I saw that. It means you may be able to carry a bike or a little cargo depending on layout. But we don't know how that will work out.
The Freelancer and the Cutlass are equivalent. They both have advantages and disadvantages.
Fleet planning for a Bounty Hunter
- Thread starter Richard Bong
- Start date
The Freelancer and the Cutlass are equivalent. They both have advantages and disadvantages.
I hope they give the freelancer a good rework at some point too it feels like it has a very limited view from the pilot seat though that may be because it was meant to be a freighter with some ability to defend itself but so is the Taurus yet it has a lot more visibility than the freelancer and both base versions are classified as medium freighters. Then maybe they can add medium fighter to the categories the lancer fits into too if it is so close in capabilities of the Cutlass since it is classified as both.
AntiSqueaker
Space Marshal
Gonna give my 2 cents here since the tools for Bounty Hunting are nigh identical to Piracy so I can apply my Doctorate of Theorycrafting fairly well here.
For "dead or alive" bounties you prefer dead: whatever combat ship(s) you and your band of merry TESTies feel like bringing. Super Hornets, Hurricanes, Gladiators, whatever. Shoot to kill, take no prisoners.
Con to that is that most likely you'll get reduced payout for "dead" bounties as a skill mechanic. Piracy is similar- you take less of a UEE Reputation hit if you disable ships and loot them versus blowing everything up and killing everyone. (Although allegedly if you completely kill everyone plus all the black boxes, and there was no time for them to send out distress signals identifying you, it won't affect your rep since you can't be tied to it, but that may very well change).
So for missions where you're trying to take the target alive, you need a tackler. For those of you who never played EVE Online, a tackle is basically intercepting a ship and making it so they cannot warp out (or in our case for SC, Q-drive out). In EVE this is usually, but not always Frigates, which are the rough equivalent to Star Citizen Light Fighters like the Gladius or Buccaneer. There has been lore blurbs about technology like field generators that disable Q-drive by projecting a false mass shadow to trick a computer into thinking there's an obstacle blocking the way, but that's not the case right now.
So for tackling in SC, we have a few options.
1) Suckerpunch distortion cannons with repeat hits can disable systems, eventually shutting down the ship as a whole. Have been mentioned to temporarily disable Q-drives with each hit as well.
2) Dataspike missiles allow you to hack a target ship, possibly disabling their Q-drive or engines altogether.
3) EMP, currently only in the hands of the Sabre Raven or Avenger Warlock. Completely shuts down all ships in an AoE bubble for a few seconds, at the cost of shutting down the EMP-launching ship as well. Sabre Raven may employ different EMP technology, but I wouldn't bet on it being too substantially different. EMP on the Raven apparently is attached to S4 pylons, so any ship with S4 pylons could hypothetically mount it as well if CIG chooses to release it as a standalone system.
So Suckerpunches seem like the most reliable and easy to acquire tech for tackling, and double as a disabling weapon as well. The Buccaneer is a prime candidate for Suckerpunches with its twin S1 fixed hardpoints on the wingtips, since currently there are no larger versions of Distortion Cannons available or mentioned. The Buccaneer also happens to double as a capable combat fighter, great handling, and with the capability of mounting a combination of 4x S2 gimbals (split between 2 S3 hardpoints and a 2xS2 unmanned turret) or a fixed weapon loadout of 2xS3 and a single S4 hardpoint for larger punch.
Downside is Buccaneer sucks for solo work since it's a pure fighter.
Avenger is the smallest solo capable Bounty Hunting ship, and the Stalker comes stock with some cells to hold prisoners as a bonus. The chaingun up front does some impressive DPS, but overall with only a trio of weapon hardpoints (S3 gimbal nose, 2xS2 on wings) mounting Suckerpunches cuts a lot more into the relative DPS as it does on a ship with more hardpoints like the Bucc. Warlock on the other hand is going to be fucking amazing in groups with that EMP.
Cutlass Blue is probably the "best" bounty hunting ship around simply because its the better version of the Cutlass, which is designed to disable and board enemy ships. With (presumably, rework details on Red and Blue are scant) heavier armor, stronger shields, better stock components (engine, powerplant, thrusters) and some boarding cells in the back, and a plethora of firepower (capable of mounting an impressive 4 fixed Size 3 guns + the twin S3 turret, or mounting 4x S3 gimbals- operators choice) and twin S4 missile mounts, the Cutlass Blue is going to be mean.
Other contenders could be the Constellation (missiles galore + enough room to maybe install some cells if CIG decides to add them) but beyond that you start to run out of combat ships that are beneficial until you hit the Polaris, which is probably mega overkill for 90+% of missions.
A fleet is probably going to need 1 "hauling" ship to transport prisoners with possibly a backup for redundancy in case SHTF, a tackle or two, and then some general combat ships to provide escort and cover. Maybe a scout too.
