I'll call the early reviews on the Nash carrier "mixed". Some like them and some don't. So as I finished my 27M points this morning, I decided to take another look at the Harlock.
I built the Harlock with the same concept as the Nash I built - 15 Dragonfly minimum, Compound Armor, Evade, Phalanx to fill up space, and I ended up with a 4 ship fleet:
http://www.dahippo.com/bp/ship/#!705U00V0W1N1N1S0C5B191O1O1S1S1O1S1S05U00V0W1N1N1S0C5B191O1O1S1S1O1S1S05U00V0W1N1N1S0C5B191O1O1S1S1O1S1S05U00V0W1N1N1S0C5B191O1O1S1S1O1S1S0ZZ
In case you missed it - here is the link to the Nash build:
http://www.dahippo.com/bp/ship/#!706601N1N5B0C2M0I194Q1S1S1S1O1O06601N1N5B0C2M0I194Q1S1S1S1O1O06601N1N5B0C2M0I194Q1S1S1S1O1O06601N1N5B0C2M0I194Q1S1S1S1O1O06601N1N5B0C2M0I194Q1S1S1S1O1O
This would be a 4 ship fleet - base turn on the Harlock is only 14, so I went back to Speed System instead of Engine. Let's compare stats:
Nash's 5 fleet | Harlock's 4 fleet | |
Dragonflys | 15 | 16 |
Hornets | 10 | 12 |
UAV Damage Bonus | 59% | 60% |
Chaining | Yes | No |
Armor | 6113 | 13665 |
Missile Resist | 61% | 67% |
Explosive Resist | 35% | 53% |
Ballistic Resist | 35% | 33% |
Radioactive Resist | 0% | 40% |
Evade | 52% | 58% |
Combat Speed | 25.2 | 17.6 |
Turn Speed | 29.0 | 30.8 |
Ship Build Time | 13d 15h 38m | 14d 4h 44m |
Fleet Build Time | 68d 6h 9m | 58d 18h 56m |
I think a very interesting observation is that the built-in UAV bonus damage on the Harlock makes up for the extra special slot on the Nash.
You can see that the Harlock fleet will hit harder, take a lot more damage, and build faster. The only significant advantage of the Nash fleet is the speed - which is a BIG DEAL in FvF. But in the latest raid format, a Nuke Cruiser Fleet with a 17 speed would not be a sitting duck because it could hit so hard. UAV chaining is nice, but not a must-have. The extra fleet slot in the Harlock could even be used for a Spectre decoy or a Superfortress cargo ship.
I'm leaning Harlock, but I'll put up a poll so I can hear what you think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment