Heavy Cruiser Comparsion

HCs are IMHO fairly well balanced. Its the reason why nobody really complains about them.

I've seen the term 'survivability' thrown about in a couple of posts with numbers attached -like here. 

How are min/avg/max survivability being calculated or are these just arbitrary numbers to support an opinion? 

You also need to take abilities into account. Kodiak's thrusters are hard to quantify, but the Desdra's should at least tie it with the Sarkovas for firepower. The Sarkovas' repair on the other hand in effect makes it far more durable than the other two.

Here are my opinions:

• Advent and TEC cruisers have weapon upgrades cropping up at low levels...for TEC, those upgrades affect other important ships...
• Advent cruisers will have excellent AoE support and buffs...energy aura and shield regeneration are going to make destras have more firepower and more durability against a TEC or Advent opponent...
• The Enforcer's heal ability isn't going to do a whole lot in large fleet battles that have lots of FFing...however, in principle, the heal ability is fantastic when AoEs hit the enforcers (ex: meteor storm) assuming the autocast works...repair aura also adds to durability...
• TEC have basically no blanket durability like Vasari or Advent...
• Enforcers are more vulnerable to disable repair ships due to their smaller numbers...

Personally I'm biased towards destras....when supported by the proper cap abilities they fair much better than kodiaks or enforcers against TEC/Advent opponents...they also have the best firepower when you consider the viability of their weapon upgrades and the possibility of energy aura...

The VL also have extra weapons upgrades that increase their damage potential by 70% - far more than any other heavy cruiser.  IMO, VL Sarkovas are the best heavy cruiser in the game because of this.  (VR really have no good reason to build Sarkovas as VR phase missile upgrades make Assailants and bombers way better investments.)

I was about to mention this but there's no real debate that this makes VL Sarkovas the best HC. Analysis would only be academic, not practical. It would be more useful to compare upgraded Kanraks and Sarkovas for the Vasari Loyalists to see which is a better deal all else being equal, but I don't think that belongs in a strict heavy cruiser thread.

The numbers come from the Sins Data Spreadsheet by Malek3

Min Durability is calculated with minimum shield mitigation

Average Durability is calculated with average shield mitigation

Max Durability is calculated with max shield mitigation.

I am doing a test with all cruiser fighting each other soon.

that's great, but I'm a total spreadsheet whore.  I've got a spreadsheet for 7DS that caused an aneurism in Makon.  Simulations are just that, it's like the most Deadly Warrior show.  They run thousands of them and what they get is a good idea of what might go down and about how often X will defeat Y and why. 

Start a map with fleets set up in the scenario template, giving each player 8 labs mil/civ and in Dev.exe give all research so those abilities come in to play.  Control the Ai, guide their fleets together and watch what happens.

To those who said heavy cruisers are well balanced.

I challenge you to fight your destras against my kodiaks or skarvoras.

Oh that's right, destra's suck.

/thread

i accept your challenge .. can i use wail,energy aoe, malice, scream, ruthlessness and chastic burst? i cant play advent without a battleball simply because they were made that way..

you can use your toys aswell.

i know u can have more kodiaks because of your eco but i can asure u it won't matter mid game

This discussion might as well be which M&M taste better: red? blue? or green with LSD in it?

The best heavy cruiser:

In terms of specs and abilities: Enforcer

In terms of cost and effeciency: Kodiak

In terms of fire-power and support abilities: Crusader

Actually the Skarovas is better in terms of firepower and durability compared to the Destra, Riddle. The Destra only has one supportive ability which is AoE damage in a moderate range around the cruiser, while the Skarovas has a field that slows enemy ship movement as well as a hull repair ability. Also the Kodiaks acceleration ability is much more useful in terms of support than the Destra's Ruthlessness...

Pay attention.

. i said specs and abilities: enforcer.

which means its self buff abilities are very good out of assembly line. Its damage output is also very good as shown on the post..

However the crusader is amplified by support abilities and early plasma damage upgrades.The crusader will - in the presence of the mothership + halcyon always dish out more dps with the passive energy aura(insane range), splash damage from malice(insane range) and ruthleness. This is fact and the vasari's wave doesn't kick into full gear until late game.

Understanding the simple principal that as soon as you produce a crusader then you instantly know its dps is going to be cranked up is the key.  A good understanding of how this works is simply realising advent ships have better dps specs than they would have you believe on paper.

I was under the impression we were talking about cruisers without any researched upgrades or support in battle like shown in the OP.

Sure, a Destra is better when you research plasma weapon damage techs and then compare it with the unupgraded Skarovas, but then be sure to also mention it in your comparison. Also note that one Destra has about 4 weapon DPS less than a single Enforcer, which is only slightly more expensive. So in terms of fire-power it definitely doesn't come out on top .

When backed up with a fleet I am not even so sure a Destra is better than an enforcer, because the Enforcer has way more durability. I could for example use two Evacuators to make sure any abilities on your Advent fleet are going to be disabled. Then in terms of firepower my fleet would beat yours. The point is, supportive abilities aren't always available and will always be situational, which makes it unthoughtful to say the Destra's are better when aided by a supportive fleet.

Shortly, it seems we disagree to some extend.

serious or troll?

This question is a troll

Low tier plasma upgrades at  tier 2 and 3.

Benefits of low tier: Cost and Time to research

tier 2 and 3 plasma upgrades grant the crusader +20%

Cost: roughly 3000 for 20% and around 5000 cr for 30% (without rate of fire upgrades)

Wave at 30% cost 8000 cr

Wave upgraders start at tier 4 (bad)

Disadvantage: Costly and takes longer to research higher tiers.

Wave's other upgrades add additional cost.

The whole engagement is situational and depends on the player who techs up, or who fields guardians with crusaders effectively or who fields overseers, subverters and enforcers effectively. Caps introduce the edge and the mother ship and halcyon can stand 6000km away with there 7500 range for malice and aura while the fleet can repulse and push shit away as the crusaders pound away at units that get through the line.

Given such situations- the crusader being the weaker unit will always be at a greater advantage to tech up.

So my point is HC are balanced.. The enforcer is the king of specs and abilities but (yes there is a but), the crusader can dish out more dps than the enforcer when the situation favors the advent and the situation can easily occur because of the lower cost.

I think this is one of RiddleKing's serious times. I think.

i could be sirious you know as i make the point of enforcers being able to balance shit out with the crusader by being able to repair themselves as opposed to having ability boosters for its cannons. Then again i could just be rebellious and enjoy disagreeing with the communities view about the cruisers.

Either way it all borders or is way passed trolling.

I think his story makes sense... For the most part at least.

Why cant i delete this post?

You're irritating, short-sighted, narrow-minded and, to be quite frank. Completely idiotic. I dont care that this thread is 2 years old. You should be apologising for this ignorant behaviour.