Starfleet Commander Forum

Starfleet Commander => Conquest Universe => Topic started by: Azureflames on May 18, 2013, 11:17:35 PM

Title: Erebus and Moros
Post by: Azureflames on May 18, 2013, 11:17:35 PM
Moros seems be a decent ship, albeit a bit slow. Rapid fire vulnerability to Athenas is pretty rough but they can still be effective. Can be very useful when fighting Curetes or just fodder in general. It seems to fill a role. Not to mention they could be used as a slightly faster Prom for the purposes of destroying Hephs. At least at current engine techs.

Now the Erebus on the other hand, I cannot find useful. It costs significantly more than an Artemis and has a much higher fuel consumption but it does not seem to perform any better. In large numbers they might be useful against Curetes-fodder-based fleet but they have terrible rapid fire vulnerability, especially considering their cost/fuel consumption. Vulnerable to both Hades and Poseidons means they just get mowed down, especially with the hull value being lower than the Apollos. I think it is a worse ship than the Apollo. It does not fill the same role due to the costs, rapid fire vulnerabilities, and the fact that it uses a Jet Drive like the Artemis but has a lower base speed.

I am hard-pressed to find a reason to build a bunch of Erebus. Is the only use to send them as a follow up wave to destroy a heph since they are faster than moros/proms? Seems like a bad reason to build a ship. I can't figure out a realistic fleet composition in which they are better than anything else.

What does everyone else think of these two ships?
Title: Re: Erebus and Moros
Post by: wesnalk on May 19, 2013, 02:00:14 AM
i like the idea of a moros but your right on with the erebus the curetes throws everything out of sync since it only costs 2k ore/crystal the players massing them are able to stay under the rsp cap not to mention defense ships like zeus and thanes are useless when some1 has 40k curetes
Title: Re: Erebus and Moros
Post by: Vastet on May 19, 2013, 02:40:50 AM
Yeah I miss the Apollo a lot. It was a specialised ship, but it had its uses.
The Erebus is at least twice as specialised. Only mass Curetes or Hephs are worth building them for. But why build tonnes of them when the Moros does the same job a dozen times better at the cost of a little speed? I've really tried to give the Erebus a chance, but it seems like you need tens of thousands of them before they start doing the kind of damage you want them to. Which isn't cost efficient. Too much rf against them. Better off with Moros.
Title: Re: Erebus and Moros
Post by: Zarchne on May 19, 2013, 09:50:23 AM
I am glad the Apollo is gone.  Getting rid of it has the effect of boosting the Posie, which has needed it since forever.  Absent the Curetes, an Apollo-Artemis swarm was too powerful, but on the other hand, Curetes needed something to counterbalance it.  I think Erebus (in addition to Moros) is a good replacement for the Apollo, not that it does what the Apollo did, but that it works better for the overall ship balance.  Erebus is vastly better than Empusa.  Am I building Erebus?  No.  Would I build Apollo if they were available?  Yes, because of the Atlases that show up in huge numbers in territories at times.  But I am very glad that no one else can build them.

If you really want to hate on Erebus, consider this:  suppose a fleet of old-fashioned ships, like Arties, happens upon a vast number of probes.  Depending on the Weapons power of the attack fleet and the Hull of the probes, each ship in the attacking fleet will destroy, on average, up to 5 probes per round.  (With Arties and equal AWS it's closer to 2.5 probes per round, but anything stronger, up to Proms, quickly approaches 5.)  Moros destroy 3 probes per round.  Erebus... maybe won't destroy any.
Title: Re: Erebus and Moros
Post by: Vastet on May 19, 2013, 01:18:24 PM
I think it would be a better fighter if you scrap the 3 shots (which its power is too low to take advantage of), and just double or triple the base damage for a single shot per round.
And cut the fuel cost.