This image from TRS really sums up why the Hound still isn't as effective a straight-line interceptor as it should be:



The IDF has 235N of turbo thrust, but only weighs 2900kg (12.34 Kg/N); the Hound has a hefty 350N of turbo thrust but weighs in at 5000kg despite its thin armor (14.29 Kg/N).

The fix is simple, buff the Hound's turbo thrust to 450 (11.11 Kg/N). While it will enhance the ship's ability to chase down a target, it won't alter its lousy combat thrust, spin torque, or armor, so any balance issue is eliminated.

Support.

+1

+1 but too much of an increase... i'd say a 20% increase in turbo thrust would suffice.

No. The reason the thrust isn't what you say is because the Hound has not only infiniturbo, but regenerative turbo. The valk cannot do that, nor hold its speed forever.

Why does it matter what the valk has, the hound is supposed to catch things and kill them. This will allow it to do so a little better.

Someone tell me why a straight-line interceptor reaching peak speed X seconds faster than it did before is problematic enough to break into the predictable VO whine of X is just too OP, we need only 20% of X?

Nobody's chasing down a Hound as it is now, and this won't alter its combat ability. The only thing it will do is make it close on a distant, running target faster. Which is what it's supposed to do in the first place.

+1

This is why it matters what the valk has. BECAUSE WE'RE COMPARING IT TO THE VALK:

"
The IDF has 235N of turbo thrust, but only weighs 2900kg (12.34 Kg/N); the Hound has a hefty 350N of turbo thrust but weighs in at 5000kg despite its thin armor (14.29 Kg/N).
"

That doesn't mean it matters, or its excessive or unnecessary. The damn thing costs more than the Valk, why shouldn't it be a lot better.

Lecter, because the hound is fine as it is, really.

Kierky makes a fine point re: valks.

And valks (at least the higher end ones) should cost more than they do.

The Hound should, in this narrow area, be better than the Valk. I await someone telling me why the contrary is true other than the bland assertion the Hound is "fine" as it is.

Ship mass/thrust ratios should always be compared *as equipped* for common loadouts. None of the ships mentioned here are worth a damn with empty ports, and the valk's stats look at lot less pretty once it's got 1500kg of weapons hanging off of it.

+1

Ship mass/thrust ratios should always be compared *as equipped* for common loadouts.

As opposed to a Sun/MP or a HX/Jack 'Hound? Ha.

Yeah, that's fine. I'm just pointing out that dry weight comparisons don't reflect actual performance.

Given any number of workable loadouts, dry weight is the only objective comparison.

Well, ARF does have a point. The low weight of the Valk is one of its greatest assets, but it is mitigated somewhat when weapons are added. Since the relative weight increase of say 1500kg worth of weapons is bigger for the valk than for the hound, the valk is slightly less impressive when compared like that.

Let's assume a conservative 1500kg of equipment for both ships (e.g. HX+Jack vs 3xAAP). Then, the stats are:

IDF: 235N / (2900 + 1500) = .053 N/kg
Hound: 350 / (5000 + 1500) = .054 N/kg

So, the two actually have comparable trust/mass for a decent loadout. However:

+1 OP. The hound should be *better* at linear interception, not as good as a nimble combat ship.

Whether it should be 450N or a bit less I find difficult to say, but since the hound sucks at combat I think it would be OK to give it 450N. Note that a 20% increase is 420N, so that doesn't really matter all that much.

Fuck, make it 600N - all that does is make it go from 60m/s to 220m/s very damn fast. So what? That's what it's supposed to be superlative at doing.

450N is fine. 600N is overpowered and gives traders no chance in hell.