Centurions are worthless in combat.

[Kourtious]

A Centurion can BARELY damage anything stronger than a Ranx Gunship(which is stronger than an Ares Sandstorm). Why? Centurions have no station damaging weapons. In other words, once the armor of an enemy falls, Katana Star or Tev 9s do almost no damage.

Therefore I suggest a new model for the Centurion. A mark 3 cannon for example.

[JohnBWatson]

The two main problems with the Centurion are the AI and the extreme firerate reduction added onto its weapon. That said, it's not designed as a bomber or a capship - killer, it's a gunship. A howitzer doesn't fit its role in the war, which is engaging hostile Sandstorms and Tundras.

All considered, I've made suggestions for AI around the forums, which you can find if you're interested. As for its loadout, everything's fairly well balanced, but the firerate nerf needs to be pared back for military Centurions.

Once ship changing is implemented, Centurions might benefit from a differentiating feature(The Wolfen's exceptionally small size, the Manticore's armor specialization, and the Freyr's swivel mount are all examples of this). For that, considering the Centurion's stock loadout as a defensive gunship that relies on shielding, I would suggest a 50% bonus to shield strength at the cost of a 50% reduction to regeneration rate. This would also make the Centurions more survivable and give the Chasm a reason to exist.

[Song]

From experimenting with them, they can be made very competitive just by reducing that annoyingly awful fire rate adjustment, making the TeV9 secondary (so it shoots at anything in front of the ship), and giving it a DM1500 pod.


The problem with shields is that the AI isn't up to retreating from battle....and any shield the centurion could use is going to fail very quickly against Ares weapons.

[shanejfilomena]

to beef up a Centurion : I like to add a Damage Control Party : besides not being a loot item it does help them live longer.

in terms of battle effectiveness : the Wolfen is the only real threat in the Universe and the Centurion has nothing on it.

And I like the Launcher idea

The Centurions are cool, yes, but in a fight I would rather take a Wolfen Escort

[digdug]

They do need a launcher. Even Centurions in the Battle arena have a launcher.

[Atarlost]

The risk is making them too like the Britannia. If both use the XM-900 there won't be any practical difference. Using different missiles (unless the Brit is upgraded to the NAMI Heavy Launcher) doesn't make sense logistically.

I think the Centurion is supposed to be an obsolescent space filler. It would do them more good to have a smidgeon of swivel so they could hit sandstorms reliably and leave them useless for fighting modern enemies.

[travbm]

How about an ai that uses a combination of tev 9s or fast fire weapons to take out a shield and missiles to destroy armor? But also a mix of atleas 4 diffent kinds of weapons or a suped up xray laser loaded with laser colminators and upgrades at least with thermo missiles that seek targets.

[JohnBWatson]

I think the main issue between the Centurion and Brit is that non - player gunships have no defined differences save for speed, maneuverability, and physical size. This, naturally, causes issues when trying to figure out what they're supposed to be doing. Hopefully, with changeable playerships and CSC America, this will change in the future.

Personally, I think that the Centurion is meant to engage Tundras and Sandstorms, and the Brit is designed to fight Chasms and Deimoses, as well as quickly destroy communes, based solely on what they give you these ships for in missions. With that in mind, removing the firerate restriction and setting their weapon to secondary(for efficiency in large battles, like the one at Point Juno) seems good enough to me.

[Atarlost]

The Centurion is obsolete. The Brit is meant to replace it but isn't yet available in sufficient numbers. The Centurion is made to fight sandstorms. The Brit is made to fight Chasms. Same role, but the Sandstorm also appears to be on the way out and once the Ares change over the Centurion will be even more obviously unfit for front line service.

[JohnBWatson]

The Centurion is obsolete. The Brit is meant to replace it but isn't yet available in sufficient numbers. The Centurion is made to fight sandstorms. The Brit is made to fight Chasms. Same role, but the Sandstorm also appears to be on the way out and once the Ares change over the Centurion will be even more obviously unfit for front line service.

Chasms aren't common or powerful enough to require a dedicated counter. Hell, with the cost differential, Centurions could likely take them on without all too much inefficiency given superior numbers. Given their situation, the Fleet would not waste time preparing a large number of advanced, expensive gunships for the sole purpose of taking out a target that can't hurt their carriers and rarely appears near the main front of the war. Furthermore, even if they did have nothing better to do than make something whose sole purpose is to counter Chasms, they'd not fit it with WMD missiles and a long ranged piercing weapon when they've already got omnidirectional Tev - 9s which are similarly priced and much more suited to dogfighting.

[Atarlost]

The Centurion is obsolete. The Brit is meant to replace it but isn't yet available in sufficient numbers. The Centurion is made to fight sandstorms. The Brit is made to fight Chasms. Same role, but the Sandstorm also appears to be on the way out and once the Ares change over the Centurion will be even more obviously unfit for front line service.

Chasms aren't common or powerful enough to require a dedicated counter. Hell, with the cost differential, Centurions could likely take them on without all too much inefficiency given superior numbers. Given their situation, the Fleet would not waste time preparing a large number of advanced, expensive gunships for the sole purpose of taking out a target that can't hurt their carriers and rarely appears near the main front of the war. Furthermore, even if they did have nothing better to do than make something whose sole purpose is to counter Chasms, they'd not fit it with WMD missiles and a long ranged piercing weapon when they've already got omnidirectional Tev - 9s which are similarly priced and much more suited to dogfighting.

Of course you build a ship to counter your enemy's new ship. If you wait until it's in full production you get swamped and your entire inventory is obsolete. The Ares will abandon the Sandstorm for the Chasm. Even with cloning and tape teaching, pilot training is the ultimate bottleneck in a society with nanofacs. A Chasm is worth an awful lot of Sandstorms and only needs one pilot. The Commonwealth isn't stupid and rushed out a counter as soon as the Chasm appeared in hopes that they could get enough to not get steamrolled when the Ares overcome their temporary production bottleneck on the Chasm.

Chasms may not be able to kill carriers, but they can kill Centurions and Carriers without Centurions are nothing but targets for Tundras and Cometfalls.

[JohnBWatson]

Of course you build a ship to counter your enemy's new ship. If you wait until it's in full production you get swamped and your entire inventory is obsolete.

I already stated that the Centurion is not obsolete against the Chasm.

The Ares will abandon the Sandstorm for the Chasm. Even with cloning and tape teaching, pilot training is the ultimate bottleneck in a society with nanofacs.

It's already very well established that cloning technology levels are advanced enough to include neural mapping and reproduction. Look at Clavicus.

A Chasm is worth an awful lot of Sandstorms and only needs one pilot.

It's two incredibly different roles. A Sandstorm is a swarm fighter, the Chasm is designed for space superiority.

The Commonwealth isn't stupid and rushed out a counter as soon as the Chasm appeared in hopes that they could get enough to not get steamrolled when the Ares overcome their temporary production bottleneck on the Chasm.

Why, then, are Brits used almost exclusively against the things I mentioned they'd be used against? The game is explicitly programmed to deploy them against hostile capital ships that attack the carrier.

Also, once again, I mention that the loadout they use is quite inefficient for the role you claim they have.

Chasms may not be able to kill carriers, but they can kill Centurions and Carriers without Centurions are nothing but targets for Tundras and Cometfalls.

Chasms are far from invincible against Centurions, and are eaten alive by CSC turrets if they get too close.

[Atarlost]

Of course you build a ship to counter your enemy's new ship. If you wait until it's in full production you get swamped and your entire inventory is obsolete.

I already stated that the Centurion is not obsolete against the Chasm.

A very dubious statement.

The Ares will abandon the Sandstorm for the Chasm. Even with cloning and tape teaching, pilot training is the ultimate bottleneck in a society with nanofacs.

It's already very well established that cloning technology levels are advanced enough to include neural mapping and reproduction. Look at Clavicus.

