Unless - let's just throw this out there - there are

Kol Battleships
Kortul Devastators
Iconus Guardians
Advent Capital Carriers (forget the name)

All of those make such an effort difficult at best.


Light frigates with ability upgrades. They are cheap, therefore numerous, therefore hard to paralyze. Their damage type is good against utility cruisers. And they can drain the support cruisers antimatter.

oh right I forgot about guardians, but since Im usually vasari I dont care about shields and the rest of them I was implying in the part I highlighted now and the fact that the player needs to get the specific abilities.

also I wouldnt say difficult at best, in some cases they just delay it (in which case the carrier user can micro his bombers in other ways).

still as I said above, a only bomber fleet doesnt work too well.

After considerable analysis I have to say that the Vasari are truly deadly when used to their potential. I'm currently working on early game tactics but end game with the Vasari is just too pwnalicious. Don't get me wrong... the TEC and Advent are solid, with teh Advent probably being the funnest most unique race in teh game (culture) but Vasari FTW. I can't wait to play online. Man this weekend is going to be PIMP!

The cap itself doesnt have to have the anti fighter abilities, theres no way a fleet with 40 bombers is going to be facing only one capital

He's kidn of right htouhg..
A swarm of 40 assaliants or bombers is enough to take out even a kol assisted by shield transfer and hoshinko's(sp), outdamaging it's getting shielded and it's repairing faster than it can run away..

Consittering other things simply don't do this, it seems to me that bombers and lrm's are too good, and other things aren't good enough..

I was getting beat on one game and losing planets so i just amassed assaliants and would pop off the keys level 5-8 ships. A level 6+ ships shouldn't die so easily imo. :/ Bombers have a similar effect.

Both seem obscenely good and very hard to counter(Even with tons of fighters, the bombers or lrms don't drop very fast at all..), while other things don't seem to do the job half as good.

These "spam a single ship type to win" discussions remind me of something game designer Steve Jackson once said: playtest the dumb strategies.

Frankly, the cost of huge 30+ carrier fleets exposes why this is daft: you're spending 50k+ to kill a 3k ship. Wazoo: if there are local frigates or jump inhibitors you'll lose far more than 3k in carriers before you can escape, and their remaining forces will just pursue you anyway. Unless the strategy only works with yet more money spent on backup fleets or defences...

So if a far more expensive fleet kills a cheaper one, how is this unbalanced again?

I think you kind of skimmed through my post, I was stating/implying how you can kill a few structures and even level 10 caps with enough bombers long before the flaks kill the bombers (even if theres nearly an equal ratio of carriers to flaks) and thus its great for harassment and assassination (just stay at edge of enemy system, kill few caps) or in many cases make the opponent just decide to quit, I wasnt stating how the carriers are actually fighting the rest of the fleet.

however if the enemy is smart in scouting, he can usually get some cap ability that could help instantly (pushing them away..), but for some reason most people don't.

if your looking for a direct confrontation the idea isnt to send them alone, you make a mixed fleet but mostly comprised of carriers, if the enemy has PJI's they can die in usually one wave of bombers, not that anyone cares with the current state of how they function (hopefully buffed a lot in 1.03) and I've taken out over 8 caps in one battle with massive amount of bombers, 20-30 is nothing and can be aquired in a short game (short for sins that is).

For hit and run, I have occasionally wished for some heavy flak structure as quick raids are somewhat effective (particularly killing factories or research structures). Flaks are great in fleets, but their range is poor.

Sorry, 8 caps = 24k, 30 carriers = ~35k. So... how is this unbalanced? You have a 30% advantage! Of course you're going to win! If they were unbalanced, you could defeat more than their value. You're really surprised an interdictor dies to THIRTY bomber fleets? Here's a hint: if it only works with a major advantage, it's not really unbalanced.

I guess if the capital ships were more sensibly priced (ie, more expensive) and had more than 'bugger all' AA it'd be better in that respect.

bombers can damage other things not just caps, its just that they do extremely well vs caps, thats why its being discussed. Please dont do cost comparisons, because the bombers also kill other ships and structures, Im just stating what can happen before any of the bombers start dissapearing, not the carriers.

