Fighters should pay support!
 

Alright, so I'm playing against the earth alliance, among others, and the EA has over 900 fighters! He has no more ships than anybody else but he's kicking their butt.
No, I propose that each fighter has to pay some minimal upkeep. A percentage of it's build cost each turn would be fair, don't you think?

When you think about it logically, everything in the game that can move under its' own power has to pay support costs. I don't think fighters should get a free ride.

------------------
Know what a wish sandwich is? That's two pieces of bread....and you WISH you had some meat!

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elwood Bluze:
Alright, so I'm playing against the earth alliance, among others, and the EA has over 900 fighters! He has no more ships than anybody else but he's kicking their butt.
No, I propose that each fighter has to pay some minimal upkeep. A percentage of it's build cost each turn would be fair, don't you think?

When you think about it logically, everything in the game that can move under its' own power has to pay support costs. I don't think fighters should get a free ride.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely.

Most folks seriously under-rate fighters. But if you make all your colonies build them, pretty soon you have a few hundred defending each system. There isn't really any need to build carriers until you go on the offense. Just ship the fighters in whatever transport you have available to a planet in another system. Transfer them to the planet. Then, the planet can launch 1000 per turn.

I have determined that point defense cannons are pretty worthless against fighters if you play tactical. Just englobe the ship with the point defense and keep attacking it until the PD Cannons are destroyed. I doubt this is how it works. But with my tons and tons of fighters, it's hard to keep track of when the PD cannons fire. They *HAVE* to be firing even if neither my fighters or the ship with the PD cannons move. But sometimes it sure does seem they aren't firing.

IMHO, PD cannons just don't cut it against the numbers of fighters I'm building. No, until the AI acquires the (very hard to implement) ability to dynamically react to the types of ships you are building and start mass producing higher tech fighters to combat my fighters, using fighters is going to be one sure way of beating the AI.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

Actually the trade off isn't moving vs paying support its between being able to upgrade and paying support. Bases pay support and they don't move. If fighters are changed to pay maintaince then they will have to change to being upgradable also.

I haven't had the problems you encounter with fighters. Especially if I play tactical. Sure the fighters on a planet might wipe out my first fleet that visits them if they take me by surprise but after that my PD will take them out easily. I will just build enough to take them out. That is if I would let them sit long enough to build that many fighters in the first place. I never see that many fighters on a planet how many turns into the game are we talking about 200? Even if I play in a large quadrant my games never seem to Last that long.

Now fighters vs the AI in tactical yes you can overwelm them because they are not prepared for that type of battle. If you mod the txt files to account for that then they will have a better chance. But there are a lot of different ways to overwelm the AI, fighters may not even be the easiest way to do that but it definately will work. You can overwelm the AI with mines, satellites, missles, or escorts if you want to http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 28 January 2001).]

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tomgs:
I never see that many fighters on a planet how many turns into the game are we talking about 200? Even if I play in a large quadrant my games never seem to Last that long.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he probably saw that the EA has 900 units in the score.

A single planet can output around 8 small fighters per turn. So, ten turns later, that is 160 fighters just on one planet. Probably, the EA has lots more than 900 fighters since someone in another thread thinks each group counts as one unit.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Now fighters vs the AI in tactical yes you can overwelm them because they are not prepared for that type of battle. If you mod the txt files to account for that then they will have a better chance. But there are a lot of different ways to overwelm the AI, fighters may not even be the easiest way to do that but it definately will work. You can overwelm the AI with mines, satellites, missles, or escorts if you want to http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we start another topic so I can hear more? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

I like fighters better than these other ways because:

1. Fighters don't pay maintenance.
2. They move themselves.
3. You can easily move them back and forth between the planet surface and orbit.
4. They can be used both defensively *and* offensively.
5. Fighters can leave orbit from several planets and attack targets inside the solar system without the need to use a carrier.

Reasons against Satellites, mines and escorts:

A. Satellites - Until the game puts these between enemy ships and the planet, these lack somewhat when used for planetary defence. They are pretty awesome when you deploy them by a wormhole. The strategy of deploying them in a tactical turn seems to work quite well also. Mainly, I'm just too lazy to move them around. Although, I do favor a medium satellite armed with a heavy Polaron V, sensors and a shield.