Clones are made of biomass. Biomass is composed of elements only available in large quantities from the bottoms of gravity wells. These elements then have to be fed to plants, which take time to grow. Clones themselves take time to grow. Even Grade B Grain is more expensive than Plasteel Ore by weight. And grain alone isn't nutritionally sufficient. Complete mind duplication is not suitable for military clones because it gives each clone a certainty that his "brothers" think alike. Mutiny ceases to be risky and mutinies will be larger. To avoid automatic sympathy and the risk of mutiny it entails a clone must be raised normally if at an accelerated rate. Clones will have slightly different neural structure that prevents skills from simply being printed as they are on insurance clones: they must be taught albeit probably at an accelerated rate. It's still expensive.

A Chasm is worth an awful lot of Sandstorms and only needs one pilot.

It's two incredibly different roles. A Sandstorm is a swarm fighter, the Chasm is designed for space superiority.

Swarm Fighter is not a useful role. It's a desperate stopgap while ships capable of engaging as peers are developed.

The Commonwealth isn't stupid and rushed out a counter as soon as the Chasm appeared in hopes that they could get enough to not get steamrolled when the Ares overcome their temporary production bottleneck on the Chasm.

Why, then, are Brits used almost exclusively against the things I mentioned they'd be used against? The game is explicitly programmed to deploy them against hostile capital ships that attack the carrier.

Because there aren't enough of them. Britannias are used in high risk missions where Centurions would just die. Centurions are used anywhere they might be useful or when there's nothing else available as at Point Juno.

Also, once again, I mention that the loadout they use is quite inefficient for the role you claim they have.

It's not. Tracking missiles are anti-gunship weapons and the Katana is the fleet's current standard weapon. TeVs do not appear on new construction and are being phased out. The newer cruisers and the newest CSC use Katanas. It's a more effective weapon against Ares armor and any military is going to want to go for a single standard weapon if possible to simplify logistics and maintenance.

Chasms may not be able to kill carriers, but they can kill Centurions and Carriers without Centurions are nothing but targets for Tundras and Cometfalls.

Chasms are far from invincible against Centurions, and are eaten alive by CSC turrets if they get too close.
They don't need to get close. They just need to be closer than the Tundras and Cometfalls. And no, the Centurion doesn't beat the Chasm. The Centurion could be so cheap that Pacifica paid the fleet to take them in unlimited numbers and the pilot attrition rate would still make it a losing proposition to send them against Chasms.

[JohnBWatson]

A very dubious statement.

See how quickly a CSC destroys a Chasm? The weapons are the same, and it's much cheaper to make a particle weapon than a positron blaster.

Clones are made of biomass. Biomass is composed of elements only available in large quantities from the bottoms of gravity wells. These elements then have to be fed to plants, which take time to grow. Clones themselves take time to grow. Even Grade B Grain is more expensive than Plasteel Ore by weight. And grain alone isn't nutritionally sufficient. Complete mind duplication is not suitable for military clones because it gives each clone a certainty that his "brothers" think alike. Mutiny ceases to be risky and mutinies will be larger. To avoid automatic sympathy and the risk of mutiny it entails a clone must be raised normally if at an accelerated rate. Clones will have slightly different neural structure that prevents skills from simply being printed as they are on insurance clones: they must be taught albeit probably at an accelerated rate. It's still expensive.

If clones were that expensive to make, the Sandstorm would've been automated in the first place. Centurions have been around for as long as the Fleet, so there's no reason the Ares, who have been their enemies for as long as they've been in the Outer Realm, would've produced a ship that was obsolete from the get - go.

Swarm Fighter is not a useful role. It's a desperate stopgap while ships capable of engaging as peers are developed.

That makes the Ares require facilities that support Chasms across all the outposts out there. Chasms require much more fuel to support, as well, and more expensive repairs. They're thus much less efficient for reconnaissance, light escort missions(such as single Tundras), and major assaults(where if the handful of Chasms are destroyed by a station's defenses, the mission is completely without fighter support).

Think about it like America's F - 18 and F - 22. The latter is vastly superior in air to air combat, but its logistical costs are vastly higher, many airstrips, such as those on carriers, could not field the latter without major adjustments, and its efficiency engaging targets that aren't other fighter aircraft is nowhere near as high. Thus why they maintain a fleet of F - 18s.

