this could prove to be an acid to your existing armada. i love it!

we gots to have destroyers as part of the ships list of military campaigne for both human and ancient race. we are talking about tecs survival and to all means they would be wild enough to come up with such a weapon to justify the rights of cause.

3types of destroyers would be nice. Ionic Destroyers with say maybe 5turrets and a missle battery launcher. Missle Destroyer wich consist different tyeps of missles. anti fighter missles to anti capitalship cruise missles with few turrets and Plasma burst Destroyer specially equiped for anti psy tech.

don't want to stray off topics but, do any of you guys know if IC will be introducing a heavy corvette anti fighter ship? besides the flak frigate?

Meh, screw current terms Ive never liked the idea of Destroyers being smaller than 'cruiser'

personally I think having more than 1 type and its own shipyard is a bit much to balance right now; more importantly I want one unit so I can say THE DESTROYER.

Another limitation would be it cannot bombard planets.

Agree.

True but what would you rather have

well we hae the small shipyard construct frigates and cruisers, why not have the large one construct destroyers and capships?

Given that the game doesn't use "proper" naval terms...

As things stand, frigates are you combat ships, and cruisers support. (For this reason, I support switching colony and kodiak craft around)

goody! Wouldn't it be nice to have just a heavy Kodiak with excellent support options? But costly enough that you wouldn't have more than 2 hanging about? (or rather 1 per fleet)

the scout is just too weak for late game adventuring... thus the destroyer... or rather its more convenient to keep it in a fleet. If the Vasari have it, then fine, they should keep it.

I would still want a destroyer though.

I must keep in mind that we may also be seeing enough of the game; and that there is no Destroyer at yet. Not suggesting it will certainly not help. Where as suggesting pro actively may get me Destroyers. And heck if I try and find out it was already there... boo hoo wasted text? If I don't try and its not there, we get no Destroyer


We should chant... Loudly for everything we want, but also reasonably and continue to praise the very good things they have done. Sometimes it gets too negative here.

Not possible, since all firing arcs are 180°.



A lvl 2 Dunov can already kill a lvl 1 Kol...



So you want to mix fighting capabilities, scouting capabilities and support capabilities in one ship?

Sounds just a bit... imba.

Somehow I think the devs could restrict the arc more; but there are other ways to balance it Vandenburg, cost; cool down timer etc.

I want it to seem like a combat ship, but ultimately fall short compared to an equal supply/cost's worth of Kodiaks, Light Frigates or Capital Ships. Its value isn't in combat, its just beefy enough that player's will LIKE it. Its value would be the extreme convenience on its abillities.

Flak/Missile Defense/Scouting... these are the general abilities of an escort Destroyer, and yes we put these in one package in real life, so why not in fake life? At any rate I wouldn't give it all 3 abillities, I would give it 2. Think of it as a super heavy scout ship. It wouldn't make scouts obsolete as they are just so cheap, and the Destroyer would be far down the tech tree, but it would be useful to scout systems by a fleet as a whole. OR don't have its stregnth be scouting as the Vasari will have phase probes.

Instead it can have an anti-missile ability/upgrade would be nice to protect my fleet from LRMS.

Its not that I want an unballanced uber ship at all. I just want a cuddly Destroyer model in the game. Make it's armor swiss cheese I'd still be happy. I also feel it fits the story of the TEC; it could be quite high on the tech tree and represent the results of the learning experience of building the Kol.

Notably I didn't realize a Dunov did that; but you get the point, it shouldnt be able to stand up to a Kol unsupported.

No I actually prefer it being equal in attack to Cruiser, but with greater armor. Just not cost effective.

I hate the idea of a Destroyer being smaller than the term Cruiser. If we must we can refer to my idea as the Battle Cruiser instead. Which in nautical terms is more accurate.