216 replies to this topic

[Mojo]

I disagree...with your point battlemage the punic is a lategame ship,despite that i thinhk the phoenix should´nt have so many fighters then it has right now...the only specific carrier in the capital lineup is the punic(with simular fighter upgrade abillitys like the dds)but the phoenix has no such upgrades...the UNSC have the supirior carrier crusier anyway right now (eion carrys 4 squadrons thats not bad in anyway even in lategame)i just fail to see what Point the eion would fill mid-lategame then if you can just replace it with a supirior desing.

 

Edit:Eh its not rly a specific carrier more of a mix,i personaly dont use the punic just for its fighters.

[SternuS]

I disagree with point that Epoch must be capital, because there're enough caps for the UNSC, but severe lack of cruiers. There is half of menu free for new things.

 

Also, this won't fill fleet carrier role due to Punic's presense in it's lines. Epoch doesn't cost 1 capital crew slot. But it can perform better than Eions in cruisers line due to it's improved suviability and squadrons number, with additional PDGs. 

There's no way the Epoch will be a cruiser. As I said, overlapping roles never worked well. (Epoch would be really similar to an Eion, stats- and costs-wise)

 

As****e. Why you hurt me so much? 

All the designs Spartan Games released go against the likes of the majority of the devs, and some members alike. The ORS looks way better in our version than Spartan Games' one, as would every other new design.

[Battlemage1]

There's no way the Epoch will be a cruiser. As I said, overlapping roles never worked well. (Epoch would be really similar to an Eion, stats- and costs-wise)

 

All the designs Spartan Games released go against the likes of the majority of the devs, and some members alike. The ORS looks way better in our version than Spartan Games' one, as would every other new design.

Or it will be a worse version of Punic. In your balance, especially for UNSC cost doesn't matter. But quality of unit.

 

Difference between fast defensive light carrier and slow armored heavy carrier is... great. It can be a good solution for fleet main carrier role, because Eions are too weak and Punics are late game top capitals. There is a large abyss between them, and Epoch can fill it good.

 

After all, all warships all the times overlapped their roles: they were designed for battle. Buf difference in tactical usage is great between them. Do you really need 100 new playtesters and devs to understand such easy fact? 

 

 

Also, why Paris is a cruiser, while it's actually a frigate? Heavy frigate, but frigate. Halcyon - light cruiser. Eion - carrier. Completely different tonnage and level. 

But Phoenix and Diplomatic vessels could be moved there as bigger ships.

[Mojo]

It doesnt have to be a "worse version of the punic" it could just be the go to ship to fill that role.above avergage mac damage but the best fighters for any ship with abilitys like,fighter refit,elite pilots,insant squadron replacment,and a Ciws ability to make it a great deffenciv ship....maybe even a uniqe fighter...like the kinjals,with a nice mini nuke costum effect.

[Battlemage1]

It doesnt have to be a "worse version of the punic" it could just be the go to ship to fill that role.above avergage mac damage but the best fighters for any ship with abilitys like,fighter refit,elite pilots,insant squadron replacment,and a Ciws ability to make it a great deffenciv ship....maybe even a uniqe fighter...like the kinjals,with a nice mini nuke costum effect.

Why aging undergunned class of carriers should have better personnel and fighters than supercarrier?

[Aunt Gruntie]

Why would we put in the Epoch, when we had to scrap the Athens, which fulfilled the same role as the Eion? That's too many ships that do the same thing, it's already bad enough as it is. Why would you want to add to it? What purpose does it serve? Does it add to the faction/gameplay?

 

Battlemage please

[Mojo]

Dont know flavor..gameplay having a uniqe ship.

[Battlemage1]

Why would we put in the Epoch, when we had to scrap the Athens, which fulfilled the same role as the Eion? That's too many ships that do the same thing, it's already bad enough as it is. Why would you want to add to it? What purpose does it serve? Does it add to the faction/gameplay?

 

Battlemage please

 

Don't tell me  'please' once again, if you're only asking questions. Please. 

 

Answering:

1) Because Eion is a light carrier. It can be a cheap choice if you need many squadrons on paper ships with bad PDGs. Epoch (or Athens) supposed to be a havier version, whicj can be opened after Eions. With additional squadrons, better PDGs, armor and HPs. 

2) Too many? Then cut off hangars from all capitals, leave Shivas only to one ship class and paint them all in different colors. There are fleet roles between light escort carriers, real carriers and command super heavy carriers. If you can't understand this, them I must say I'm sorry.