B. Mines - The biggest thing I hate about mines it that once you deploy them from the planet, you then have to pick them up with a mine layer ship. With either fighters or satellites, you can make a lot of planets build them each turn. When the cargo starts getting full, just launch them into orbit. Then, when a transport comes to pick them up, after you transfer the ones from planetary storage, you just make the planet recover what's in orbit and repeat the transfer. But you can't do that with mines.

C. Escorts... Fighters don't pay support. Even with mines and satellites, you have to pay maintenance on the 'Layer' ships. When using fighters for pure defense, you don't even need carriers. Plus, you can build fighters on every planet. You can even build fighters on a brand new colony that doesn't have any facilities.

Err... I guess you figured out that I love fighters even more than the Earth Alliance. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tomgs:
Actually the trade off isn't moving vs paying support its between being able to upgrade and paying support. Bases pay support and they don't move. If fighters are changed to pay maintaince then they will have to change to being upgradable also.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always though the yearly maintenance cost was supposed to represent the expense associated with keeping the ships in operation. If you look at it that way, every unit but mines would require a very small mount of maintenance expense each turn.

For everthing but fighters that expense would be so small you wouldn't notice it. But because fighters *can* move, I would add a maintenance cost into the game for fighters to reflect re-fueling and such.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

Well yes a human can build that many fighters but the AI doesn't seem to. Yes I have played the mod but even though it builds more fighter than normal I have never seen that many in one place.

About the best strategy to overwelm the AI I will just say any strategy will work if you outproduce the AI. This is more important than what method you use to overwelm it. I don't worry about paying maintence because I can build ships at every world availiable every turn and not run out of resources. So what benifit is it to not pay maintence? More minerals in my storage bins? Yes fighters work well but I would rather use ships and not have to click so many times in the fights. Its easier with a few big ships than 100's of fighters and the results are the same in the end.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

Thanks for your replies so far. A few more points I'd like to make:

1) Platforms don't pay maintenance either.

2) A single Light Cruiser with polarons 4s, Shield 4s, contra-terrenes, etc, in my game has to pay 2112, 25, and 465 in upkeep.
A group of 15 fighters with the firepower that can easily take it out pays: 0

3) My point is that it's not realistic to have massive Groups of fighters for free. There has to be maintenance paid to reflect fuel, etc.

Maybe this could be implemented by a toggle switch during game setup? That way those who insist on getting fighters for free can do so...?

------------------
Know what a wish sandwich is? That's two pieces of bread....and you WISH you had some meat!

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

Yes, I have mentioned this before as well. Its a capacity that can easily be abused IMO. 900 is NOTHING compared to what it CAN be.

I think there should definately be some sort of small upkeep on Fighters/Sats/Mines...maybe 4%/2%/2% or somesuch. Best case scenario is that it is an adjustable number like Ship maintenance.

Groundbased units I'm not as concerned with as they are limited by the Cargo capacity of the planets as well as being generally helpless vs a Fleet. A 1% upkeep couldnt hurt IMO, but I dont think its really necessary.

As others have stated, Fighters are easily dealt with if you build LARGE numbers of PD ships, but then again, THOSE ships DO cost upkeep. So in any equal resource fight (over time, including upkeep), the Fighter player will always have the advantage IMO. His 'Ships of the Line (or Wall http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif ) will be better equipped or more numerous as his opponent is force to deal with the maintenance free fighters as well. Any way you look at it, Fighters are quite a bargain.

Now if you could only BUILD them at Shipyards or specialized facilities, they might be less attractive, but as it is now, any old planet can crank them out in obscene numbers without really burdening your econ.

So, here's another vote (again) for a user definable upkeep cost for Fighters (and any other units). It cant hurt if its an option. People who dont want it just switch it off.

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

I wouldn't mind if fighters needed to pay upkeep I just think they are so vunerable to PD as to be not as big a factor as you think. In a human vs human game yes fighters would be more valuable and maybe when the TCP/IP patch gets here I will change my mind. Vs the AI I have never been that bothered by them. Sure its an annoyance to lose that first ship to them if I don't expect them to be around a planet but thats all it is. And I would rather not be bothered to build a lot them vs the AI (I have used them extensively before and the micromanagement in tactical and logistics really isn't worth the free maintaince to me).

