Taking inspiration from Noobilite, I thought i would post a ship Idea that i have had bouncing around my skull for a little bit. I want a named Alliance large ship that can compete with the other Big 3, and make it a proper Big 4. I love the type 10, but it simply isnt on par with the others.
The Alliance Cruiser is a large pad ship that is still named after a British tank to keep with the naming convention.
Hardpoints: 1 huge, 3 large, 3 medium (similar to challenger but all increased a size)
Core Internals:
8 Power plant, 7 Thrusters, 7 FSD, 6 Life support, 7PD, 6 Sensors, 7 Fuel Tank
I am thinking 450 base shield, 1000 hull with 70 hardness.
Ideally it would have middle ground speed and agility, but really good lateral and vertical thrust (similar to chieftain). I like the 4 thruster pods like Crusader and Cheiftan. I used this image to show the basic idea (ship from Avatar)
Correct, the default 8 utility slots. Corvette has an undersized FSD to begin with in my opinion. The thought was more hull and less shields than the Vette, as is custom with the alliance ships.
In total, it has slightly less internal space than the corvette, and slightly more than the cutter.
I think while the firepower may be similar on paper, there really is nothing like having 2 huge hardpoints.
Correct, the default 8 utility slots. Corvette has an undersized FSD to begin with in my opinion. The thought was more hull and less shields than the Vette, as is custom with the alliance ships.
In total, it has slightly less internal space than the corvette, and slightly more than the cutter.
I think while the firepower may be similar on paper, there really is nothing like having 2 huge hardpoints.
Consider ditching huge hardpoints altogether. Carry it all in Medium and Large. Something like 4 large and 6 medium, capable of being an absolute bomber.
Consider ditching huge hardpoints altogether. Carry it all in Medium and Large. Something like 4 large and 6 medium, capable of being an absolute bomber.
You have me in a hell of a spot here. On one hand, I think a huge hardpoint is necessary to be considered one of the "Big 3". I also think the "bomber" type craft you describe already exists in the T10.
On the other hand... There are few things more satisfying than unleashing packhounds. I have 4 on my trade cutter and it is a beautiful thing. The good old Beluga can already do 5.
I think I am leaning more towards having the huge with 3 large and 3 medium, perhaps even a similar placement to the Challenger's.
Consider ditching huge hardpoints altogether. Carry it all in Medium and Large. Something like 4 large and 6 medium, capable of being an absolute bomber.
You have me in a hell of a spot here. On one hand, I think a huge hardpoint is necessary to be considered one of the "Big 3". I also think the "bomber" type craft you describe already exists in the T10.
On the other hand... There are few things more satisfying than unleashing packhounds. I have 4 on my trade cutter and it is a beautiful thing. The good old Beluga can already do 5.
I think I am leaning more towards having the huge with 3 large and 3 medium, perhaps even a similar placement to the Challenger's.
Well, a different weapon configuration would give it more of a purpose, and make a niche for it. Would also put it pretty squarely in the realm of being an absolutely monstrous AX ship, if it eschewed a huge hardpoint for an array of C3s and C2s.
With the huge, you're almost mirroring the layout of an Anaconda, 1C4, 3C3, just switching one C2 for two C1s. It would be like a Conda with bigger internals, shields, and hull.
Well, a different weapon configuration would give it more of a purpose, and make a niche for it. Would also put it pretty squarely in the realm of being an absolutely monstrous AX ship, if it eschewed a huge hardpoint for an array of C3s and C2s.
With the huge, you're almost mirroring the layout of an Anaconda, 1C4, 3C3, just switching one C2 for two C1s. It would be like a Conda with bigger internals, shields, and hull.
4 large and 6 medium would be nice in this context, especially for the AX capability. If this were to be done, I think it would need much better placement/ convergence than the T10. Having 3 larges mounted to the spine (a la chieftain) and one on the chin would be very cool, then 3 mediums on either side. Would make for a very fun ship
I'm very much on board with the ship having no C4 hardpoints. Not only would it differentiate the ship from the current large ships, it would also set an interesting theme for Lakon ships - they don't have any C4s. This would be in stark contrast to the Core Dynamics ships that are often built around a pair of oversized hardpoints, as the Lakon ships would instead rely on larger numbers of smaller and more commonly available weapons.
