On the subject of CIG’s previous neutering of the Warden in response to Arena Commander complaints (a X vs. X number of ships arena game where balance matters), and are perhaps restoring the Warden to it’s larger class “rational” prowess in the rework.
Carrying on the discussion from Discord:
Physics would tell us that if a Large Ship (LS) were 3x the size/mass of Small Ship (SS), and LS had 3x the thrust (maneuvering thrusters/main) of SS, the performance of maneuvering each ship would be the same; top speed, turn speed, etc.
Arguing that the small ship can accelerate, travel, turn faster is like saying that (all things being equal relative to exercise and diet) a small person of 4 ft 10 in could turn around quicker than a person 6 ft 4 in. That’s not true. The taller person can turn just as quickly with almost half again the body mass, because the larger scale muscular mass and strength they can turn just as quickly. In fact the larger person has ‘more’ - more lifting power, more capacity to carry more weight farther, more punching strength, more … can generally rip the little guy to pieces. A different class of capabilities.
In the ship, the LS has 3x the hull/armor such that the SS ballistic ammo may at some point no longer penetrate it, bounce off it, while in kind, the LS’s larger ballistics can not only go through the SS’s hull armor, but can literally tear it apart like a car running over road kill. 3x the mass, 3x the space for 3x the power plants, 3x other space for add’l equipment (such as if a scanning ship, a 315p’s capabilities to scan is not balanced to be equal vs a Carrack’s capabilities; Carrack is ‘more’), 3x the shield strength/thickness to break through and again the SS weaponry may be repelled entirely… 3x.
It’s not a balance for equality, but rather, it’s a different class of ship. The small ship has it’s role. Again, in remote regions, a carrier may provide firepower support by carrying SS + MS where no base, fuel, repairs are otherwise available, bringing those squadrons where no squadrons normally are or can otherwise be supported; so now there is supported firepower thanks to the carrier.
Anywhere, if you are a warden, and there’s two enemy squadrons of small fighters, which side would you rather be? Is the small fighter useless in a 6 v 1 scenario? Is a single cop useless against a crew of bank robbers? He’s less useless in that situation when 5 other cops arrive on the scene. Which side would you rather be; the Warden or the two squadrons? Hard to say, given missile capabilities (larger missiles with larger drives to move them) vs. many other factors. But I’d probably want to be the two squadrons personally.
The PU is not about 1v1 irrational balance to equality. It’s not mortal combat with balancing special powers. It’s not rational to say, “I wish that small ships were as important and proficient in battle as their bigger counterparts, and because I wish it, it should be so.” One’s wishes and physics don’t match; are irrational.
An interceptor is an interceptor because it’s mass and engines are proportionally designed to deliver speed and strike. But here when speaking in general to larger fighters vs. smaller fighters, it’s not the same thing. Here we’re saying that all design aspects being relatively equal (role), that a large interceptor is more powerful (superior in combat) than a small interceptor. Both in that case designed for speed and strike, the large interceptor is superior to the small interceptor, but costs more, costs more to operate and repair, to refuel, but if one were to face the other, I’d want to be the large interceptor, because factoring out pilot skill it will win.
A battle between 10 Wardens and 10 Hornets; I definitely want to be the 10 Wardens; pilot skills and leadership being equal. They’re a different class of ship. But the PU is not about 10 vs 10. It’s not an arena arcade game.
We know at some point CIG is factoring this all in, that small ships vs Capital ships, the shields just swat away the small firepower. This should be true across all classes of ships to degrees of variance in kind. As a matter of combat ships- relative to size class - it is perfectly reasonable for different size classes of combat ships to have the same top speed, afterburner speed, turn speeds; whether an 325a, a Retaliator, or a Polaris. CIG muddies the comparative waters in that the Polaris is not identical to the Retaliator in design (the Polaris is not just a larger Retaliator; looking the same, scaled up weapons), of course not. So direct comparables are not apparent in looking at scaled up classes of ships, but relatively, generally, “class ups” of ships, scaled up in drives, power plants, shield generators, weapon classes… should be just as fast, as nimble, as their smaller counterparts. That’s physics.
Edit: caveat being unless CIG says that drives 3x larger are not 3x the thrust, but that there’s some diminishing returns in effectiveness of larger drives.
It’s all rather about situational superiority when facing combat - in numbers of ships, classes of ships, that can rationally be planned given rational threat assessments, costs and profit margins (when the latter matters; commerce vs. military scenarios). In other words, you don’t bring the Idris, or even the Warden out, when the fighter or two gets the job done. That’s rational. Can’t say how rational it will be since it’s in CIG’s hands and they’ve already once neutered rational with the Warden. But to say, “every ship should be balanced for equal trade offs with other ships” as if this is an arena game, as if physics doesn’t apply across different classes of ships… I say, “foul.”