Because there aren't enough of them. Britannias are used in high risk missions where Centurions would just die. Centurions are used anywhere they might be useful or when there's nothing else available as at Point Juno.

They're sent against capships because Centurions lack WMD weapons. They're sent against stations because Ares sentries are small, weak, heavily armed targets that excel against Centurions that have trouble hitting them but are useless against Brits. They're used as squadron leaders at Juno because Juno's throwing everything it has at the enemy. The roles are fundamentally different.

It's not. Tracking missiles are anti-gunship weapons and the Katana is the fleet's current standard weapon. TeVs do not appear on new construction and are being phased out. The newer cruisers and the newest CSC use Katanas. It's a more effective weapon against Ares armor and any military is going to want to go for a single standard weapon if possible to simplify logistics and maintenance.

First, isn't the Aurochs fairly new? The aesthetic seems to suggest that.

Second, the Katana didn't just 'poof' into existence. It was designed with a specific purpose in mind, and if that purpose was primarily to destroy Chasms, the piercing quality would not have been needed.

They don't need to get close. They just need to be closer than the Tundras and Cometfalls. And no, the Centurion doesn't beat the Chasm. The Centurion could be so cheap that Pacifica paid the fleet to take them in unlimited numbers and the pilot attrition rate would still make it a losing proposition to send them against Chasms.

The pilot attrition rate is against the Fleet no matter what. A CSC's full complement of fighters, however, is more than a match for whatever force can manage to catch a CSC. The missions show us that this can be estimated at 8 Chasms at max, and 3 Cometfalls at max. Splitting the difference, that's 1 - 2 Cometfalls that can be easily taken out by Brits, and 4 Chasms, which can effectively be handled by siccing 2 Centurions apiece on them simultaneously.

[Atarlost]

A very dubious statement.

See how quickly a CSC destroys a Chasm? The weapons are the same, and it's much cheaper to make a particle weapon than a positron blaster.

Not the same at all. The CSC has turrets and doesn't die. A Centurion has no turret, reducing its hit rate to match the Chasm, and isn't nearly as robust.

Clones are made of biomass. Biomass is composed of elements only available in large quantities from the bottoms of gravity wells. These elements then have to be fed to plants, which take time to grow. Clones themselves take time to grow. Even Grade B Grain is more expensive than Plasteel Ore by weight. And grain alone isn't nutritionally sufficient. Complete mind duplication is not suitable for military clones because it gives each clone a certainty that his "brothers" think alike. Mutiny ceases to be risky and mutinies will be larger. To avoid automatic sympathy and the risk of mutiny it entails a clone must be raised normally if at an accelerated rate. Clones will have slightly different neural structure that prevents skills from simply being printed as they are on insurance clones: they must be taught albeit probably at an accelerated rate. It's still expensive.

If clones were that expensive to make, the Sandstorm would've been automated in the first place. Centurions have been around for as long as the Fleet, so there's no reason the Ares, who have been their enemies for as long as they've been in the Outer Realm, would've produced a ship that was obsolete from the get - go.

Centurions have not been around as long as you think and the Sandstorm, or a very similar weapon mounting the same gun, is a Syrtis War design. It would have originally faced Ronin Bs and Cs and Hornet Battlepods.

Swarm Fighter is not a useful role. It's a desperate stopgap while ships capable of engaging as peers are developed.

That makes the Ares require facilities that support Chasms across all the outposts out there. Chasms require much more fuel to support, as well, and more expensive repairs. They're thus much less efficient for reconnaissance, light escort missions(such as single Tundras), and major assaults(where if the handful of Chasms are destroyed by a station's defenses, the mission is completely without fighter support).

Think about it like America's F - 18 and F - 22. The latter is vastly superior in air to air combat, but its logistical costs are vastly higher, many airstrips, such as those on carriers, could not field the latter without major adjustments, and its efficiency engaging targets that aren't other fighter aircraft is nowhere near as high. Thus why they maintain a fleet of F - 18s.