Bombers are why I support my fleet with vast wings of nothing but fighters. Fighters tear bombers to pieces before they can do anything (there are plenty of more fighter damage upgrades, but very limited more bomber health upgrades), and leave you with nothing, whereas I still have about 50% damage on average from my fighters (and bonus damage on fighter appropriate targets).

anyway theres a way tec (race specific) can kill 250 bombers instantly (1 button or 2) .

this is cause most people 'r dumb

I didnt wanna be so direct, but okay .

Oh sorry, here I was thinking any discussion of 'unbalanced' elements might want to actually look at if it's actually a problem or not. If you've got such a massive resource advantage that you can throw such huge fleets of raiding guys around and your opponent can't muster any defence... maybe that's because you're winning? It's absurd to nerf bombers so 'absolute asspiles of them' aren't going to dominate 'single targets worth 10% the value of the carriers'. Such a focus on carriers is going to leave you wide open to counterattacks (since they have zero endurance in combat) unless you have even MORE of a huge advantage to fight it off. Again, if you have way more stuff, you're going to win. This isn't 'unbalanced'. Remember WW2?

Killing capital ships is so easy in various ways it surprises me so many people focus so much of their fleet supply on them. Expecting a single $500 structure to survive an attack by $35k of carriers is simply asinine: it's like saying 'my three Krogoths destroyed your base lololololol' - no shit, you bring more to the table you win.

did I ever say to nerf bombers?

hé
if we're gonna compare this game with WW2

in this case germans got.. shortsaid owned... like 6 vs 1

lets look at this objectively and not with these stupid comparisons.
you cant state that the 30 bombers in their whole lifetime only kill one cap or in that battle kill one cap, theres many other factors that have to be included, how much time/supply/tech you spent on 30 bombers what they killed (will be more than one cap across a whole game) what the opponent spent on his fleets/structures/tech, how big the penalty there was on your/his income due to supply differences..etc, theres too many factors to make blank statements like your above statement.

for example: 30 carriers cost under 23k (all resources and including teching up to them for vasari, cheaper as advent) and are 240 supply, wasnt your first number 50k?

Sorry. When people start saying 'zomg imba', that usually means people want nerfs. The nerf-cycle is bad for games.

Germany and Japan lost because they had nowhere near the industrial capacity to win. If you can't compete in resources or manufacturing (say, the enemy has 30+ carriers and you have nothing to effectively oppose them), then you're boned regardless.

Carriers are that cheap? I thought they were 1000 cash alone, without resources?(:(

So provide a meaningful example. Saying 'a massive fleet of bombers kills capital ships easily' isn't an example of an unbalanced situation: it's natural. The example of carriers jumping in, using their bombers to kill something and escaping isn't unbalanced: it's a sensible raiding tactic. To demonstrate that it's unbalanced you have to show that there's no cost-effective counter. Just because it consistently defeats people who are either surprised or don't do anything to counter it doesn't make in unbalanced, but a normal part of play. I mean, christ, some people think LRMs are unbalanced, and there's the seige frigate hysteria.

all ship stats, carriers selected

the link has all the stats for all ships (1.02), has carriers chosen atm.

I cant give you an example, since I didnt state they were OP.

If this game doesn't have a group of REAL pro gamers yet, then balance is not an option to be discussed.

"Killing capital ships is so easy in various ways it surprises me so many people focus so much of their fleet supply on them. "

Shield regen, disable and Cleansing Brilliance rilliance, baby.

If flaks could kill a bomber squadron before bombers could make a single pass, flaks would be obscenely overpowered. There's no way you're just going to have targets sitting there though. If a player knows a carrier fleet is jumping and that - say - he has a bunch of noncarrier ships, he's going to head for the gravwell edge. And if you run away he's gonna chase ya.

You can't just have a 40 carrier fleet out of the blue. Unless you completely outpower your opponent, you're going to have to use it in a few fights. Your opponent knows you have it. Your opponent would have to be a fool not to get capital anti-fighter abilities.

Bear in mind that the units of resources are about 2-3 times more valuable than credits, even assuming the market [rice hasn't been hiked.