit scenario), 3 Destroyers + 1 Cruiser or 2 Cruisers + 1 Destroyer is alot better. Fleet Supply problems? Build Destroyers if you face enemy Fighters. It is simply more effective, even without ADT (And why would you not buy ADT? Requires Hylar only and it is such a ridiculously huge tech that ensures you've got perfect counter units to Fighters the entire game).

KelRiever said:

I find that argument flawed; it doesn't take account of each ship's niche. Playing with Space Mines? Cruisers could easily be valued higher than a Flagship (for instance if you're Yssaril or Hacan imo, considering the cost/efficiency calculations). If you know you'll be facing off against Fighters? Destroyers are right up there with the War Sun in terms of power for just a fraction of the cost.

KelRiever said:

I'm curious why you wouldn't; against a superior fleet with Fighters in which it's dubious you'd survive past 1st combat round, a single non-ADT Destroyer is still superior to 1 Dreadnaught. Of course this changes if the enemy fleet has no Fighters. Or through luck of the dice. Statistically though, Destroyers are superior in almost every conceivable way to most units provided you tech ADT (and again, why wouldn't you? Of course you can win without, but it is absolutely brutally powerful, easily acquired and extremely usable considering the cheap nature of Destroyers, which, provided you use them heavily, frees up resources for other pursuits such as objectives/increased command counters etc...).

ADT Destroyers are so powerful that with the ADT technology's introduction in SE, the game shifted from overpowered Fighter Swarms to Destroyers being amongst the prime units, if not the prime unit; the tactical options they provide are simply amazing, and it is such a huge deterrent to Fighter focus.

@lorveth. Well, arrogance is in fact a negative character trait. It isn't confidence. I think you mean confidence. Condescending is NEVER a thing you want to have pinned to you. Anyway, on with the destroyer arguement.

You are right in that everything is situational when it comes to the build list. Yes, if you have a cruiser friendly nation, then it gets bumped up the list really fast. Destroyers are not hated, but I think even with the worst anti fighter barrage, I still end up simply buying more fighters than destroyers. Note that I don't hate them or think they are useless. I just end up finding them down there on the list. Now, you get some player going all fighter happy, then SURE I would build a lot of destroyers.

There isn't a lot of heavy disagreement here. Just wanted to discuss.

@Hugesinker. Thanks for the links. I have to read them in time. I do tend to think more like you but understand both sides of the arguement. I can tell you I certainly don't go out of my way to build them though.

It takes a lot more planning and resources in the form of CC's and Time to build fighter fleets over Dreadnoughts.

In a perfect galaxy being able to load up 2 or 3 carriers with fighters and have 2 warsuns would be best but thats hardly a quick undertaking and takes much planning that could have been spent winning.

I think Dreadnoughts are balanced for what they are, this does not mean the are best ship and a must buy. All ships have their role/place and I would never pick a dreadnought when I needed a cruiser or carrier and vice versa

KelRiever said:

KelRiever said:

No, I am perfectly aware of what you meant. You're having your opinion - me being arrogant, or at least my arguments 'smacking of arrogance' - which I personally got no problem with. It's your opinion and I won't try and argue it since I am perfectly aware that it can come across as such. This is an online forum, and while we all get a small sneak-peak into each other's personalities, I won't presume to judge people's character based on what and how they write here. Perhaps that was not your intention, even though it could be argued to come across as such, hence me saying that I have no problem with you saying my arguments smack of arrogance; I get my point (and my impatience at this incessant necro-post revivification of the whole Dreadnaught issue, which has been debated to death several times in several years now) across clearly and concisely, which is my intention. It's an online forum. I don't come here to flaunt a superiority complex or whatever, I just want to state my opinion and in turn listen to others that presents strong cases...

