|Statistic||Thresher R10||Thresher R5||Hellstrike R5||Hellstrike R10||Mako R5|
|Tac Field Resist||0%||0%||50%||50%||0%|
|Rocket Reload Bonus||120%||60%||140%||140%||50%|
|Building Damage Bonus||0%||0%||30%||100%||0%|
|Other||-||-||-||Armor Ability +30%||-|
|Hull Build Time w/off||4d10h38m||4d10h38m||6d15h58m||6d15h58m||4d10h38m|
|Total U needed||150,000||0||200,000||600,000||6,281|
After R10, the Thresher sits pretty close to the Hellstrike R5 although lack of a 4th special slot puts it at a small disadvantage. 60% splash is a very nice bonus, and also the 120% reload bonus means that you will hit the minimum inferno reload rate at around 45% rank (no CW needed). I don't like its 0% base missile resistance. Maybe if you are worried about the Uranium spend to get Hellstrikes past R5, and you have old Threshers to use, you would be interested in this retrofit.
|Statistic||Stingray R10||Zoe Stingray||Stingray R5||Stingray||Sawfish R5||Sawfish|
|Hull Build Time w/off||5d 9h 36m||5d 9h 36m||5d 9h 36m||5d 9h 36m||2d 6h||2d 6h|
|Total U needed||200,000||0||0||0||16,199||0|
Many people were worried that the Zoe Stingray would be "obsolete" after Stingray R10 came out. At R6, the regular Stingray matches the only advantage the Zoe had - the ballistic range. Although the Stingray got some "modernizations" like more weight for Dock 11 and radioactive defense, it doesn't make up for the fact that ballistic weapons have been obsolete for a while, and even more so with the release of the Magma Thrower. Maybe with that speed, using a launcher-armed ray to kite targets will make a comeback, but I don't see this retrofit good for much else until ballistic weapons become competitive again. So your Zoe Rays are only a little more obsolete than they were yesterday.
|Statistic||SCX R10||SCX R5||SCX||Battleship R5||Battleship|
|Hull Build Time w/off||5d 48m||5d 48m||5d 48m||2d 16h 48m||2d 16h 48m|
|Total U needed||347,500||100,000||0||12,573||0|
Although generally the same ship class, even the R5 Battleship is no match for the SCX. With the extreme range bonus on the R5 SCX, it might make an argument for being useful with the new Bypass Chainguns. But looking at the differences between R5 & R10, there really isn't much that is really attractive. The stun/slow resist at R10 is particularly poor considering all the Uranium needed just for that (125,000).
|Statistic||MCX R10||MCX R5||Kodiak||Mastodon||Interceptor V2H||Mercury R10|
|Anti Mort Range||0%||0%||50%||0%||0%||0%|
|Other||-||-||-||Remote Targeting||Unreactive, Thermal Img||-|
|Hull Build Time w/off||4d 20h 38m||4d 20h 38m||5d 16h 15m||5d 16h 15m||4d 23h 54m||1d 3h|
|Total U needed||450,000||150,000||0||0||0||75,000|
What I'm looking at for the MCX is how it stacks up against the Kodiak, which has a reputation for being able to handle a lot of punishment. The R10 MCX gets higher built in resistances and evade than the Kodiak. But, the Kodiak still has some inherent advantages - more armor slots allow more armor resistances, more special slots may allow another defensive special, more weapon slots allow plenty of countermeasures, and 3,540 extra armor points will let that hull simply last longer. The extra 50% reload helps the MCX somewhat but not drastically - it works out to 25% more DPS than the Kodiak on a 1 salvo missile weapon against ships (independent of rank). As another comparison, the Mercury R10, with its reload and damage bonuses, gets an 8% DPS improvement over the Kodiak . So if you don't have the Kodiak - you could spend a bunch of uranium to get your MCX to a point where it will dish out a nice amount of damage and resist damage fairly well, but it still won't hold up like a Kodiak.
|Statistic||Barracuda R10||Barracuda R5||Nighthawk||Reaper R10||Reaper R5||Spectre R5|
My first thought when I saw these enhancements was that the extra weight and extra submerge time could make the Barracuda R10 into a halfway decent carrier for Deluge or Downpour missiles. Its lower cloak range than the Reaper will help reduce the stealth penalty when firing. But it still is a bit light, and it also doesn't have the accuracy or the missile damage bonuses the Reaper has.
I looked at these two builds to compare: http://www.dahippo.com/bp/ship/#!70ZZ02IA150I1G172122222222220K0A15151515171G0I222222222222220ZZ0ZZdB
The Cuda gets a little more speed and submerge time, along with its full immunity to non-underwater weapons. The Reaper has more weapons, damage, accuracy, and stealth - for 4 extra build days (and more uranium). I guess the cuda wouldn't be so bad at this that I would suggest nobody try it... but I'd like to see someone else try it first. (Edit: it was pointed out that these builds are lacking Battery, which is important on a missile carrier. To squeeze that in would mean using a combo special like Strike System or Magnus Drive... or dropping Caterpillar Drive).
All of the other enhancements seem to be focused on helping the Barracuda in sub vs. sub battles. With a little sonar, the Cuda could be turned into a nice Nighthawk killer, but I think the R5 Cuda could as well. The extra weight makes Cuda builds a little easier... with the 1,970 ton limit, you always needed to skimp somewhere, usually on a torpedo or armor. At 3,970, you can load up with specials of your choice (even Magnus Drive) as well as an armor piece and 6 Assault Torpedo B (or even some Siege Torpedos).
None of these new retrofits would seem to make someone want to use/build one of these ships when they didn't before. (a Barracuda Deluge carrier may be an exception) If you are using any of these hulls currently, the retrofits will make these hulls more effective, but none of these improvements seem to be as good as what the Mercury or Goliath got, which (I think) brought those hulls into relevance again.