Last post where I talked about how Tech 1 frigates and cruisers are mostly outclassed by their Tech II equivalents prompted this comment from Alasseo who seems determined to keep me honest:
That said, I do take some issue with your suggestion that t2 cruisers are winnage. With the exception of the Falcon, Rapier, and Huginn, they've either been nerfed into oblivion (hello pilgrim, lach) or absurdly outclassed by cheaper and/or cloaky ships (hello rook, every hac except sac and vaga and a muninn if you try REALLY HARD).
Well, I feel the need to respond. Here is what I said near the beginning of my post:
Their more advanced counterparts are superior in every way. They tank better, do more damage, have better range and abilities, and are even usually faster. One can argue that the higher cost is the balancing point except... well... it isn't. Tech II ships are not that expensive for the increase in performance they give and every pilot worth his salt knows it.It may not be clear, but what I meant is that when given the choice between a Tech 1 cruiser and its corresponding Tech II variant, most pilots will choose the Tech II version due to the increase in power and the fact that the higher price is not a stumbling block. The fact that some Tech II cruisers are outclassed by other Tech II cruisers is another point entirely and not what I was posting about.
Now he is right that many Tech II cruisers are outclassed by cheaper battlecruisers or other Tech II cruisers as I discussed here and here for Caldari to the point where only a handful of them are seen in low sec and 0.0 with any great frequency (usually the Force Recons with their Covert Ops Cloak and Electronic Warfare).
But if you really want a cruiser based Railgun platform, your choice is the Moa and Eagle and barring being really really broke and no time to get some ISK, you will choose the Eagle. Unless of course, its a suicide mission. Then all bets are off.