... But so far I'm not seeing anything substantial nor new in the pro-Dreadnaught debate; consistent ignorance of mathematical evidence, ignorance of evidence from countless games, ignorance of evidence from theoretical standpoints and instead arguments based on, pardon my words, insubstantiated emotional rose-tinted-goggles nostalgia saying that Dreads 'got their place', followed by further vague gibberish. Yes, of course 1 Dread is superior to 1 Destroyer if they square off 1 vs. 1. Of course a Dreadnaught has a niché if it has X-89 Bacterial Weapon and Type IV Drive (however rare it may be that both those techs are acquired early enough to actually have an impact). Of course the game is complex enough that freak-scenarios might occur in which a Dreadnaught was 'nice to have'. None of us can refute unlikely theoretical freakish scenarios, nor will I try to. Of course I won't dispute that a Dreadnaught can have a significant impact. But we can't present a coherent, concise and somewhat fruitful discussion if we don't acknowledge the scope and limitations of the game. Are Dreads better if you play against newbies who build Destroyers against you despite you having no fighters? Of course. But that kind of relativism and relativistic approach serves no purpose and removes any incentive to get academic and passionate about it. This is theorycrafting, with all the possibilities, enlightenment and limitations it conveys. And it is of course framed for a somewhat competent group, in which the Dreadnaught- focusing player will more often than not end up being wrecked.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, also lies in the fact that War Suns does no t require a concentrated effort to acquire, as I believe it was Hugesinker who said it; it's 4 basic techs of which 3 (Hylar, Sarween, Enviro) are considered absolutely core-techs for almost every single race in the entire game, and of which many races start out with 1 or more of them right off the bat. Saying War Suns requires a concentrated effort is outright wrong; it is pretty **** easy to acquire the tech rather than making a research-drive towards boosting Dreadnaughts, which require infinitely more investment for alot smaller and more dubious gain. And some of the more universally useful technologies - Nano technology, Duranium Armor, X-89 Bacterial Weapon - apply to War Suns just as much as Dreadnaughts. And are even easier to acquire if you pursued War Suns; War Suns automatically leads you to Enviro/Sarween, which means Nano is close. Duranium is right there with the War Sun tech. X-89 is not often pursued but just as much an option for a WS as a DN player. Saying War Suns require a concentrated effort is beyond me. Are we playing with the same technology tree? Dreadnaughts are available right off the bat, yes, but they're also the worst unit without technological enhancement in the entire game bar none.

Hugesinker: I agree that X-89 is a wonderful technology and actually gives Dreadnaughts a niché and alternative strength to the superior WS bombardment. If X-89 and Type IV Drive were closely connected, I would for this reason alone love Dreadnaughts. As it is, however, it is more often than not a question of which of the two techs you'll focus on and actually benefit from before the game draws to a close. And without Type IV, Dreads will have trouble making it out to key systems in which they could use the X-89 (especially considering how hard it is to replenish Dreadnaughts in a far-reaching campaign; you wouldn't dare use their Sustain Damage for fear of losing your X-89 source). With Type IV, you're far way from X-89.... and you've probably already committed to Advanced Fighters, which are sadly hard-countered by the easily acquired ADT Destroyers.

apbevan said:

Naturally. The alternative to building Fighters/Carriers, however, is not Dreadnaughts. Statistically, 1 Carrier + 6 Fighters > 2 Dreadnaughts. Shocker eh? And is there a homesystem that cannot field at least 7 Production capacity by double-docking, which is almost always the most viable choice? No. 5 Resources > 10. And it is far, far more easy to acquire technological edge for Fighters (Cybernetics) and Carriers (XRD Transporters) than Dreads. And while I agree that Building Capacity is the bane of Fighter Swarms - and thank god for that - it is really not that hard to accumulate some filled carriers. Unless, of course, you just let your carriers hang around in edge systems after early expansion rather than bring them home. Of course that requires CC's for movement, but that is why most good players aren't averse to using resource planets to spend on Leadership 2ndary to consistently acquire at least 2, preferrably 3 CC's every round; the resources are better spend on that rather than Dreads.

Now I am not advocating for Fighter Swarms; they are far too easily countered by ADT Destroyers, which is a staple build for most players. But you're making it sound like Dreads are the alternative to Fighter fleets, which they're absolutely not .

Im not advocating dreads as a counter fighter fleets but anytime we say dreads are not worthless the first argument is warsuns and carrier fleets are better. The comparison is not coming from our side of the camp.

