Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Having played this game for 5 years now, I am convinced that Fighters are broken and just about useless. Specifically, I only play TDM Mod pack, single player but I believe this applies to just about every SEIV game.

I. Fighters in a stack can only shoot at one enemy ship. This is totally unfair to fighters. Satellites don't seem to work this way, why fighters? Is there a setting for this that I can change? I've had a stack of 1000+ fighters that can only shoot one ship per turn.

II. Fighters in a stack have damage flow from one to the next. Again, totally unfair. If a battleship has 5 weapons, it should only be able to destroy (at most) 5 fighters.

When you just combine I and II, Fighters against a small fleet of battleships have no chance at all. While a stack of 1000 fighters can destroy only one enemy ship at a time, I've seen battleships destroy as many as 25 fighters each, even though they only had 5 or 6 weapons (including point defence!). 10 battleships in one turn can then destroy 250 fighters, while the fighters cannot destroy as many ships as they should be allowed (probably ALL the battleships if the fighters have 1x 100 point missle and 1x 15 point Small DUAC)

Sure, you could micro manage them yourself and sometimes this helps, but its a nightmare of micromanagement and doesn't do much to stop number 2.

Can these be changed?

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

It's hard to say they're inbalanced, though, given several game mechanics in their favor.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Well hi Iron Giant http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I have some answers for yah I think http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

To answer your first quesiton no you can't alter your fighters to attack multiple ships because it is assumed they are acting in squadron level (makes no sense for 1 fighter to be able to hurt a capship)

1. Don't stack 1,000 fighters I stack at most 20 heavy fighters and find that MUCh more versatile especially with rocket packs.
Why on EARTH you would stack 1,000 fighters is beyond me and I didn't even know THAT was possible http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

2. Wrong again here, think about the size involved and in late game the weapons a beam slashing across a fighter group should be able to kill an entire fighter swarm if you have good sensors. It's a good balance and ensures if you use fighters you need to think before you swarm.

As far as fighters against a small fleet of battleships having no chance again wrong "depending on what you arm your fighters with."

You simply need to go for smaller squadrons instead of one UBERSTACK.

In my current game (the one my story is about) I repeatedly sliced through entire Phong Capital ship squadrons with small fast fighter squadrons of my own until shield tech came about and my PDF fighters became obsolete.

So many years later (game wise and about a year later RL wise) I designed a heavy gunship capable of hurting a capital ship, in fact 5 of my new gunships can destroy an SD. However they are only capship killers and would get eaten alive by fighters.

My advice to you is arm your fighters with rocket packs to act more like "bombers" then fighters.

If you want FIGHTERS go for guns and use these only to cover your bombers else wise you might as well not build sub-capital ships at all.

Also don't rely on fighters on a planet to save your butt unless that planet has weapon platforms, fighters are NOT meant to act on their own.

This isn't star wars or WWII where fighters have an uber advantage over cap ships SEIV is much more "realistic" in the sense that fighters and cap ships would in RL both move in 3 dimensions and have roughly equal maneuverability (given the proper engine/mass ratios). So a fighter cant just "dive bomb" a ship and get away with it.

A fighter in SEIV requires heavy guns or at least a mothership to back them up and get them close to the enemy before launch elsewise it's like sending an army of ants against a beatle with a flame thrower.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Such as?

Getting 1000 Fighters together in one place is a logistical nightmare. It is far less work (and research) to put together a handful of capital ships with Point Defence V. Am I missing something? Can (at least) those 2 settings be made fair?

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Fighters are not a logistical nightmare if you use them properly read my above post.

As far as their advantages:

Fighters= Cheaper, faster, harder to hit, more economical for planetary defense in force and properly supported.

Capital ships: Heavy firepower, expensive, slower, can't be everywhere at once, not good to use in groups smaller then 3 (in my experience). Can be easily seen at range (you can't ambush an enemy fleet in orbit of a planet).

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Posted while you were typing...

Ok, but when I'm putting fighters together over a planet, they mostly group together in a large force. How can I stop this? If I have a group of battleships, I set the formation and the tactics and have reasonable success. Again, its not fair to fighters that it is required to micromanage them to get them to work as designed, imho.