I usually win the games more by economics and research than by anything else. Sure I fight the battles but I am usually raking in a lot more resources than the AI so maintaince isn't a factor.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

Excuse me, but unless I mis-read the title to this thread wrong, I do not think that fighters should "pay" support.

On behalf of the fighters, I would like to point out that they already are tapped to the maximum, and another fee would break them finacially as well as morally.

Please vote NO on the Fighter Tax. Thank you.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

I prefer the way it is with no maintenance cost for fighters because:
- To use fighters really efficiantly you need carriers, which cost maintenance.
- In a combat with fighters you will almost always loose some units, which have to be replaced and will therefore cost you resources. Not to mention the effort to bring them from the colonies to the front line. With ships it is very well possible to win a battle without losses, or even if you get damaged ships, you can repair them for free.
However as usual the best solution to this debate would be as proposed to have values in the settings file for all units separately, where you may choose the maintenance cost from 0% to whatever you like.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

Besides, "ships can't take out fighters" Then why are you building ships? You respond with fighters, and lot's of fiighters. I've go fighter squads protecting almost everyone of my systems, but that's all I can do with them. If the AI was smart enough to send in all at once instead of 1 ship each 2 turn, my fighters wouldn't pickle them

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I vote NO

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

I also agree. Fighters are not capital ships. Carriers are used to fuel and maintain these vehicles. Reference any WWII movie or the history channel. I have yet to see a fighter stay in the air for more then 5 days let alone a year or two. I think fighters are fine the way they are.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

The problem seems to be that the AI can't handle when you use large numbers of fighters defensively. When you are on the offense with fighters, you are limited by the need to build & maintain the carriers and transport replacement fighters to the front. Fighters are not a problem for humans, because they just adapt. The AI, though, can't deal with the defensive strategy of a human having every planet build fighters continuously and launch them.

Other than maintenance, there are a few ways to deal with this:

1) Make fighters have to land in the same strategic turn in which they were launched, like fights in Civilization, Empire, etc... This would require a change in the current system in which they can't move on the system map in the turn of launch, which would in turn require the program to track which had already moved that turn. However, it would no longer need to track fuel so this should be a wash, programming-wise. This would limit the fighters in a system to what would fit in planetary cargo.

2) Eliminate the ability to launch fighters from planets. I think this one could be done as a mod, without programming changes. In conjunction with this, a programming change could make it possible to put fighter bays on WP's. That would not really solve the problem, though, as you could still launch the fighters and stack them up in space infinitely. Just eliminating the planetary launch ability would also let you keep piling them up in space, but you'd be forced to build a base at every planet with enough fighter bays to launch one turn's worth of production. #1 is a better and more realistic solution.

3) House rule - this is an "AI can't deal with human strategy" issue, so just don't use that strategy,

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raynor:
I have determined that point defense cannons are pretty worthless against fighters if you play tactical. Just englobe the ship with the point defense and keep attacking it until the PD Cannons are destroyed. I doubt this is how it works. But with my tons and tons of fighters, it's hard to keep track of when the PD cannons fire. They *HAVE* to be firing even if neither my fighters or the ship with the PD cannons move. But sometimes it sure does seem they aren't firing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's probably because they aren't firing. They only fire when the ship they are on move or something they can fire at move. So if you surround the ship with pdc's so it can't move and don't move any fighters in range of the pdc's the pdc's won't fire. Silly, but that's the way it is.

As for fighters paying maintainance, I think they should. But not much. Make it an option at game setup and the amount being payed editable in settings.txt.

And I like Bills idea about fighters having to land somewhere the same turn as they are launched. Or maybe the next turn. Maybe an advanced life support system could enable that. It just doesn't make sense to me that you can park some fighters on a warp point or in orbit for 50 years without the pilots dying.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Q:
I prefer the way it is with no maintenance cost for fighters because:
- To use fighters really efficiantly you need carriers, which cost maintenance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To use them offensively in a system where you do not have a colony, yes, you need a carrier. Otherwise, you don't. I think the key reason why I think fighters should pay support is their ability to leave orbit en masse, group together in a huge fleet, and attack enemy ships inside the system.

Of course, the main reason I want them to pay maintenance is because I have fun using them. But I've gotten so good that I feel like I'm cheating. If I don't have to start paying some sort of maintenance, I'll have to voluntarily stop using them... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

Mah fellow galaxians.... let them pay maintenance instead of support, then. No supportation without maintenancation!

