Average boarding actions torps vs thunderhawks

[Hallbregg]

Hi Guys! I made this chart average assault actions of torps vs thunderhawks (with refueling system) per minute as a function of the turrets of the objective, and I thought it might be usuful for others!

[RedDevilCG]

So 1 on 1, Thunderhawks are more useful but as turret coverages start overlapping it's better to use torps?

[Hallbregg]

well, if there is turret overlaping nothing it going to get through, but mass torps are better as the turret count goes up. For low turret count both ar are pretty good. In general thunderhawks are only better vs lc, which combined with the higher cost of strike cruiser mk1 plus the infinite range of torps make, imo, mk2 is the better option in all cases.

[Beernchips]

Take also in account that :
- Thunderhawks have 12k range and torps infinite
- Thunderhawks can remove enemy fighter screen
- Homing torps can go inside and outside turret range so turrets can be factored many times against them
- Homing torps can be intercepted by your own ships
- Torps have the standard launcher which don t require line of sight or which very effective at close range damage dealer

[Scorch715]

I think its mostly going to come down to personal preference really. I've got a thing for the Mk1 strike cruiser just because it fits my idea of what the strike cruiser 'should' be, e.g. assault ship and marine transport. Combined with Thunderhawk durability and anti fighter ability, I always choose Mk1s.

But given the low dps of marine ships, having a torp launcher to shotgun people with at close range could also be very helpful, and if you're trying to kite and manage to keep the foe spotted beyond 12k (fixed beacons presumably) then the range of the homing torps could be very useful too