I have alleviated this somewhat by trying to use my fighters with their carriers so the carriers will launch them in smaller groups. But again, not fair. if I want to launch 1000 fighters from a carrier group and have them rampage through a system, I should not be forced to micromanage them.

Also, I hear what you are saying about "late game weapons should be able to destroy multiple fighters because of weapons advances, etc" and I disagree. The size of a weapon beam will never come close to the distances between objects in space. See "The Universe" in the Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I still don't think damage should flow. you said that fighters cannot shoot more than one object (unfair) and that can't be fixed, can damage flow be fixed?

Thanks for the tactical help, I'll try to include more bombers than fighters. My next gripe though is how much they can carry... But I would be content to fix these 2 issues...

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Dock them at planet then order the planet to launch fighters ONLY IN COMBAT and launch them in groups of 20.
It's not quite "Micromanagement" anymore then controling that many capital ships would be it's just that instead of 1 capship you get 1 fightersquad of 20 fighters. If you want booste it up to 50 but that's uber overkill with rocket packs.

Yeah that's your problem buddy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Fighters are NOT system conquering tools they are FLEET engagement tools, if you want to send them against a planet keep them IN the carrier until that carrier is attacking said planet. Don't launch the fighters beforehand as it also uses up supplies in shedloads and can get you fragged.

A fighter squad won't even be able to take on late game planetary defenses, yeah a thousand MIGHT be able to do it but you'd lose so many that sending in a capital ship fleet would be more effective, less time and resource consuming and cheaper.

Fighters would still need to be "tightly packed" to effect a capital ship so a REAL warship firing a beam weapon into a squadron type formation SHOULD be able to do a "sweep" against the fighters thus destroying more then one at any time.

Not unfair, balanced if you had 1,000 fighters and it took 1,000 guns to beat them jack squat could stop you. Think of capital ships firing their guns at you as a "wash" effect over a squadron, ships would go BOOM in great numbers.
Also if you want to look at it this way think "AAA" in the form of pulsing the energy cannon against multiple fighters.

However you want to view it a cap ship killing only 1 fighter with EVERY shot is pathetic and unbalanced for that matter fighters in space is a stupid idea that will likely never happen for so many reasons it ain't funny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Odds are they'd be more like large torpedo boats from WWII.

Can't fix what ain't broken http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif You still need to realize that unless you play carrier battles mod FIGHTERS are not system conquest tools and nor should they be. Would you surrender to a fighter squadron? Uh no, for that matter most planets would have so much AAA fire a fighter FLEET would and should be toasted easily.

You don't like how much they carry lol the largest ones in Devnull carry FRIGATE level firepower if you put rocket pods on them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Heck design your own fighter if you want. But you still should realise that a capital ship should NEVER be beaten by less then a SWARM of fighters. And by swarm I mean several squadrons or a full carrier load.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Fighters seem to have some uses in the unmodded game, particularly:

* early in the research progression
* in limited resources games
* in other low-resource situations, such as peacetime when fleet maintenance costs limit ship production
* in some late-game situations, to complement drones & seekrs, especially with shields on fighters
* when taking advantage of racial techs like organic components, crystalline system-wide shield reinforcement, and/or small temporal distortion bursts

Starhawk is right that it's therefore more like Star Trek, where captial ships can easily lock on and wipe out fighters.

Mods can address this though, e.g. Proportions Mod 2 and earlier, which can result in something a bit closer to Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica fighter/ship balance. Basically, unmodded PD is too accurate, too strong, and too efficient, unless you want fighters and seekers to become nearly obsolete in the mid-to-late techs. As the author of the venerable Space Empires III "Penultimate" mod commented, it seems like advanced fighters should be fragile but hard to hit, not marginally hard to hit, and simply able to take more damage at higher tech levels. Of course, since fighters are charged little or nothing in terms of maintenance and supplies, one has to be careful to avoid making fighters way too good. Unfortunately in toning fighters down a little in Proportions Mod version 3, I seem to have accidentally over-nerfed them. (Personally, I think Proportions 2.x fighters were about right except they started out really good really early.)

PvK

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Yeah fighters are mainly in my early games a fast response force used for frontier protection while my fleet maint can't afford large formations of capital ships or Orbital fortresses.

