No, I’m not. The capital is not the centerpiece of the subcap fleet in that instance, the capital(s) are coming in as supplemental assets.
Fax + subcaps: the subcaps are not there to support the fax.
Dread + subcaps: the subcaps are not there to support the dread.
The capital is there to support the subcaps. It is not the centerpiece. It is a very different thing than a WWII USN Task Force, where you have (for example):
USN Task Force 17, June 1942 (Battle of Midway), aka Yorktown carrier group:
USS Yorktown - CV
USS Astoria - CA
USS Portland - CA
USS Hammann - DD
USS Anderson - DD
USS Gwin - DD
USS Hughes - DD
USS Morris - DD
USS Russell - DD
Astoria and Portland are primary surface combatants. Their job in this Task Force is to get in the way of any surface ships to let Yorktownrun like hell. They are not going looking for a fight with Yorktown providing additional firepower if needed. Hammann and the rest of the destroyers are the screeners. In addition to also getting in the way of surface vessels, they’re farther out in the formation, giving first-contact warning and screening for submarines. All of these ships are there to provide additional AA-cover for Yorktown. All of these ships are there to provide material support and rescue/emergency assistance to Yorktown.
How often in FW is the capital the primary weapon of the fleet, and not a reserve weapon of ‘in case we get to use it?’
That’s not going to happen. It’s still going to have a place, but it’s not going to be as oppressive, especially in 1 vs 1 scenarios, as it has been in the past.
As I iterated earlier, I get that. I get the frustration and how it can feel oppressive. But gutting it’s functionality so the primaried ship can get shot off the field even easier is not an answer. If the oppressiveness is the issue, I again raise my idea of changing ECM to lock breaking mechanic, instead of lock denail. That reduces overlap with damps, too.
Can you guys please replace @Brisc_Rubal with someone else to discuss with this balance , he is obviously trolling this threat and as can be seen he is completely incompetent in knowing game mechanics .
We already have a module that does that. Why fit a targeted ECM that breaks locks when you can bring an ECM burst, or lock breaker bombs? It’s redundant.
The jams are still extremely useful, even with the target back. It’s not like logi is going to be shooting back and the guys jamming them, so that is still a primary usage that won’t be affected. Same with the warp-in/warp-out entosis jammers. That doesn’t change either.
Folks are going to have to rethink how they fly some of these ECM ships, but that’s not a bad thing.
Well, a)because an ECM burst is relatively short-ranged, and more likely to hit your own logistics/help than the enemy, and b)because only bombers can bring lockbreakers?
Because you can use them in any security zone, are stronger, don’t threaten logi targeting you, and you don’t need a stealth bomber to set up a bombing run? Why have smartbombs either if you can just use turrets?
I voted for you this election hoping that you would make MEANINGFUL change, not contribute for the ever so evident capital/super proliferation. if this change goes through in its current lliteration, all of this CSM have lost my vote and I wont be choosing anyone from this current csm.
Also while I’m slightly sorry for blowing you off. i did say
That’s ok, you should never light a covert cyno on-grid with a capital anyway. You use normal cyno on an interceptor (like, you know, a Stiletto, since they’ll still be insta-warp and nullified) and just BlOps bridge to that.
Kinda 2 fold if you think about it, if a subcap fleet is attacking a lone dread and a response sub fleet arrives; does that not count as supporting the dread???
you also proved my point
Carriers shouldnt be roaming around without a support fleet on standby.
We are still working on a lot of different things, and I hope that some of the changes I and others proposed to deal specifically with that will get adopted. We’ll see.
