I think that this is a little extreme. Reducing LRFs to 400 will make them substantially slower than every other unit in th game, including carrier cruisers. They maybe able to be reduced to the speed of carrier cruisers (450) but no lower than that. If that is still not enough for capital ships to disengage easily, I think we buff capital ships more, not nerf LRFs further (who are already taking a beating here).

Carriers, Flak, and Support all have the same armor type...you can't reduce the effectiveness of LRFs vs just one unless you changed the armor type of carriers (which would affect a lot of things)...

We're having a bit of a problem here because there is virtually no agreement...

The problem with LRFs is that they are damn good at killing just about everything...

Something has to give...

LFs are what is supposed to be used to counter flak, support, and carriers...that is how the game was made and intended to be played...that fell apart because LRFs are very good at killing heavy armor (2nd only to LFs) and are the hardest counter against LFs...

The issue isn't that LRFs are too powerful against caps... the issue is that LRFs have many advantages and few weaknesses...fighters are easily shot down by flak...HCs are too vulnerable to bombers and LRFs are better than HCs against pretty much everything else...

Reducing the damage LRFs do against caps won't solve the problem...as Darvin has said, all it will do is raise the threshold of how many LRFs are needed to kill a cap almost instantly...the core of the issue is the abundance of LRFs on the battlefield...reducing the amount of LRFs on the battlefield is the solution...

How do we do that?  Make LRFs weaker against things they aren't meant to fight...LRFs are supposed to counter LFs, and LFs are supposed to counter heavy armor...HCs are supposed to be good against LFs and LRFs and heavy armor, but have the unique weakness of being the most susceptible to bombers....

The solution to our problem is making LRFs weaker against heavy armor and HCs...massive amounts of LRF will no longer be viable because carriers, flak, and HCs will be too hard to kill with just LRFs...players will have to build more HCs and LFs in order to deal with other HCs and heavy armor...if vast numbers of LRFs become a suicidal fleet composition, then players won't go for it and instead will go for a more diverse fleet which is exactly what we want...

I would like to post these two tables so everyone can see them and have something to reference...the first table is for TEC and the second table is for Advent (Vasari are a pain because of PMs, but we have enough info for this point with just TEC and Advent)...these values represent DPS per fleet supply point, so you can compare these values perfectly with each other...

LRMs and Illuminators do almost identical DPS per fleet supply...

Destras are marginally more damaging to LRF than illuminators...illuminators actually do more damage against HCs than HCS!  Kodiaks are even worse off...

The really troubling issue is how effective LRFs are against heavy armor...while they will lose against flak (since flak have anti-light weaponry), they are 2nd only to LFs in taking down carriers and support ships...why build HCs when LRFs are better and easier to defend from SC?  Hell, even using flak is a terrible counter, because flak are more expensive per fleet supply point than LRFs or HCs and flak severely limits you're ability to FF...

Here is a table with armor values so everyone can see and have something to reference...

It is my belief that LRFs and bombers are and should be counters to capital ships...the problem is that LRFs are good against just about everything...LRFs need to be weaker against heavy armor and HCs so that fleets heavy in LRFs simply are not practical...

First off, LRFs should not be better against HCs than HCs are against HCs...

Illuminators and LRMs do about 2 DPS per fleet supply against HCs while Kodiaks and Destras do 1.8/1.9 DPS per fleet supply against HCs...I suggest Anti-medium's effectiveness against very heavy armor be changed from .75 to .55...that is a 27% decrease in effectiveness and will mean illums/LRMs will do about 1.47 DPS per fleet supply against HCs instead of 2...

Second, LRFs should not be better against heavy armor than HCs...

Illuminators and LRFMs do the same damage to HCs as the do against heavy armor, which is about 2 DPS per fleet supply...kodiaks and destras only do 1.8/1.9...I suggest Anti-medium's effectiveness against heavy armor be changed from .75 to .60...that is a 20% decrease in effectiveness against flak/carrier/support...Illums and LRMs will now do about 1.6 DPS per fleet supply against heavy armor instead of 2...I don't think this should be the same or lower than the value against HCs since flak have anti-light weaponry...