A buddy of mine designed a mega fortress that can carry I think he said 500 heavy corvettes which are about 50 kt I think.

Anyway my own carrier design can carry 100+ gunships which are all 75kt they are expensive as all get out and could not be built in an unmodded game without taking decades but I love them so far http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Fighters are force multipliers if used right, if used poorly they are scrap metal and a waste of good pilots http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

If you really want to be inventive use a "shield fighter" like I've heard of where the entire fighter is only shields and engines and is only designed to take fire from the enemy to save capital ships from taking that fire.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Your preconceptions should not force me to be unable to manage fighter stacks in space. Further, I would be inclined to say that you are wrong simply because fighters can move through space within a system of their own power. They can definitely be "system conquering tools." Fighter management was simply coded poorly in SE4.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

I believe the problem isn't that PDC is too strong(*), but fighters are too weak, and, more specifically, have a very hard defence vs damage balance. Those fighters are also expensive (particularly to research to high levels), and logistics for are a nightmare. Since you must gather thousands of them in any serious battle, getting enough Fighter Bays to do that is going to be tough. They make a very nice defence taskforce when set at a wormhole ward, though.

* PDC has a mere 3.5 damage ratio (damage/kt), where most other weapons are around the 1.5/2 mark, and aren't restricted in their targetting. PDC cannot be mounted, unlike those other weapons, so a heavy-mounted APB XII deals exactly as much damage per kt as PDC, and is always useful. PDC does get a +70 bonus to targetting however, whereas a ship will standard training and components will only fire at 65% accuracy. I am assuming the fighters are in a fleet of their own (seems reasonable enough), but that they also have ECM III: that seems less likely, given how much research is needed for those things.

So yeah, PDC is very strong when you don't have anything else, but I think it is pretty much balanced in the middle game: it is better than the APB at taking down fighters, but it doesn't do anything against ships. Seems fair enough to me.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

The biggest factor that makes PDC way too strong is the autofiring.
Even if your fighters get the jump on the enemy, they will still get raped before they can start to fight back.


For good fighters, try Carrier Battles mod! (Humans only, see PBW for open games)

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

That +70% PDC bonus stacks with the +65% CS, I think.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Dark Nova Mod takes these things into account as well. I've reduced the range of PDC as well as added several other options for PD weapons. Fighters have also been bolstered with more sizes, more mounts (including extended ranges) and additional things to boost their speeds.

In effect, there are trade-offs from the choice of PD weapons and choice of fighters. Seems to work pretty well.

And when I use fighters, I deploy them in as small stacks as possible. 20 groups of 5 will absorb much more PD fire than 5 groups of 20 as there are 20 targets rather than only 5 targets.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Yup it does, but anything over 99% isn't going to be helpful. Ships have a +55 bonus in training/components against Fighters (with best training and components), negated by the Fighters own defence bonus: +80, +70 or +60, depending on the hull used for the fighters.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

I really have to agree with Fyron. While I do appreciate the discussion about how to use fighters better, in the mid to late game they are useless. After all the work building, collecting and getting them together in a fleet, the enemy wipes out 1000 fighters with a small handful of capital ships like they are not even there. Total waste.

In a game like SEIV, I should be allowed to come up with my own tactics and carry them through the whole game. Something as big as fighters in the SciFi world should not be relagated to a minor role so quickly. I wouldn't want them to be the ONLY viable tactic, not by far, but now at best they play a minor role, and only that if you heavily micromanage them.

<font color="blue"> So, can those 2 things not be fixed in the current game?</font>

The fact that fighters in a stack only can fire on one ship and damage flowing to multiple fighters in a stack? Can I get hard confirmation that those 2 things can not be fixed? I'll take the advice from others with a smile on my face, but after 5 years of playing this game, I doubt that I'll get any revelation that will lead me to believe that fighters are not broken with these 2 issues.

I really hope fighters are worth something in SEV....

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

The second issue is definetly hard coded and cannot be changed short of changing the code. The first I'm not sure. Is it possible to mod fighters and give them multiplex? Would that have any effect? If so, would that do what you want?

