Ships Feeling Vindicated: Alliance Crusader vs. Federation Gunship

[AEBRAM]

Hey everyone. A good buddy of mine decided to take our go-to Haz/CZ/BH/Assassination ships for a friendly duel. This started with the "you can try" since my buddy had a bounty and we jested about, "I should come collect that bounty," joking with each other. Long story short: We dueled.

His ship Federal Gunship versus my Alliance Crusader. (links)

The end results was the Alliance Crusader was victorious. My strafing and direct damage caused him too much internal damage. I was targeting the ship and not sub-targeting modules while he tried hard to destroy my PP. The fight did end with the Alliance Crusader down to 37% remaining Hull Integrity, and we reviewed my internal module damage: The ADC, SC Assist, and both module packages were destroyed and the next near to be destroyed, at 12% module integrity, was the Cargo Hold. Next, at 34% was one 1x Sm. Modified Plasma Chargers. Everything was over 50% and capable: My ship would have met catastrophic destruction before the internal modules would have taken the Alliance Crusader out of the fight.

Try as he might, my PP still had 99% integrity despite him sub-targeting the module: He had a salty "huh" with good sportsmanship since my ship was beaten down to 37% remaining Hull Integrity. SO, I feel vindicated that my go-to combat ship performed well. The Federation Gunship is well equipped to caused massive damage but the subtle-but now noticeable difference was the higher AR rating (65 vs. 60). And, despite the Alliance Crusader being slower than his ship, he was surprised how nimble the Alliance Crusader was in turning, holding him in the target curser.

Mathematically, the Alliance Crusader hardpoint to hardpoint is subpar to the Federation Gunship or Krait mk2. BUT with good choices can compensate for the difference and never underestimate the ship that can turn sharp corners and the AR rating of the ships.

Note: We had Fighter Bays but elected not to use them. We had an evenly match duel until the internal module damage caught up to him.

 

[Rebel Yell]

He should have targeted your drives

 

[AEBRAM]

He should have targeted your drives

It may have helped him, however, my internals are well protected. The ship can soak up Plasmas (since 50% of the damage is not absolute) and still be combat efficient down to 20% Hull Integrity (been there, done that and still walked away). Against another player, I will not say the ship will come on top in the end; but considering even being knocked down to 20% remaining hull integrity and the ship being able to fire it's hardpoints compliment back is an impressive feat.

Edited: I would not suggest taking any ship down to this integrity level. I only mention known facts from testing the abuse level of the ship.

 

[Rebel Yell]

It may have helped him, however, my internals are well protected. The ship can soak up Plasmas (since 50% of the damage is not absolute) and still be combat efficient down to 20% Hull Integrity (been there, done that and still walked away). Against another player, I will not say the ship will come on top in the end; but considering even being knocked down to 20% remaining hull integrity and the ship being able to fire it's hardpoints compliment back is an impressive feat.

Edited: I would not suggest taking any ship down to this integrity level. I only mention known facts from testing the abuse level of the ship.

Alliance ships (all of them) suffer drive targeting, because the module (vs other ships) are exposed and they can be hit by any angle. Almost even in face-to-face combat drives can be hit... meanwhile most ships require the opponent to hold an advantage position (side or behind) in order to target drives.

Looking at your build 2xC2 GMRPs are not sufficient to protect your drives for a long time... and using 2 GMRPs of the same class (C2) means you'll lose them both at the same time, leaving earlier your modules without protection. A C4 and a C2 offer more module protection and for longer time, besides you're going to leave some hull points (300sh) on the table... I mean, this against experienced opponents.

My daughter's Challenger build (used for PvP piracy) does have 2 or 3 MRPs, C4-C2 or C4-C3-C2 depending on the builds, to protect drives [as these may go as early as having 75-80% of the hull points left when targeted].

 

[Rebel Yell]

An image will explain better:

 

[SergMx]

Sorry.
I've been looking at the assemblies and two things are very surprising to me. May I ask what these are for?

1. Both have lasers with treatment. (not sure, I think it's a wing assembly)
2. both use super cruise assistant (still no thoughts here)

 

[SergMx]

Looking at your build 2xC2 GMRPs are not sufficient to protect your drives for a long time... and using 2 GMRPs of the same class (C2) means you'll lose them both at the same time, leaving earlier your modules without protection.

Is this mechanic redesigned?
It used to knock out the topmost MRP and then the next one.

 

[Morbad]

Weapons have a penetration depth that's usually expressed as a fraction of it's overall thickness. Most ships, especially combat vessels, have the power plant positioned where it's very difficult to be hit from the front. In general, only railguns have the penetration to shoot the PP through the nose, and only superpenetrator modified ones will reach before being stopped by some intersecting module.

Also, drives are external modules for most purposes (though MRPs still treat them as internals for resistances). The Chieftain and it's derivatives have very vulnerable drives because of where they are positioned; most ships have drives that are only vulnerable from the aft quarter, but the medium alliance vessels can be hit from much wider angles, especially with weapons that have splash damage.

Is this mechanic redesigned?
It used to knock out the topmost MRP and then the next one.

I'm pretty sure they are still depleted sequentially.

 

[SergMx]

I'm pretty sure they are still depleted sequentially.

By the way, from the unclear mechanics of GMRP (they consume energy and have to shut down during repairs), I prefer the usual MRP.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Aye, my bad did say wrongly I meant durability time and longer stacking benefit.

 

[AEBRAM]

Is this mechanic redesigned?
It used to knock out the topmost MRP and then the next one.

The damage is applied singularly from my experience against the MRP or GMRP. The applied damage to the MRP or GMRP is random, and damage is applied only once to the receiving MRP or GMRP. The %coverage of the MRP and GMRP does not change when the damage destroys one MRP or GMRP. Another factor, I suspect without proof, is the armor resistances reduces breach damage against the internal module, MRP, and/or GMRP. I do believe Military slots take priority on module damage allocation e.g. MRP or GMRP slotted in the military slot gets first dibs on damage, otherwise, it is allocated either or with multiple MRP or GMRP loadouts.

 

[SergMx]

The damage is applied singularly from my experience against the MRP or GMRP. The applied damage to the MRP or GMRP is random, and damage is applied only once to the receiving MRP or GMRP. The %coverage of the MRP and GMRP does not change when the damage destroys one MRP or GMRP. Another factor, I suspect without proof, is the armor resistances reduces breach damage against the internal module, MRP, and/or GMRP. I do believe Military slots take priority on module damage allocation e.g. MRP or GMRP slotted in the military slot gets first dibs on damage, otherwise, it is allocated either or with multiple MRP or GMRP loadouts.

Sorry.
I learned to fight from Cmdr Morbad, and I know that module amps fail sequentially. Until the first one fails, the second one doesn't start destroying.