Then there is the talk of how Dreadnoughts require all this tech(which they don't but do get better with it) yet warsuns need tech just to build them and now you bring up how fighters are so much better with their tech advancements? seems hypocritical.

There are home systems that can't get 7 capacity, Sol as an Example.

If Dreadnoughts were truly the worst ship and had no reason to be built then nobody would build them. The fact that Cost, CC, Fleet Supply, Time, Capacity, Tech and board position which are all fluent between turns and games means the best/worst ship is never the same.

I feel the Dreadnought fits in nicely with all the options available. And why is it always assumed that building dreadnoughts means I won't have fighters or other ships?

@lorveth: Sorry to instigate such a response, and all I am saying is that I think you have great confidence in what you say. Don't mistake what I am mentioning as a massive judgement on my part when I know you strictly from these posts. I think the whole comment deviated from the main point, so back to that.

To all:

Dreadnoughts are, at the very least, debatable in their usefulness. Constant converation points to that. Some think its fine, some haet it. I like the suggestion of giving it two shots, but there is a point to those who I game with that if something is bad, it is just easier to play by the rules and not build it, or build it in the rare circumstances that it is deemed useful. That is where dreadnoughts fall.

I think one of the aspects of very good games like TI are that overall, superior play is the dominant factor in winning. TI has got it right in putting objectives first and not strictly military dominance (or better said, the military is best used to achieve objective than strictly blowing up stuff). TI also nailed it in trying to come up with various roles for making each unit in the game important. With bad games, you just see most units eclipsed in favor of the ONE bestest unit ever. A lot of miniature games play that way (okay, don't get me started). With all the variables in TI, I agree dreads could have used more work in getting their usefulness fleshed out, and yet without being overpowered.

Dicussion here confirms to me that many of the roles they were supposed to fill are best done by other things. That is not universally true, but it is left to a completely situational role. But TI certainly is good enough as it is, even with terrible dreads. Sadly, I just don't think there are going to be enough expansions released quickly enough, if any (and I am completely fine wtih that), to make them better. It is true that Shards should have been the expansion that made them somewhat better.

apbevan said:

apbevan said:

As I've written several times, Destroyers are still superior the moment your fleet is unlikely to survive past 1st combat round and the enemy fleet has 2 or more fighters (likely scenario), making Destroyers better than dreads in the oft-quoted "oh ****" situation, in which some people say the Dread's merit lies.

apbevan said:

I am saying that Fighters are easily upgraded with Cybernetics (read my previous post) and their carriers XRD, both easily accessible techs that can be acquired early and are generally alot more powerful than most, if not all, Dreadnaught techs. How many shots will get the benefit of the +1 from Cybernetics as opposed to the, say, Assault Cannon? You're either deliberately misunderstanding me or you're not comprehending what I write. The reason I bring up the host of Dreadnaught techs is that despite being fully upgraded , Dreads are still inferior to in most cases to almost any other alternative, perhaps with cruisers being the exception. Even under these ideal and nigh-impossible to achieve circumstances, Dreadnaughts fall short. Is that intended?

apbevan said:

Without Enviro Compensator, yes. With Enviro, no. And while it's possible to win without Enviro, it is one in a hundred I see that doesn't acquire it (and Sarween) in most games, Arborec being the possible sole exception.

apbevan said:

Yeah, people never do stupid, sub-optimal things. My bad. *roll eyes*.

Sorry, I concur with the latter part of your argument, but fact is that lots of people will of course buy the worst ship time and again for various reasons. Lack of tactical understanding, lack of scope, lack of understanding of the game, lack of perception in a given situation, lack of experience etc. etc... The latter part of your argument I concur with, which I did write concisely and clearly in my previous post, had you read it.

apbevan said:

Nobody assumes that. And I've written time and again that Dreadnaught focus is subpar, yet building 1 for your Admiral is great, as an example. Or fulfilling SO. But in almost every conceivable way, you can always build better, unless you've run out of Destroyers, Carriers and in some cases Cruisers, though it can be a wash when it comes to Cruisers if you lack the ability to utilize their superior movement.

I'm a newb. I'll say that straight out. I've only played two games of vanilla.

I will always say, however, that dreadnaughts were invaluable in my most recent game as Yssarill. I was targetted straight off by Sol. They came straight for me, and although I had a significant planet advantage, I could not compete if I built carriers + fighters, and I would often end up wasting resources. Without ADT's, destroyers really weren't a good choice for me, and so Dreadnaughts it was. I also pulled two emergency repairs cards, which won me battles where my opponent underestimated me.

Although my opponent was no tactical genious, I won. I'm still convinced, despite the compelling evidence shown here that focusing on dreads was the best option for me in this siutaiton.

@KelRieve

By your logic all ships fail in desgin because you only build them when they are useful. Im certainly not going to build a destroyer when I need a carrier.

Shards did make Dreadnoughts better with the Duranium Armour tech. A fleet with 5 ablative wounds every round without reducing combat effectiveness is a pretty big advantage

@Lorveth

What does your talk about building destroyers against fighters being better if your going to lose and dreadnoughts not being the counter to fighters have to do with the usefulness of dreadnoughts? In one situation the player is not going to win period so it has no bering on dreadnoughts in the second your pitting a dreadnought against something its not meant to win against...

Sol, Mentak and Muuat all have 1 planet home systems with 4 production which equals 6 capacity with Enviro Compensators.

I still don't understand the hate for dreadnoughts. Any scenario you or I bring up is antidotal as the usefulness of any ship is specific to the scenario you bring it too. TI simply is not a game of X is better than Y as there is more to the production and combat of ships than just 1 resource and their stat line.

It honestly feels like you believe the only viable ships are fighters and their counter destroyers.

apbevan said:

Wrong. Muuat and Mentakk both have 4 from the planet, 2 from the Space Dock and 1 extra from Enviro, making it 7 Production Capacity.

apbevan said:

Not at all. I'd always strive to play a dynamic and expansive game oriented towards Victory Point claiming and, secondary, offensive cost/benefit analysed battles. This game style often garners the most wins, judging both from F2F games and PBF and PBeM, and it's opens up many more tactical avenues than, say, lumbering around with a Dreadnaught wrecking ball or centering your fleet around a move 1 Dreadnaught, despite the rest of the fleet having Move 2.

So no, I am far from the belief that the game is purely a question of Destroyers or Fighters. I am, however, of the opinion that any job the dreadnaught can do, another ship can almost certainly do better, as both math and experience shows in the vast majority of incidents.

As our self-proclaimed newbie (no offence meant, just quoting) said, Dreadnaughts can save you in a pinch if you have, say, two emergency repairs That is hardly, however, a standard scenario and representative for Dreadnaught's general strength, but would rather fall within the category of "freak scenario", as I proclaimed earlier.

Whether or not an Yssaril player with a planetary advantage and, I presume, reasonable ability to make a good double-dock system (or just use the Home System), skip ability, truckload of action cards, presumably good techs due to aforementioned planetary advantage etc. can end up in an inferior situation to another player is a whole different debate that I won't delve further into. It would, however, seem to indicate that the level of play wasn't at the high level that almost a decade of playing Twilight Imperium brings, which is only natural as he mentions having played only two games. I have from the onset of this debate, however, said that my theorycrafting was aimed at competitive play, in which case Dreadnaught-oriented players (pay attention to the wording, please) almost always get the royal shaft.

DN's were a design error from the beginning. If they simply rolled 2xd10 dice, they would at least be "logical" in the progression from CA at 1 die hit on a "7," to WS at 3 dice hit on a "3," with DN's in the "middle" at 2 dice hit on a "5." We play this way regularly and the L1Z1X Mindnet are NOT "OP'd" - they have yet to win a game! So a Great Race with an Admiral gets 3 dice on ONE of their DN's...so what?...never been a "game breaker"...never, not once. The most strategically skillful players win by obtaining VP's in tactically sound ways. My frustration with the DN is simply that I want all of the units (in this otherwise fantastic game!) in the game to be worthwhile, and to provide good, "benefit-to-cost" options for all players. DA is not the "fix" for DN's, and DN's are "broken" in RAW form which makes them a waste of plastic.

SFRR said:

Exactly this. DA is even a natural progression path for War Sun pursuing players, with Nano Technology also very close by through the Enviro and Sarween requirement, which is very important as Nano Tech and Duranium Armor has strong synergy and removes the only 'risk' in sustaining. For any Dreadnaught pursuing player, Nano Tech is a huge detour compared to Type IV, Assault Cannon and DA (which has to be viewed in a different light as opposed to when it's acquired for a War Sun player, to whom it's a more natural choice as it's in direct progression in conjunction with Nano Tech and not a huge detour from other 'must-have' techs.)

By your logic all ships fail in desgin because you only build them when they are useful. Im certainly not going to build a destroyer when I need a carrier.

I don't understand this counter-statement. If you could explain further, I'd respond.

Nano-tech, fyi, is really, really good

Not mentioned yet, but one of the big problems with dreadnoughts and any slow carriers is having to take the warfare card to get them anywhere far. Swear, if you have a nation that starts with a dread, and you can't get leadership, assemly, tech or production on turn 1, take warfare and use it to attack another player, if possilbe, with your admiral. Because after that, the use of it will go downhill from there.

I cannot brag with experience here, but some points here seem somewhat shortsighted to me.

First of all, the technological path to bolster Dreadnoughts is far not as expensive as claimed. Since Iorveth obviously favors Fighters and Destroyers as their countermeasure, I will assume bolstering these units as a major goal in technological development.

If, with this in mind, I ignore the War Sun technology in favor of bolstering DNs as a secondary technological goal, I find it quite rewarding. Instead of Deep Space Cannons (a prerequesite for War Sun), I buy ADT, and instead of War Sun Assault Cannons. Now I pit 2 of my DNs vs. 1 War Sun. Before Battle, I deal an average of 1,2 (average) hits, thus damaging the War Sun. In the first turn of battle, I again deal 1,2 damage, thus destroying it, while the War Sun deals 2,4 (again, average) Damage, thus damaging both DNs, but destroying none. Even if the War Sun rolls slightly above average, dealing effectively 3 hits, I still lose only 1 DN (costing 5 Res. opposed to 12 Res. for the War Sun). However, the DNs have more potential for lucky rolls than the War Sun due to their higher Combat Value, so the odds are quite good that the economical damage is 0-12 after battle.

Of course, no one would voluntarily leave a War Sun without Fighters, but then, I would not attack it without Fighters, either. It is impossible to calculate the effects of likely fleets on this example, though the odds would certainly rise in favor of the War Sun if more units are involved, However, all the math posted here before put DNs in relation to other units (or combinations of units) in selected examples, and this is just one more example, with the unit of measurement being the cost in resources.

The math done before downplayed (if not outright omitted) factors that are not as easily numbered, such as the good Combat Value in relation to Fleet supply limits, the possibility of bombarding planets, and the sustain damage ability, all of which make a DN valuable in comparison to Destroyers or Cruisers. If a player is into Fighters, he will likely develop technologies to finally have Advanced Fighters, and a prerequesite to this is Type IV Drive, thus removing the mobility disadvantage of a DN.

I personally find the War Sun technology quite unattractive with so much candy hanging in the Techtree. So, I produce an occasional DN, but where I gladly sacrifice Cruisers an especially Destroyers, I take care of my DN, since they are too expensive to be rebuilt every other round. So far (as I said, not too much experience here) it works. And, of course, I have Fighters as a corpse has flies.

Whippoorwill said:

Again, I cannot stress the importance of PBF and PbeM's; you're in for a wonderful ride if you commit to it, and you'd be pitted against players with literally hundreds of games below their belt accumulated through almost a decade. Coincidentally, all these are also the ones 'against' Dreads (in the sense they're not against, but simply recognizing they're subpar).

Whippoorwill said:

Depends which ones you consider core. I'd consider Type IV Drive core for them along with Nano Tech/X-89, depending on what is needed most; Assault Cannons are neat, but through an entire game it becomes very few actual shots gained through the tech. And when Fighters are present, it's basically just a subpar AFB.

Whippoorwill said:

I favour what is needed to win, not what I prefer. But Fighters and XRD Carriers followed by Cruisers are indisputably the most versatile units and most homogenous unless you tech deep into Type IV.