So, to sum it all up...

Anti-mediums effectiveness against very heavy armor (HCs) changed from .75 to .55....effectiveness against heavy armor (carrier/flak/support) changed from .75 to .60...

Let LRFs be just as effective against caps...you wanna kill caps with lots of LRFs, you go right ahead, but your fleet will then be very vulnerable...

Pending on how this goes over, I think it may be wise to give the skirmisher a slight buff to DPS...

I don't think move speed is a wrong answer (regardless of what else is done, LRF speed should probably be reduced)...the problem is, the units are still going to be just as damaging...if you actually want to fight your enemy (which you'll eventually have to do) you will have to face LRFs...even if their speed is decreased, it is not the only issue with LRFs...they are still too powerful, and reducing their effectiveness against heavy and very heavy armor is going to help...

Yeah, you won't have to retreat your caps as soon if the enemy fleet is at the center of their gravity well, but if they're even close to the edge then LRFs are still going to be able to snipe a cap ship, and with even mid-size fleets you won't be able to throw capital ships at the front line...

If the only change we make is lower LRF speed, I think all we're going to do is change tactics, not fleet composition...people will still kite (and have more incentive to do so since it will be easier) because LRFs will still be fatal to caps, just slower...

This is important, I agree...but if LRFs are less effective against heavy and very heavy armor, you still have cap killers (LRFs and bombers)...the thing is, you have to be much more careful about balancing your fleet with HCs and LFs...I think both diverse fleet composition and strengthening caps are important goals...

Yes it will, I won't deny that...but it also empowers carriers and it makes your fleet composition a crap shoot...if I waltz into your planet with carriers and a ton of LRF, what are you going to do?  If you have LFs, my carriers hold ground...if you have LRFs, my carriers kite...either way, you lose...if you build a nice balanced fleet composition of flak, LRF, and LF, all I have to do is engage your fleet, and since LRF still dominant, again, you will likely lose...the only way you can win is if you build a bunch of carriers too, and force me into the same lose-lose situation...and I don't know if that's the route we want to go...

Nevertheless, I suppose it certainly won't hurt to try it, just see how it goes with the slower speed...

If I remember correctly, the numbers you suggested were 400 for LRMs/Kanraks and Illuminators were 500?  It won't be easy testing it with the AI since they don't retreat their caps and they don't spam LRFs (or FF very well)...but I'll give it a try and see what happens...

I agree...

Reducing LRF effectiveness against heavy and very heavy armor I think will do this...LFs are great against flak/support/carriers and are very fast...LRFs are good against LFs and also good at shooting capital ships...flak are good against LRFs and also can shoot SC...HCs are good against all 3 and caps but they aren't the best against any one thing and are the most vulnerable to bombers...I'm not certain it is the best route, but it's the best I can come up with...

I've suggested similar numbers to your own, though I have them flip flopped...the reason I did this was that flak has anti-light weaponry, so it is rather damaging to LRFs...

HCs only get 1.25 against LFs...I don't think that number should be lowered...if there is a problem with LFs still being to weak, I'd rather raise LFs effectiveness against HCs, not lower HCs effectiveness against LFs...I think it would be best to test changes to LRFs first though before changing HCs or LFs...

Right now I don't think LRFs need to be better against structures just yet...LRMs do more damage against structures than HCs, and are second only to ogrovs and bombers (which are intended for destroying structures)...it may be a necessary change later, but too many things changed at the same time will make it difficult to determine what works and what doesn't...

I do think LRFs need to be weakened against heavy and very heavy armor...values around .55 to .6 seem appropriate...the damage values between HCs and LFs as well as between LRFs and structures should probably be dealt with after initial changes are tested...