3) I want to add it, because it's a beautiful ship with long story, presented both in Lore and Halo table game. I like the model and I don't want to build capitals in order to capture them every time... especially with current Athens stats.

4) It will separate roles between escort/system security cheap carriers and real carriers, adding a new unit instead of Phoenix expanded hangar bay as primary heavy carrier class. Also, Epoch could provide a good defense from fighters to nearby ships and have some sort of "defense formation" perk for all nearby ships. 

 

 

I really can't understand you. What, all of you are Adam Smith fans? "Why do we need better, different product if we have a simple one?"

[Fleet Admiral agigabyte]

Eions aren't weak. They have a clearly defined role and should always be at the edge of a battle, providing fighter and bomber support.

[Mojo]

Sorry but having a ship with the same role just a tad better......thats the most boring thingh you could do.

[Battlemage1]

Eions aren't weak. They have a clearly defined role and should always be at the edge of a battle, providing fighter and bomber support.

I suggest separate their roles. Epoch supposed to withstand more punishment and deploy more squadrons, but in cost of speed and MAC damage. And... I'd not send carriers on the edge of battle with anyone. Perhaps, if US will lost one or two, you'll have your examples. Remember I remarked about missiles? 

[Mojo]

So a Eion with more hitpoints but the same overall role?

[Battlemage1]

Difference in cost and time you can have them. Also, Eions with better MAC damage, speed, but less number of HPs, squadrons and cap price. 

 

Escort carrier and carrier. Feel difference.

[Fleet Admiral agigabyte]

I suggest separate their roles. Epoch supposed to withstand more punishment and deploy more squadrons, but in cost of speed and MAC damage. And... I'd not send carriers on the edge of battle with anyone. Perhaps, if US will lost one or two, you'll have your examples. Remember I remarked about missiles? 

It simply adds needless complication to the UNSC Carriers. Again, we used to have the Athens and Eion as Carrier Cruisers. The Athens was tougher and had more fighters. It made the Eion redundant.

[Battlemage1]

You'll have one expensive sub-tank carrier class and  one less expensive, fast damage dealer with additional carrier slots, but made fromm reinforced paper and glass. 

 

It's a good addition, if you know how to use it. You have to choose between fast crafts for raids with frigates and destroyers, and slow carriers to go with all fleet to a total space annigilation of everything.

[Mojo]

thats the point its boring:"you have the carrier with more hitpoints 4 sqouds and a carrier with 6 squadrons which has the same fleet role but is a tad slower"

 

Edit: at the end it would make one of those 2 carriers reduntant.

[Fleet Admiral agigabyte]

But Eions already work with both. 

 

 

 

"Also, why Paris is a cruiser, while it's actually a frigate? Heavy frigate, but frigate. Halcyon - light cruiser. Eion - carrier. Completely different tonnage and level. 

But Phoenix and Diplomatic vessels could be moved there as bigger ships."

 

Also, the Cruisers is part is actually for combat ships. Really, the Stalwart and Charon should go there, too.

[Battlemage1]

thats the point its boring:"you have the carrier with more hitpoints 4 sqouds and a carrier with 6 squadrons which has the same fleet role but is a tad slower"

 

Edit: at the end it would make one of those 2 carriers reduntant.

 

Once again: make your own suggestion to make this gameplay a little bit interesting. Getting back Thermopylae and devs praising are not suggestions.

 

In the end, you'll find more than half of all ships dead, you know. And now Eion is (for me) one of them. 

[Battlemage1]

Also, the Cruisers is part is actually for dedicated combat ships. Really, the Stalwart and Charon should go there, too.

 

What for? To have all combat ships and significant lack of space in first tab and only non-combat ships and many free space in another tab? Oh, god... Perhaps we in our Mordor not so philosophicaly educated, to understand purpose of this decision. Declarated idea is clear, but... Well, let's put your OFFCOM and DEFCOM and this ships separation till... never remember. I don't want to talk about this. I have nothing to argument my position, if you even refuse to recognize that units with close, but different roles is good for tactics diversity. 

 

 

And, yes... They work, but not they're not soo durable and well defended from aircraft. Also, two classes would be more interesting. 

[Mojo]

I already told you "my sugesstion" but you fail to lissen to anyone....anyway i repeat my suggestion MAYBE you read it this time......Id like to have the phoenix as a didactet colonie ship......and the epoch as a didacted carrier with uniqe fighter and deffenciv abilitys.