pip wrote:
Against Seraphim, in early t2, if you spam frigates + Railgun (and the occasional Cruiser) and don't make Destroyer, you will be fine (at least when the bug will be fixed), that's a way to counter early Sera Destroyer spam. If they submerge, railgun carriers totally own Sera Destroyers, and on surface, they are better, but not too much, because their lasers don't outrange railgun carriers. With Frigates to protect the railgun carriers, you can compete against Sera Destroyers. You can't do the same strategy against Destroyers which have more range, like Cybran and Aeon, and will need Nomads Destroyers to deal with them. Same with UEF : the shield boat will have to be countered by either Cruiser or Destroyer.
There is absolutely nothing nomads can do with seraphim destroyers even if you have correct mix to may be even draw those in unmerge and submerge modes, seraphim players just get in, kill carriers with no problems, submerge and kill destroyers and even ground fire with bombarding mode will not help here.
UEF fleet would have same problem, if there wouldn't be shield boats, torps and torp def on destroyers and coopers with insane torp defence. Nomad destroyers don't have torp, RG carriers don't help fleet, cruiser with its emp is far worse support unit than bullwark.
Same thing with first built seraphim destroyer: you will lose, no matter what naval unit you will build: t1 subs - lose to torps; frigates, destroyers don't shoot underwater; railgun carrier gets killed by surface weapon. You just cannot compete with those.
pip wrote:
All in all, you make it sound like Nomads t2 navy sucks, but if you know what you are doing, it's not true, it's a strong, yet different navy. You have to adjust what you need depending on the faction you face, and the units they use.
Only works a single time: when enemy doesn't know nomad units. Next game you will suck even if you do everything right.
May be if you want a smaller change, you could try to put depth charge on destroyer, so it would work only against submerged units and torpedo defence on cruiser, so it would be even more usefull support unit. But i don't think it would change much: any other t2 fleet will still stay stronger/far easier to play.
Ithilis_Quo wrote:
EMP is direct fire weapon. Is no reason take another weapon with dmg, when can simply rise dmg of EMP.
you suggest more direct fire dps, and then more effective bombard. But this cruaiser would be definitly op. Compare it with cybran. Only 160dps against navy and 30% of it miss. And any other option. And then nomad with 220 dps against wavy with small stun, and with bombard posibility. Its much more stronger units for same price. And for no reason.
At first, i mostly consider to keep cruiser unchange, even though i hate tracking missle and emp in navy and wanted to get it change only if current cruiser will do balancing work worse than suggested one.
At second, cybran cruiser deals 184 dps with main gun and extra 180 with nanodart launcher.
At third, cruiser that i suggested would do 100 dps with direct fire with no emp and shoot 100 dps missles with emp(and ofc absolver effect), that don't track units. 5-6 emp missles with 100-120 dps total is only 20 dps per missle, that may not hit unit, that may get killed by tmd.
Still there should be no talks about cruiser change and their stats. The RG carriers and destroyers is what has to be done first.Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 30 Oct 2014, 14:49
]]>