Whippoorwill said:

And a prerequisite for Duranium Armor. Along with enviro/sarween, which leads easily to the potent Nano Tech. DSC leads to nifty stuff just as ADT does (which is a wonderful tech; average 1½ guaranteed fighter hits precombat per destroyer).

Whippoorwill said:

Let's assume fighters. I haven't been unreasonable in my examples and have tried to supply examples suitable for theorycrafting rather than freak occurrences, as I would consider 2 Assault Cannon Dreads (slow movement presumably) vs. a lone War Sun (which would have superior movement). Assuming just 3 Fighters on the War Sun side, it'd win the vast majority of times statistically.

Whippoorwill said:

Again, freak scenario. I've strived to avoid such examples when I've argued my own points, instead stating parameters in which X ship is better than Y (ADT destroyer > dread if 2+ fighters are present and you won't likely survive past 1st combat round) etc.

Whippoorwill said:

Of course, hence the necessity of parameters that can further narrow the scope within reason (ADT Destroyers averaging 1½ pre-combat hits, making them superior when Y+ number of Fighters are present). It's a matter of cost-effiency coupled with Fleet supply.

Whippoorwill said:

Most games are fast approaching the end once this tech is acquired.

Of course this is a freak scenario. I myself concluded, as you will have read, that this battel would almost certainly have fighters in in, and consequently is likely to feature destroyers as well. But that's not the Point.

The point was a comparison Dreadnought / War Sun. That's also why I picked an upgrade for the DN that was as far from Hylar V as is the War Sun (omitting the other War Sun prerequesite due to little combat relevance of these technologies), not simply because I like it. Also, the higher movement of the War Sun is not a point here (except for a War Sun fleeing from DNs, but I wouldn't complain about that). For that purpose, my example works well, although it is simplified by sticking to the numbers of the compared units and nothing else. You, however, use the term "Freak scenario" as cheap discreditor for all examples that oppose your point, and that's not how a discussion works. My example does not necessarily become more realistic by simply adding 3 Fighters to the War Sun while still assuming the DNs to go unaccompanied, though this assumption certainly turns the odds against the DNs.

And again, as I mentioned before, no word here about Bombardement and Sustain Damage (which the War Sun has of course, but a Destroyer doesn't),which nevertheless are a point in DNs cost efficiency.

As far as I understand your messages here, your main point is, that a DN cost 5 Res. and provides an average of 0.6 hits per turn of battle, while a Cruiser costs 2 Res. an provides 0.4 hits/turn (and destroyer, blabla, yougetpoint). This is even more true since the cruiser (and Destroyer) are cheaper to bolster with technology than the DN. In comparison, a Cruiser costs 40% of a DN while killing 66.66% (83.33% with Hylar V) of a DN, so far even disregarding the movement point.

But these numbers account only for the destructive potential of a ship, not all of it's tactical options. These are hard to quantify, and I will not try try it. When it comes to big ships, I consider the War Sun as well as the DN as quite expensive, and usually keep to DNs, in part because I don't need an extra tech to build them. If this works out on long term, well, I'll see.

I wonder, if, after so much complains about the cost inefficiency of DNs, has anyone played with a house rule that reduces all DN costs by 1 Res.?

I've been watching this thread for a while..

I think lorveth is completely right about this topic.

The DN is the least cost-efficient unit in the game, thus you should never buy it unless you made some pretty big planning mistake(s) in the earlier rounds (not having enough CCs in FS, not building additional SDs to bolster production capacity etc etc).

It is almost worthless because it is overshadowed in every respect by the other units.

There's mathematical evidence of what I'm saying, it's not just a (widespread) personal bias.

Lorveth has already made the arguments against the DN clear, so I'm not going to list them again, I will just say this: if you manage to avoid having to build DNs, you'll find yourself ahead compared to those who do.

I think the fact that DNs are a unit to avoid hampers severly the game-balance because you're almost forced to go WS in the late game if you want to be able to compete militarly with players who have WSs.

So instead of discussing about the specific day of the year in which the DN can actually be useful, let's discuss about how we can make it actually useful.