A pretty easy to fill one would be:
- Scout/Tackle: Sabre Raven. Sneaky scouting plus an EMP for opportune initiations.
- Sabre: Tags along with Raven to provide a bit more cover, since the Raven is fragile and not that powerful.
- Cutlass Blue. Fire support, boarding, and prisoner transport.
- 2x combat fighters of your choice. Super Hornets, Hurricanes, Xi'an Scouts, Banu Defenders, Sabres, Buccaneers, whatever the pilots prefer and have on hand. Defend the Cutlass Blue and engage enemy fighters.
Naturally you can add or subtract ships, bring a torpedo bomber for knocking out heavier ships, Caterpillar for a heavier boarding platform, Herald or Vanguard Sentinel for EWAR duties, etc etc, but this seems a solid core to me.
For "dead or alive" bounties you prefer dead: whatever combat ship(s) you and your band of merry TESTies feel like bringing. Super Hornets, Hurricanes, Gladiators, whatever. Shoot to kill, take no prisoners.
Con to that is that most likely you'll get reduced payout for "dead" bounties as a skill mechanic. Piracy is similar- you take less of a UEE Reputation hit if you disable ships and loot them versus blowing everything up and killing everyone. (Although allegedly if you completely kill everyone plus all the black boxes, and there was no time for them to send out distress signals identifying you, it won't affect your rep since you can't be tied to it, but that may very well change).
So for missions where you're trying to take the target alive, you need a tackler. For those of you who never played EVE Online, a tackle is basically intercepting a ship and making it so they cannot warp out (or in our case for SC, Q-drive out). In EVE this is usually, but not always Frigates, which are the rough equivalent to Star Citizen Light Fighters like the Gladius or Buccaneer. There has been lore blurbs about technology like field generators that disable Q-drive by projecting a false mass shadow to trick a computer into thinking there's an obstacle blocking the way, but that's not the case right now.
So for tackling in SC, we have a few options.
1) Suckerpunch distortion cannons with repeat hits can disable systems, eventually shutting down the ship as a whole. Have been mentioned to temporarily disable Q-drives with each hit as well.
2) Dataspike missiles allow you to hack a target ship, possibly disabling their Q-drive or engines altogether.
3) EMP, currently only in the hands of the Sabre Raven or Avenger Warlock. Completely shuts down all ships in an AoE bubble for a few seconds, at the cost of shutting down the EMP-launching ship as well. Sabre Raven may employ different EMP technology, but I wouldn't bet on it being too substantially different. EMP on the Raven apparently is attached to S4 pylons, so any ship with S4 pylons could hypothetically mount it as well if CIG chooses to release it as a standalone system.
So Suckerpunches seem like the most reliable and easy to acquire tech for tackling, and double as a disabling weapon as well. The Buccaneer is a prime candidate for Suckerpunches with its twin S1 fixed hardpoints on the wingtips, since currently there are no larger versions of Distortion Cannons available or mentioned. The Buccaneer also happens to double as a capable combat fighter, great handling, and with the capability of mounting a combination of 4x S2 gimbals (split between 2 S3 hardpoints and a 2xS2 unmanned turret) or a fixed weapon loadout of 2xS3 and a single S4 hardpoint for larger punch.
Downside is Buccaneer sucks for solo work since it's a pure fighter.
Avenger is the smallest solo capable Bounty Hunting ship, and the Stalker comes stock with some cells to hold prisoners as a bonus. The chaingun up front does some impressive DPS, but overall with only a trio of weapon hardpoints (S3 gimbal nose, 2xS2 on wings) mounting Suckerpunches cuts a lot more into the relative DPS as it does on a ship with more hardpoints like the Bucc. Warlock on the other hand is going to be fucking amazing in groups with that EMP.
Cutlass Blue is probably the "best" bounty hunting ship around simply because its the better version of the Cutlass, which is designed to disable and board enemy ships. With (presumably, rework details on Red and Blue are scant) heavier armor, stronger shields, better stock components (engine, powerplant, thrusters) and some boarding cells in the back, and a plethora of firepower (capable of mounting an impressive 4 fixed Size 3 guns + the twin S3 turret, or mounting 4x S3 gimbals- operators choice) and twin S4 missile mounts, the Cutlass Blue is going to be mean.
Other contenders could be the Constellation (missiles galore + enough room to maybe install some cells if CIG decides to add them) but beyond that you start to run out of combat ships that are beneficial until you hit the Polaris, which is probably mega overkill for 90+% of missions.
A fleet is probably going to need 1 "hauling" ship to transport prisoners with possibly a backup for redundancy in case SHTF, a tackle or two, and then some general combat ships to provide escort and cover. Maybe a scout too.