To be honest, it could even use a similar weapon loadout to the T10. The only real problem with the T10's offensive punch is the underpowered distributor; with a proper class 8 distro the T10's hardpoint set would be able to lay on some serious hurt. In fact, you could basically transplant all the internals, hardpoints and modules from a T10 (except the Distro) onto a better base ship and you would end up with something pretty solid; the thing holding the T10's performance back is the hull all the modules are mounted on.
Definitely a fan of the idea of something with 4x larges and a few smaller weapons. Of course, Lakon already has a ship that has 4x larges, so the new ship would need to differentiate itself from the Type-10 (especially when you consider that the Alliance would be buying both designs). Additionally, the new ship would immediately be compared to the big 3 and would need to differentiate itself from them as well. Personally, I'm not a fan of the Cutter as it strikes me as the "Mary Sue" of ships in ED (largest cargo capacity, strongest shields, highest MLF, best speed for its weight class, etc...) so I'll draw more heavily from the Anaconda, Corvette and Type-10.
So, what could Lakon do to make their new ship that they are planning on selling to a customer that already uses 2 of the 4 largest ships in ED unique?
In order to differentiate it from the Corvette, Lakon could draw from the experience of designing the Chieftain family and how they compare to the Dropship family
The Chieftain family have less hull mass, and therefore better jump range
The Chieftain family have better hull hardness
The Chieftain family are generally more maneuverable
The Chieftain family generally have less cargo space, either from sacrificing a module slot or having smaller module slots
In order to differentiate from the Anaconda, Lakon could make their ship more slightly more optimized for combat than as a multi-role
The Anaconda has mediocre shields for its size, stronger shields would make the ship much more survivable in combat
The Anaconda has lower hull hardness than the other ships in it's price range
The Anaconda isn't particularly maneuverable
The Anaconda's optional internal layout is optimized for equipping a wide variety of modules, and is not very efficient for equipping combat-related modules
In order to differentiate from the Type-10, Lakon could make their new ship perform differently in combat
Type-10 is made from a re-purposed freighter hull, the new ship could be faster and more maneuverable
Type-10 has a hardpoint layout designed for maximum fields of fire, the new ship could have tightly grouped hardpoints on centerline
Type-10 has a weak power distributor, the new ship could have a larger distributor for a more aggressive role
Where the Type-10 is a stationary defensive ship, the new ship could be more of a mobile heavy-hitter
Taking all of this into account, one possible design for the new ship would see the ship having:
A lighter hull than Corvette, and by extension longer jump range
Hull hardness comparable to the Corvette or Type-10 (70-75)
Extreme maneuverability (for its size)
Less cargo space than Corvette (< 618 T)
Stronger shields than Anaconda (> 350 MJ)
Fewer module slots than Anaconda, but slightly larger module slots on average and more military slots
A larger distributor than Type-10 (Size 8)
Going through my text document of Perfectly Balanced Ship IdeasTM, I think I have just the ship that could fit the bill:
Core Internals
Size 8 Power Plant
Size 7 Thrusters
Size 6 FSD
Size 5 Life Support
Size 8 Power Distributor
Size 8 Sensors
Size 5 Fuel Tank
Optional Internals
2 Size 7 compartments
2 Size 6 compartments
3 Size 5 compartments
2 Size 4 compartments
1 Size 3 compartment
1 Size 1 compartment
3 Size 5 military compartments
Hardpoints and Utility Mounts
4 large hardpoints
2 medium hardpoints
2 small hardpoints
8 utility mounts
Other Specs
2 multicrew seats
Requires a large landing pad
Can mount a fighter bay
Hull mass of 640T
Hull hardness of 70
Mass lock factor of ~21
Base speed of 210 m/s with base boost of 280 m/s
Base roll, pitch and yaw of 80 deg/s, 30 deg/s, and 10 deg/s respectively
Base hull strength of 450
Base shield strength of 500MJ
Price of about 150M CR
The basic concept is quite similar to what was posted by OP, but with a few minor differences. The FSD is 1 size smaller and the class 8 optional internal was reduced to a size 7 and another size 5, with the additional space being used to upgrade the power distributor to size 8. A size 3 and a size 2 slot are also missing, but in return the shield strength has been increased to 500 MJ.