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Yes, multiplex on fighters would fix the stack issue. Too bad about the damage flow, but yea, that would help.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

I think it would help, Al. 135% = 99%, 99%, 99%, 99%, 95%, 85%.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

While I hope for a fix to the first issue, lets talk about cost.

Small fighter - 100 minerals - 15 tons
Escort - 150 minerals - 100 tons
Large fighter - 300 minerals - 25 tons
Destroyer - 300 minerals - 300 tons

Whats up with that? Small fighters start out in the ball park, concidering they don't cost maintenance, but 300 minerals for a Large Fighter? After adding engines, life support, etc, the Large Fighter has barely enough space for a weapon, and only if you don't put a whole lot of anything else in it.

What would you rather have for 300 minerals, a DD or a Large Fighter? I'd call it DD any day.

Sure, I could change that to anything I want, but if I set it too low, it would be out and out cheating against the AI and where is the fun in that?

Does anyone else think this is a very steep cost?

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Fyron "preconception" has nothing to do with it, have you ever considered what I pointed out about the fact that most planets would be so riddled with AAA cannons that fighters would get dusted?

Let's face it a Fighter in and of its self is not something that can ever conquer a system, for that you need indurance and FIREPOWER which fighters lack, how many hours of bombardment would it take for fighters to seriously hurt a planet? Especially a planet with shields and defense platforms (even basic ones).

Now I know your saying "1,000 fighters" consider that against a planet with 8-10 or God forbid a sphereworld with 64 BILLION people do you know how fast those 1,000 puny fighters would get destroyed?

Also since I think a great many players and even a lot of AI have fighter squadrons guarding their worlds you'd have to deal with attrition, sending in your 1,000 fighters against maybe my 100 (per planet) but say my 100 get the drop (I.e get to firing range first) and open up with repeated direct hits, I could very well kill 200+ of your fighters in that one pass.

Now add a weapons platform with their extreme ranges and heavier damage weapons and odds are you'd lose about 500 fighters before getting to the planet.

Now use 100 capital ships you'd probobly lose 10 or even possibly 20 but you'd be in weapons range of both the fighters and the planet sooner and be able to destroy the planet's defenses in a matter of battle turns instead of GAME turns.


Fyron the only way to conquer a system with fighters is if it's a poorly defended frontier system that the guy doesn't much care about protecting in the first place.

Fighters are good in large scale fleet battles supporting capital ships, I can't stress that point enough that you NEED capital ships to be there in most versions of SEIV (including mods) having entire fleets of fighters is rather expensive, time consuming and in the end foolish. Especially because if I get my dreadnought in firing range of your carrier before you can launch any large number of fighters I can blow up HUNDREDS of fighters without them ever leaving their mothership.

I know I sound like one of those old naval 'big guns are best' admirals but in space Big ships would be best just about every way you hack it, fighters or fighter like ships would be too small and have to little fuel and to light of weapons to be of any great risk to capital ships in RL.

The only REAL reason Fighters today have such an advantage is that they can move in three dimensions while ships can only move in two, take that advantage away and the fighters not be so important anymore. I mean if we ever got a flying ship (not saying space saying FLYING) that did not rely on helium or some such explosive material and with decent PD you'd probobly be seeing a steady decline in fighter usage.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

I've just noticed something... what I am arguing exactly? I think I pretty much went astray here. Still, I was only discussing point-blank attacks, where the PDC accuracy bonus is pretty much wasted against most fighter designs: at longer ranges, the +70 starts paying off. Even then though, those fighters are lacking in combat modifiers (no armour, no ship training, ECM/CS that are a lot more limited).

Perhaps you thought I compared these +70 to the CS +65, implying they were separate, instead of working together? Now that I am giving it a closer look, it looks like that was your point.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

It is an interesting point you make, about what real space fighters may or may not be able to do in the real future.

In SEIV I am playing in a fake universe. Sometimes I want to play Space Battleships in my fake universe, sometimes I want to play a race of Super Carriers with powerful fighters.

Regardless of what may happen in the real universe, in my fake universes of SciFi, one guy, in one fighter blew up a small moon http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif In my overall SciFi imagination, Fighters are much more important than they are in SEIV. I still think it should be a viable (NOT the only) option, from beginning game, to end game.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Late game I must admit I did design a "BlackTiger" planet killer fighter in one game. For use on planets where I would rather hit with less then a battle squadron.