There are no airstrips in space and the Sandstorm has no advantage engaging anything at all. the age gap is more like the difference between a Sopwith Camel and an F-22. The Chasm simply isn't yet produced in adequate numbers. It's in every way a superior ship, as something centuries newer bloody well should be.

Because there aren't enough of them. Britannias are used in high risk missions where Centurions would just die. Centurions are used anywhere they might be useful or when there's nothing else available as at Point Juno.

They're sent against capships because Centurions lack WMD weapons. They're sent against stations because Ares sentries are small, weak, heavily armed targets that excel against Centurions that have trouble hitting them but are useless against Brits. They're used as squadron leaders at Juno because Juno's throwing everything it has at the enemy. The roles are fundamentally different.

Brits are sent against every mission target except the convoy, and that only to back a heavily armed freelancer. And the Centurions are useless at that. They're used to patrol, but the only other time they're used to fight is Point Juno, where they're throwing everything they have at the enemy. The Britannia outperforms the Centurion in every single metric. It's in every way a Centurion Plus just as a Ronin C is in every way superior to a Ronin A. As befits a ship centuries newer, if not as many centuries as between the Sandstorm and Chasm.

It's not. Tracking missiles are anti-gunship weapons and the Katana is the fleet's current standard weapon. TeVs do not appear on new construction and are being phased out. The newer cruisers and the newest CSC use Katanas. It's a more effective weapon against Ares armor and any military is going to want to go for a single standard weapon if possible to simplify logistics and maintenance.

First, isn't the Aurochs fairly new? The aesthetic seems to suggest that.

Second, the Katana didn't just 'poof' into existence. It was designed with a specific purpose in mind, and if that purpose was primarily to destroy Chasms, the piercing quality would not have been needed.

The Katana was developed so that the fleet could have one weapon. It is in every respect vastly superior to the TeV9 it replaces and, like the TeV9, is used on every fleet design since its adoption that needs a beam weapon. There's no reason to carry two weapons that require different supplies of spare parts when one is superior in every respect and as soon as the Fleet gets enough new ships to phase out the old ships they'll have a single beam weapon again. Just like when they phased out the particle beam for the TeV9. The former is now only seen on civilian and militia ships and one day soon the same will be true of the TeV9.

They don't need to get close. They just need to be closer than the Tundras and Cometfalls. And no, the Centurion doesn't beat the Chasm. The Centurion could be so cheap that Pacifica paid the fleet to take them in unlimited numbers and the pilot attrition rate would still make it a losing proposition to send them against Chasms.

The pilot attrition rate is against the Fleet no matter what. A CSC's full complement of fighters, however, is more than a match for whatever force can manage to catch a CSC. The missions show us that this can be estimated at 8 Chasms at max, and 3 Cometfalls at max. Splitting the difference, that's 1 - 2 Cometfalls that can be easily taken out by Brits, and 4 Chasms, which can effectively be handled by siccing 2 Centurions apiece on them simultaneously.

No major strikes are seen by the player, but they do happen. The wreck of the Europa is proof enough of that. The fact that you need two Centurions per Chasm when the Ares have more people they can put in uniform should tell you that relying on Centurions is suicide. The Fleet isn't just losing pilots from a smaller pool, they're losing more pilots in absolute terms. Their attrition rate would still be a losing proposition if the Commonwealth enacted a draft. With the Brit the draft would save them and even without it they have more time for their wunderwaffen to reach deployment.

You also need to be careful in general about arguing from AI battle results. If you're using screensaver combat with more than one ship on a side and the side with weaker ships has shields you get bad results. The screensaver AI does not retarget appropriately. Even in game the AI fails in all unscripted battles to use formation tactics and has issues with not firing properly when it does use formations. The AI also doesn't know how to switch weapons or ammunition appropriately. At least one ship has been confirmed to have a third as many guns in game as it has turrets on the model and even half as many as are plainly visible as rendered. The CSC on the other hand has more guns in game than on the model so the number of guns in game sets neither an upper nor lower bound on the number of guns a ship actually has.