As to how the ship would likely perform, on a fully engineered combat loadout it would probably end up having a jump range 5 ly greater than a similar loadout on a Corvette and 5 ly less than a similar loadout on an Anaconda. Additionally, It would be faster and more agile than both the Anaconda and Corvette (not to mention the Type-10), tankier than the Anaconda but squishier than the Corvette, and would have a roughly similar amount of firepower to the Corvette (presumably with better hardpoint grouping and convergence). Overall, the ship would be better optimized for combat than the Anaconda, but also slightly more versatile than the Corvette. The new ship would likely excel in both combat and multi-role functions even if it would be outshone by the Corvette and Anaconda in their respective roles.
Wow, got a bit off-topic there, back to the OP. The only thing that really bothers me about the ship you proposed is the name. Yes, Cruiser might be a perfectly valid name under the existing naming convention, but I have 2 minor issues with it:
Cruiser was a designation given to tanks, and was not specific to a single design (of note is that Crusader was designated as a Cruiser)
When talking about warships using modern terminology, Cruiser usually refers to a capital-grade warship that is among the most powerful units in a fleet, not a warship that is of similar size and capability to a Corvette. I would imagine that there would be some confusion among players that believed they were purchasing a large warship and then find themselves in something that would be classified below a frigate.
As such, it might be a good idea (particularly with regards to the second point) to use a different name for the ship. Thankfully, the British Army came up with quite a few names for their tanks so there are plenty to choose from (Including Caernarvon, Centaur, Comet, Conqueror, Cromwell, etc...). Personally, I am quite partial to Centurion (the alternate design I gave above was actually listed under Centurion in the text file), but ymmv.
4 large and 6 medium would be nice in this context, especially for the AX capability. If this were to be done, I think it would need much better placement/ convergence than the T10. Having 3 larges mounted to the spine (a la chieftain) and one on the chin would be very cool, then 3 mediums on either side. Would make for a very fun ship
When talking about warships using modern terminology, Cruiser usually refers to a capital-grade warship that is among the most powerful units in a fleet, not a warship that is of similar size and capability to a Corvette
I am aware of this. I think they should give the alliance some capital ships. It really makes no sense for them not to have any. My thinking was this would be the biggest (or at least most powerful) ship in the alliance line up. As such it would be the closest thing they have to a capital ship at the moment.
This is my first foray into rounding out a ship design, so not really sure on the exact stats myself. however, the Cutter currently has 2 class 8 internal slots, and the same size FSD. I think the internals put it on par with the others, but still different enough to be worth it, especially with the hardpoint setup you suggested
This is my first foray into rounding out a ship design, so not really sure on the exact stats myself. however, the Cutter currently has 2 class 8 internal slots, and the same size FSD. I think the internals put it on par with the others, but still different enough to be worth it, especially with the hardpoint setup you suggested
Taking inspiration from Noobilite, I thought i would post a ship Idea that i have had bouncing around my skull for a little bit. I want a named Alliance large ship that can compete with the other Big 3, and make it a proper Big 4. I love the type 10, but it simply isnt on par with the others.
The Alliance Cruiser is a large pad ship that is still named after a British tank to keep with the naming convention.
Hardpoints: 1 huge, 3 large, 3 medium (similar to challenger but all increased a size)
Core Internals:
8 Power plant, 7 Thrusters, 7 FSD, 6 Life support, 7PD, 6 Sensors, 7 Fuel Tank
I am thinking 450 base shield, 1000 hull with 70 hardness.
Ideally it would have middle ground speed and agility, but really good lateral and vertical thrust (similar to chieftain). I like the 4 thruster pods like Crusader and Cheiftan. I used this image to show the basic idea (ship from Avatar)View attachment 158760
in my opinion, the elite already has enough ships with large and huge guns.
if you make a new large ship for the alliance (in addition to the t-10), then you need to change the philosophy. leave him small and medium gun slots, and put 5-6 hangars for slf. with the possibility of hiring more NPC pilots.
Well, and the ability to host various experimental systems for jamming sensors and fsd.
in my opinion, the elite already has enough ships with large and huge guns.
if you make a new large ship for the alliance (in addition to the t-10), then you need to change the philosophy. leave him small and medium gun slots, and put 5-6 hangars for slf. with the possibility of hiring more NPC pilots.
Well, and the ability to host various experimental systems for jamming sensors and fsd.