Black tigers were heavy fighters loaded out with nothing but shields and planetary napalm and I sent in a few hundred of them and wiped out the defenses of a world in five turns.

Two turns later I sent in a troop ship and two SD escorts and easily took the planet.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Fighters have at least as much multiplex as the count of fighters in the stack.

All of the identical guns in a fighter stack fire as one shot, though. If you put multiple unique weapon components OR mount the weapons differently, the groups of weapons will fire independently.
see: FIG 380: Principles of Interceptor Design

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Iron Giant writes:

"In a game like SEIV, I should be allowed to come up with my own tactics and carry them through the whole game."

Well, I don't think a game designer is under any obligation to ensure that a particular weapons system is useful under all circumstances. In fact, I'd argue that the play is more interesting if players are forced to re-evaluate their design strategies as game tech advances. In any case, it would seem to be a moot issue given the modding possibilities in SE IV.

"The fact that fighters in a stack only can fire on one ship..."

One of many simplifications in the game, and probably not the worst.

"...and damage flowing to multiple fighters in a stack?"

Not necessarily broken; Iron Giant may be taking the game too literally here. The game is a simplified simulation of "real" events. What we see as a single "shot" may be thought of as the composite result of multiple salvoes at multiple targets in a stack.

Another example: In stock the first fighters lost in a stack disappear without a fuss, but the last goes up in a spectacular fireball. So does that mean the last fighter is packing some pyrotechnic device the others aren't, or is it just eye candy to signal the elimination of the stack? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

I think I was asleep or something. That +70% would stack with the 60% ECM.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

And its not even a simplification! A single fighter stack can fire on many many different targets, as long as you give them a good mix of weapons.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

If you remove auto-firing from PDC, you will probably see a huge difference in the results... Another option I like is splitting PDC into at least 2 different weapons: one that targets seekers and one that targets fighters (and possibly drones). PDC is particularly bad because it nerfs both fighters and seekers simultaneously...

Starhawk said:
Fyron "preconception" has nothing to do with it, have you ever considered what I pointed out about the fact that most planets would be so riddled with AAA cannons that fighters would get dusted? ...

If you have no PDC or shields on WPs on the planet, you have absolutuly no AA or other defenses. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Planetary defenses work against fighters just the same as ships.

Who said that fighters have to enter the atmosphere to attack the colony? They can fire their weapons at the surface from orbit just the same as ships (not that this makes much sense beyond specially designed bombs in the first place... but I digress). Also, there is no reason why they could not carry bombs. You do not need a huge vessel to drop nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are getting smaller all the time. I'd imagine you wouldn't need very large shells to carry fusion bombs in 400 years. Fighters would probably be better suited to bombing planets anyways, since they do not present a large tacget to weapons on the ground.

If there are no WPs or other defensive units, the planet is undefended. It doesn't matter how many people there are; they will all die from the bombs.

Having fighter squadrons defending your worlds represents the effort of the people to defend themselves. Once they are gone (and other units), there is nothing stopping the attacking fighters from dropping their bombs.

Fyron the only way to conquer a system with fighters is if it's a poorly defended frontier system that the guy doesn't much care about protecting in the first place.

I'm not really sure what exactly I said that this is contesting. I would say that it is consistent with PDC obliterating fighters easily, however.

Fighters are good in large scale fleet battles supporting capital ships...

I'd assert that they are good for no such things in the stock game. They are way too easy to kill to be worth much. I've defeated many a PBW opponent trying to use fighters, and I do not even recall a single relevant defeat to a fighter-using opponent...

I know I sound like one of those old naval 'big guns are best' admirals but in space Big ships would be best just about every way you hack it, fighters or fighter like ships would be too small and have to little fuel and to light of weapons to be of any great risk to capital ships in RL...

To hell with being able to get forces where you need them on the "battlefield," eh? And being more or less untargetable by big guns, able to zip about to fire missiles at the capital ships, is useless as well? There is a lot more to warfare than just firepower and size...

I mean if we ever got a flying ship (not saying space saying FLYING) that did not rely on helium or some such explosive material and with decent PD you'd probobly be seeing a steady decline in fighter usage.