I would note that the damage multipliers associated with armor types are very deceiving...per fleet supply point LRFs do much more raw damage than HCs (2.75 vs 1.8 for TEC)...so, keep that in mind when looking at LRF damage multipliers....75% of 50% more damage is greater than 100% of the same damage (which is why LRFs are still adequate against HCs)...

I sympathize with this, though HCs are also easy to counter (bombers, which everyone builds in mass) and bombers can't be easily countered themselves...I believe the most prudent action would be to leave LRFs vs Very Heavy armor alone and see if speed and reduced effectiveness against heavy armor solve the issue...if not, we always have the option of making LRFs weaker against HCs...

I'd suggest anti-medium vs heavy bee changed from .75 to .55...

I'm going to try it out when I get a chance...I'll try the speed thing too, though that will be rather difficult to test with the AI...

For testing purpose I think I will create a version with a bit of everything. However, I think that will push LRFs over the edge and some of the nerfs will have to go.

Also Darvin, another thing I don't really like about your move speed theory is that it seems to make Sins more of a click-fest, as it implies carriers will always be kitting and LF will always be chasing and LRFs will always be persuing. It is one thing to give Capital ships the speed to disengage, it is another to have to control every part of you fleet by speed type in big circles of counters chasing counters. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and see if it works.

I'll make and release the update tomorrow (I'm too tired now) but I am certain we will need to go online to test this, and we will need players more skilled than me to really see how it works. We may as well use Project equilibrium v. 1.0 as well to see the capital ship ability changes in action at the same time.

I'm sure there are other good ways to compare them, but this is what I've been looking at.  Note that it's a lot easier to digest all of this if you have some experience in excel so you can sort and auto color code things.  I think you should be able to copy/paste this table straight into excel (or some equivalent) if you want to manipulate the data a bit more.

Total hull = Hull*(1+(0.05*armor)))+shields  (I didn't account for regen)

DPS was just taken straight from SithLordAJ's chart.. I'm not 100% sure if it's correct (e.g., This value may underestimate the DPS for the Solanus starfish because I think the listed DPS is for only one target, and it can deliver that to 5 total.  Similarly, effective DPS goes up for units with Area of Effect attacks like the Javelis, and the frontal DPS for the illuminator is actually lower).

Total cost = Credits+(Metal*4.5)+(Crystal*4.5)  I know some disagree about the correct way to incorporate metal and crystal costs, but I used 4.5 because I think I saw Darvin arguing for that approach somewhere..

Fighter and bomber sections were adjusted by SC# per squadron.  The last two carrier sections were calculated for cruiser carriers with all fighters or all bombers, and their DPS was adjusted by number of squadrons.  (e.g., the Advent carrier's DPS for fighters was calculated as 3 squadrons x 9 fighters x 1.333 DPS per fighter).  

I also made additional columns (not shown) where I adjusted these values for the armor modifiers. (e.g., DPS/supply vs light armor or DPS/cost vs very heavy armor).  That makes it even easier to see the math underlying the cost-effectiveness of different counters.

Version 0.2 (Experimental)

Antimedium vs. Heavy - 0.6 (from 0.75)

Antimedium vs. Capitalship - 0.6 (from 0.65)

Antimedium vs. Very Heavy - 0.55 (from 0.65)

Composite vs. Medium - 1.2 (from 1.25)

All Long Range Frigate max speed decreased to 450.

All Battleships max speed increased to 600.

All Colony Caps max speed increased to 525.

Hopefully we can get some online matches going by this weekend at least. I know we will never full agree on this (I don't agree with some of these either) but the speed change is the most radical and should be the most visible thing to test, so I think we should see if it floats or sinks early. Otherwise it is really just about making the numbers look good.

Opps, good catch. I meant to decrease HC damage to light frigates to 1.2, not light armor type. I changed the download to correct this, if you already downloaded it change Composite to light back to 1.5 and Composite to Medium to 1.2.