------------------
Elwood Bluze

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

This is another case of the difference between a human and an AI making problems for game play. Only a human knows how to mass fighters cleverly, at least right now. I think the best idea so far is to limit the time they can spend away from a "dock" of some kind. Change them to be automatically destroyed if not recovered a certain number of strategic turns after launch and many of these problems are reduced. Especially the bit about building them and pushing them out into space until you've got 10 times the planet's/base's capactiy sitting there in the sector.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

It would be also nice if the AI would launch fighters in orbit as they are built, just like he does with satellites.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

First, I'd like to say I support unit maintenance. I like the separate definable categories in the Settings file. I don't think mines should pay maint. tho, I just think they should have a really low percent chance of dying each turn in space.

I also think fighters need limited "flight" time. It could easily be done by adding two abilities and placing them on the fighter bodies.

1) Unit uses supply every turn. Fill in a number for this ability and every turn that unit/ship uses that many supplies, whether or not it moves.

2) Unit destroyed when out of supplies. Simple, when it runs out of supplies, it dies.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

I like BarnacleBill's idea of a "fighter base" on the planet. Maybe take this further, and force fighters to be stored in fighter bays, not as generic "cargo". The planetary fighter base would be a facility (not a weapon platform) that had a specific capacity and launch rate. You could even set it up so the only place to BUILD fighters was at a planetary fighter base, and/or a specific shipyard-type component; this "fighteryard" could only build fighters (and maybe satellites), not ships or mines or WPs.

This would force us to make more strategic decisions about using fighters (instead of maintenance cost, we're using facility spaces and/or building expensive bases in space).

BTW - if we're going to force fighters to use supply every turn, we should probably make ships use supply every turn as well. As it is now, I can park ships in remote places for long periods of time, which makes just as little sense as parking fighters for long periods of time. I'm willing to accept that a base doesn't need resupply, since the base hull probably includes the ability to turn life support components into self-sustaining life support systems...

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

These are some great ideas.

I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for ships to sit idle for years on end without using at least *some* support.

I missed it earlier when BarnacleBill suggested a WEP or facility that hosts fighters. The idea of a fighter base is pretty interesting.

I also like someone's idea to make the fighters land again every turn. The idea to make them die when they run out of supplies is similarly excellent.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

What about facilities? They should cost some amount of upkeep on each planet.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SunDevil:
What about facilities? They should cost some amount of upkeep on each planet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a very interesting idea.

I think it might make the game over complicated, though. Right now, the only set of screens which show maintenance are the Ship/Fleet screens. Fighters are already listed here. So, if you made them require support it would be easy to find that on a list somewhere. But adding a maintenance cost to each facility on a planet... where would you display that information without a major change to the program?

I'm not saying it is a bad idea. It's actually rather good. But maybe for simplicity's sake, we could just pretend that each 'Mineral Miner I' actually brings in 810 minerals each turn but the other 10 go to pay for this building's maintenance.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raynor:
That's a very interesting idea.

I think it might make the game over complicated, though. Right now, the only set of screens which show maintenance are the Ship/Fleet screens. Fighters are already listed here. So, if you made them require support it would be easy to find that on a list somewhere. But adding a maintenance cost to each facility on a planet... where would you display that information without a major change to the program?

I'm not saying it is a bad idea. It's actually rather good. But maybe for simplicity's sake, we could just pretend that each 'Mineral Miner I' actually brings in 810 minerals each turn but the other 10 go to pay for this building's maintenance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think facilities do pay maintnance. not from your resource pool of course, but they require a certain pop level to support a facility. thats not just people working on the facility, thats the taxes, resources, whatever, that those people generate that support that facility. its sort of abstracted, so there is not a need for further resource cost. i guess.

Re: Fighters should pay support!
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
i think facilities do pay maintnance. not from your resource pool of course, but they require a certain pop level to support a facility. thats not just people working on the facility, thats the taxes, resources, whatever, that those people generate that support that facility. its sort of abstracted, so there is not a need for further resource cost. i guess.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a line in the settings.txt file which reads Population requird to operate facility. It defaults to 50 so I think it isn't being used. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

(Otherwise, those huge worlds would require 50 x 25 = 1250 Million people to operate all 25 facilities...)