A pretty easy to fill one would be:
- Scout/Tackle: Sabre Raven. Sneaky scouting plus an EMP for opportune initiations.
- Sabre: Tags along with Raven to provide a bit more cover, since the Raven is fragile and not that powerful.
- Cutlass Blue. Fire support, boarding, and prisoner transport.
- 2x combat fighters of your choice. Super Hornets, Hurricanes, Xi'an Scouts, Banu Defenders, Sabres, Buccaneers, whatever the pilots prefer and have on hand. Defend the Cutlass Blue and engage enemy fighters.
Naturally you can add or subtract ships, bring a torpedo bomber for knocking out heavier ships, Caterpillar for a heavier boarding platform, Herald or Vanguard Sentinel for EWAR duties, etc etc, but this seems a solid core to me.
Hadron Xon
Space Marshal
Amon Morell
Space Marshal
Guys dont forget that you will be abble to capture targets on planets and space stations also.
For 1 target (if you will capture him on a planet ) the avenger is enough, for more the Blue will be likely a far better ship.
So i vote fore the Blue because it will have more fire power and more cells ( or stasis pots ) + other benefits.
Btw. maybe we will get in the future prison transport missions, so the more holding cells the better.
For 1 target (if you will capture him on a planet ) the avenger is enough, for more the Blue will be likely a far better ship.
So i vote fore the Blue because it will have more fire power and more cells ( or stasis pots ) + other benefits.
Btw. maybe we will get in the future prison transport missions, so the more holding cells the better.
From the description of the Avenger stalker is a prisoner transport my guess is a good option for after you capture them and has a small jump drive which will do shorter jumps and be less likely to be intercepted and has room for more than one. The Blue has holding cells and doesn’t put them in stasis and is pry good for initial capture then transfer them to an avenger stalker for transport so less talkative pirate in stasis. It could also be a way to interrupt their gameplay further since they said something about once they are put in stasis the pirate will respawn somewhere so their gameplay isn’t interrupted as long and the bounty hunter will end up with some kind of cargo that will count as the pirate they captured.
The cutlass is a fighter hauler and the freelancer is a hauler fighter. the lancer used to be my favorite ship but with that view it just does not do justice to the game when you are constantly trying to get a good view out the window.
Sure it should have a good range and a good speed but it doesn't have the maneuverability the cutlass has
If your chasing a target through an asteroid field for example and I had the choice of a lancer mis or a cutty blue i would take the blue erry day
you have a tonne of missiles on the lancer sure but whats the point? you either blow up your target and not make much money then have to buy more missiles or they are all wasted bouncing off asteroids.
the position of the turret also helps in this regard being closer to the front in the cutty so if the pilot needs to dodge turret man can keep tracking
The mis has a turret at the back for when its being chased making it harder to shoot forward and provide extra support.
Sure they both have advantages and disadvantages but i think the cutty has more advantages in the combat and boarding section where the lancer has more advantages in the cargo hauler section
the MIS carries up to 52 S2 missiles, which individually won't kill any but the smallest ships
so you can apply just enough damage to disable a ship and say, "Surrender or die, outlaw scum!"
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
There is a mount adapter that exists for some weapons and not others. Right now it is a case by case basis, but theoretically any hardpoint can handle two of the next smaller size instead of a single weapon.
No, actually they're ballistic. See here: http://starcitizen.team/
It's not just difficult to point all the Tally or Connis turrets at a single target--it's impossible. The guns do not offer that kind of field of fire. Very few turrets can be pointed directly ahead. The Vanguard, Cutty and couple fighter's that can do this are exceptional cases. One of the interesting design points of the Polaris is that most of the turret guns can be pointed forward, like the later Imperial/Sienar designs in StarWars destroyers.
I made the same point on missiles, since the Cutlass has more missiles, though the MIS has more if you want them. Further missiles are expensive, so cut into your profit margin. I am actually considering the MIS, not for removable missile reload racks, I would rather remove them, but for the sensors and fire control.
According to the specs, the Cutlass is slightly more maneuverable, but the Freelancer takes more punishment, has better sensors, and can get you further. If you are chasing a Fighter then neither is maneuverable enough or fast enough to get the job done. Just keeping the nose of either on the target will be a challenge. Both can run down anything bigger than them.
Comparing the Lancer to the new Cutlass is similar to comparing the Hornet to the Sabre. One has slightly better firepower, better speed and better maneuverability the other is more durable and more versatile, the new Cutlass is much closer to the Lancer than the Sabre is to the Hornet.
How much do those cells mass? The Blue isn't in game, but if the difference between the Avenger Titan and the Stalker are any indication, the Blue isn't going to maneuver as well or be as fast as an empty Black. (Note I do believe the MIS with the missile racks is likely in the same situation.
