Cruisers vs Battlecruisers, T1-3


(Hank Shank) #1

Wondering about the hierarchy of power between cruisers and battlecruisers of different tech levels.

Cruiser
Battlecruiser
Heavy Assault Cruiser
Strategic Cruiser
Command Ship

Do I have that right?


(Lady Ayeipsia) #2

No… Kind of… Um… It’s more complicated than what you are saying.

For example take the blackbird… It is a Caldari electronic warfare cruiser that excels at jamming targets. In the right hands and with the right skills, it could solo many ships. Yet it’s just a T1 cruiser.

Command ships… They are specialist ships that serve a very specific role. If used in that role nothing beats them but that doesn’t mean they will be the best ship.

Strategic cruisers are modules ships. You can change subsystem which in turn changes bonuses, slot layout, and more. In one config it may excel at exploration but suck in combat. In others… It may excel in combat but not do well flying solo in nul sec.

Also, signature radius plays a big role. For example a Battlecruiser has a bigger signature than a cruiser. Therefore the BC takes more damage from a large weapon. Yet both take the same damage from medium and small weapons. To compound this, you have attack and combat BUs

So it’s not as easy as you suggest or as simple.

So what exactly do you want in your heirchy? PvP power? PvE?


(Hank Shank) #3

I suppose I am referring to PVE mission-running in Wormhole sites, where only medium-sized ships or smaller are permitted.


(Lady Ayeipsia) #4

So basically C1 wormholes… In that case…

Drake >> all others…

I say this because a passive tanked drake should be able to handle all sites and if you lose the drake, you do not lose a heavy investment. Also shield is generally considered better for PvE.

Yes a well set up tengu may work better but the cost is more.

Any drone based ship may have problems with sleepers attacking the drones. Other BCs can work but are not as good as the drake.

Command ships…again they cost a lot and ate not worth the effort. HACs… You could use them but it would be a long train when other options are better.


(Hank Shank) #5

Just considering ship types, but not specific ships - not interested in cross-faction training.

If cost and training time are not factors, only performance, then it sounds like my hierarchy is accurate?


(JC Mieyli) #6

switch bc and hac imo


(Lady Ayeipsia) #7

No because command ships are specialists. In fact, that is the general purpose for T2 ships. T2 ships are more focused, which means they excel at a given role better than their T1 variants, but T1 tend to be more versatile.

So take HACs. They excel at combat but won’t so as well in a support role. Recon ships (which are t2 cruises) excel at support but are not as strong in combat.

Command ships can do ok in combat but a HAC could out perform the command ship. This is because the focus of the command ship is on boosting, not combat.

And again…strategic (T3 cruisers) are flexible. You can make a boosting one that does about as well as a command ship, but the cost is high. You can make a T3 better in combat than a typical HAC but cost is again high.

So you are close but I would not say.command BCs are king.


(Lady Ayeipsia) #8

Think of it this way…

A stealth bomber is a T2 frigate. Yet I doubt many would consider it to be better than a T1 frigate in most fights. Interceptors are the same way.

Look at The T2 command Destroyer and interdictor… They too specialize to the point that they may not be the best in other roles.


(Nikea Tiber) #9

The field command ships (sleip, abso, astarte, nighthawk… don’t fly caldari too much) are still combat first, boosting second. For a long time these hulls could only fit one link without using a command coproc, and have bonuses that are more suited for offensive roles vs the fleet command ships. Just because you can fit three links (command modules… whatever they call them now) on a field command doesn’t mean you should, or that you should fit any for that matter, depending on what you are doing with the hull.

A field command ship can easily fit a tank that self-reps on par with a battleship (assault resists help a lot), and has the dps output that is roughly equivalent to a bs with better application, though poorer projection. You retain the mobility of a bc, so you can use this to your advantage, piloting to reduce damage taken.

I would strongly advocate training command ships to V before you take any BS from IV to V.

Sleipnir can demolish just about anything, I can think of very few finer ships in eve.


(JC Mieyli) #10

i think bcs are better than hacs
better projection and better tank
and more slots for other stuff
plus the command bursts
deimos is the exception i guess


(Lady Ayeipsia) #11

But BCs take more damage from large guns and don’t have the extra resists that HACs do.

Myrm vs Ishtar, my money is on the ishtar.

Drake vs cerb… Ok this one may go either way depending on fit.

Cane vs vagabond… I’m siding with the vagabond

Proph vs sacralige… Hmmm… I love a good Proph and this maybe s goid fight but I still think the sacralige. Harbi vs zealot… Zealot all the way.


(JC Mieyli) #12

i guess it really depends if the bc has the tanky role bonuses
the bcs with no tanking bonuses are probably gonna die easily
something like proph vs sac im gonna say just get some neuts on it if it is active tank
same with myrm but ishtar is a bit trickier though myrm has better fitting for dual prop option which would be its advantage i think maybe even triple prop cant forget the mmjd
idk but i dont think the hacs are vastly superior i think it just depends on what match ups you get
well anyway this thread is about pve so from that point of view i would recommend bc over hac


(Lady Ayeipsia) #13

For wormhole PvE, I would agree… BC over HAC. It’s not Just a power issue but a cost and versatility too. BC all the way.

However for mission PvE, and again, only because drones are very powerful, ishtar beats any BC. I have no problem running level 4s in my ishtar. I can’t say the same for the myrm.


(MAX RAIDERS) #14

Well that is interesting… But the question is for a beginner and having 70 mil isk… Considering to invest in Bc is an good though or not for mission running and worm holes exploring… If yes, what Bc best fit my play style giving that in gunnery i’m better than missiles… If no what other ships that could be better.


(Lady Ayeipsia) #15

Mission… Yes. Wormhole… Maybe.

What race do you fly? For BEd I would think…

Myrmidon
Prophecy
Hurricane
Drake but this is a missile ship.


(Trixi Laminer) #16

For c1 any combat and tanking capable cruiser can run the sites but you have to be moving to speed tank some of the dmg.
For a more relaxed and faster time in the sites a pirate faction cruiser or bc is recommended.

Although a deadspace and t2 fit tactical destroyer can run a few of the basic c1 sites although you got to keep moving around. Big advantage with the t3d is that it can travel through the frigate sized wh entrances wich opens up more options sometimes.

A hac or a cs works too even though most folks will say thats overdoing it compared to the rewards.
My advice is to start with a basic bc or cruiser if you are space poor.

If you got money to spend and like to overdo it you can squeeze in a nestor class battleship through both c1 bc sized wh entrances and it works in c2 wh’s too.
Otherwise the good old t3 cruisers work fine too with mostly simple t2 fits.
For higher end whs you got to start scaling up with a few friends in ships or extra alts due to rising difficulty. From experience duo nestors work well for c3 and c4.


(LouHodo) #17

I have to say I love T2 Cruisers for most everything. They are cheap to replace, often have more firepower and options available to them than most Battlecruises. But like everything a T2 BC is far more effective than a T2 Cruiser. But the cost reflects this, a T1 BC is about the same as a T2 Cruiser to me. And the T2 cruiser is easier to skill into.


(system) #18

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.