Changed with the new rules and the ship matrix. No longer exists. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/16181-The-Shipyard-Weapon-Hardpoints Where they exist now they are specifically changed to turrets that are specific to the hull and not swappable to a different hull. (No more 85X turrets on Sabres. :) ) The Hornet lost its nose gun and now only has the option of a turret with 2 size 1 guns on it. (Superhornet can mount 2 x size 2.)
Loaded on my ship, in game, they are energy with no ammo requirement. The intention may be ballistic, but in game they are definitely, currently, energy.
Their range is too short and their fire rate too low to be effective point defense weapons.
Unlike the 600 (One turret forward, the other aft) all the Connie's guns can fire forward. The Connie turrets are split top and bottom and are both mounted forward, so while everything can fire forward the rear isn't as well covered as the 600 or the Tali. They are also mounted far enough from the hull that they have a good depression when fired forward and to either side. (They look stupid, IMHO, stuck out that far, but they have the arcs.)
The Tali can't, and it doesn't have nearly the firepower as the Connie or the 600. But because it lacks the blind zones, it can defend itself better.
I was planning on this size ship to be, primarily, transport, not for chasing down and beating fighters. None of them are really fighters, or even close to being fighters. Almost all fighters can stay out of the weapon arcs for the main weapons of ships of this size.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
Yeah, but look at the link. They are still making contradictory claims. It's not just swapping turrets from one ship to another, it is whether the mount exists. If you could not put two fixed where you had had a gimbal, they would not write "These are the only two types of items that can be attached to weapon hardpoints and gimbal mounts can only contain a single weapon hardpoint."
I don't want to argue a point of personal choice but as I have made this observation many times in the past I will share it again. It is extremely common for inexperienced players to equate shooting a lot with being effective because that is what it feels like. In almost every circumstance, shooting more often is not more effective--point defense included. In fact, lack of trigger discipline will get you in trouble with energy weapons because you are directing a larger portion of your energy budget to weapons. You not only have to install more reactor which makes you a bigger, brighter target, but you have to direct that power to those weapons instead of engines, shields, etc. Good gunners do not light up the sky unless they expect to hit what they are aiming at, whether they are shooting something that can run out of ammo or not.
In the case of shooting down incoming missiles, if you could stand a fair chance of hitting them with an aimed shot, then you would certainly not choose an energy weapon, but rather a gattling like a Scorpion, Tigerstreik, etc. that is putting out 15 shots per second. Fact is though you would still not expect to hit under circumstances like this. A missile coming straight at you is going to provide a tiny profile and be in range for one or two seconds at best. The only way to intercept it is to shoot everywhere inside an area. This requires either a distortion cannon or a shotgun like the Pyroburst. In all likelihood you will have just one shot, and if the missile or torp can be disabled, the thing that will do it is an area effect weapon--energy or ballistic.
We still don't know if this can be done or not, and I for one want to know. One person here said they had done it once. If it can be done at all, we should discover the art to this, as it completely affects whether we should load these weapons, especially on turrets. If you can shoot down incoming missiles with a Joker, that is reason to put them in your Vanguard turret. That turret only needs to provide defense, so it doesn't matter much that Jokers overheat after a few seconds, or that they don't have good range. If they make you invulnerable to especially big threats like S3 to S5 missiles, I say "fly 'em!"
Last edited:
The problem cones in when there are more than one missile. With multiple high speed targets you need rapid firing weapons. This is true in real world navies (The Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems are the Current and most extreme examples), and most science fiction. The pyroburst will get one, and miss two before it can fire again.
The Cutlass is designed to take out larger ships than it. The lancer is still larger overall than the Cutlass rework. The Cutlass is also more maneuverable because it’s main engine still pivot giving it more trust in turns. They have stated the rework was done to give the ship a more dedicated role to take down freighters. The Mis variant is not a freighter but the other two variants are. I think the Blue and Mis could be comparable but the other two are what the Cutlass is designed to hunt.
If you don’t believe it look up the information on the rework. The only version that might be able to do the job is the gunship but it will be slower and less maneuverable and have a harder fight for it. Yes they both have their draw backs but you are comparing a hunter(Cutlass) to the ship it’s meant to hunt. I know the Blue rework isn’t done but it is suppose to have more aggressive engines which will pry counter balance the mass increase from holding cells.
All the missles in the world won’t help you if you can’t maneuver fast enough to keep a lock long enough to fire them. Not saying you won’t get any off but going against a ship that out maneuvers you will add difficulty if your putting all your eggs in that basket.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
what's the point in seeing everything if you can't maneuver quickly?
that's why we have shields and armor, to protect us from those ships we can't see
I actually hope this lancer pilot mentality sticks come 3.0 our pirate division will make us very rich.