Just like cruisers and battleships made frigates, PT boats, and destroyers disappear? All navies in the future will necessarily consist of a wide variety of sizes of ships... Bigger is only better for certain roles. Not to mention exponentially more expensive... I don't think flying ships would reduce the number of fighter jets used much at all.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

I will bet that there are at least a 100 posts or threads dealing with the weak arse fighter situation. Its good that the topic keeps coming up.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Just like cruisers and battleships made frigates, PT boats, and destroyers disappear? All navies in the future will necessarily consist of a wide variety of sizes of ships... Bigger is only better for certain roles. Not to mention exponentially more expensive... I don't think flying ships would reduce the number of fighter jets used much at all.

Does not quite fit Fyron a frigate is designed to do different tasks then a destroyer and a cruiser.


I was on a modern Frigate a while and that thing was cool as hell to me but when I stepped aboard an Arleigh Burke (sp?) Destroyer it was obviously a more impressive ship with more numerous weapons and more firepower.

I saw a cruiser and that thing was jaw dropping to me (I've never seen a carrier in person but I hear they'll knock your sox off) But it served a different role in a carrier group then both frigates AND destroyers.

Frigate:
The guided missile frigates (FFG) bring an anti-air warfare (AAW) capability to the frigate mission, but they have some limitations. Designed as cost efficient surface combatants, they lack the multi-mission capability necessary for modern surface combatants faced with multiple, high-technology threats. They also offer limited capacity for growth. Despite this, the FFG 7 class is a robust platform, capable of withstanding considerable damage. This "toughness" was aptly demonstrated when USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and USS Stark was hit by two Exocet cruise missiles. In both cases the ships survived, were repaired and returned to the fleet. USS Stark was decommissioned in May 1999.

The Surface Combatant Force Requirement Study does not define any need for a single mission ship such as the frigate and there are no frigates planned in the Navy's five-year shipbuilding plan.

Destroyers:

Destroyers and guided missile destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants. The addition of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System or Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers (ABLs) to many Spruance-class destroyers has greatly expanded the role of the destroyer in strike warfare.[/b]

Cruisers
Modern U.S. Navy guided missile cruisers perform primarily in a Battle Force role. These ships are multi-mission [Air Warfare (AW), Undersea Warfare (USW), and Surface Warfare (SUW)] surface combatants capable of supporting carrier battle groups, amphibious forces, or of operating independently and as flagships of surface action groups. Cruisers are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles giving them additional long range strike mission capability.[/b]

That comes from http://www.navy.mil/

Anyway my point is Bigger is better if they are on the same "dimensions" think about it say a capital ship has 12 main guns and lets add to this now the ability of 3 dimensions to PLACE weapons as well (top sides bottom) that gives the capital ship a choice of a LOT of weapons including secondary gun batteries counter missile missiles.

Anti-fighter missiles (Think about how many AMRAM missiles a destroyer sized vessel cold sling in it and still have room for primary weapons if they got rid of the helicopters) NOW since most modern warfare is missile based lets say you have fifteen fighters each carrying 2 shipkiller missiles (they'd have to be big remember as most ship killers are HUGE compared to fighter killers) so that's possibly 60 missiles.

Now let's say the capital ship has something like modern CIWIS and AEGIS, it's already begun firing on the missiles with counter missiles.

Probobly started rippling off anti-fighter missiles while the fighters launched their own missiles (say 2 anti-fighter missiles dedicated to each fighter to better ensure kill that's 30 missiles)

Counter missiles begin knocking out incoming enemy missiles, ciwis will probobly do a good deal of removing the rest, but let's say two missiles get through the capital ship takes outter hull damage and depending on where struck inner hull and system damage.

However the fighters are not as survivable, even a single missile will kill them instantly so lets say only HALF the destroyers missiles get through that's still 15 dead fighters for one damaged capital ship.


And that's assuming defenses as primitive as CIWIS and AEGIS (an advanced tracking system that could track and follow all 60 incoming missiles plus the fighters) they've already designed LASER weapons (yes you read right) that can intercept super sonic artillery shells, and ballistic missiles with ease.

The first of these laser prototypes was the size of a 747 jumbo jet, however just this year the US military designed a laser weapons system compact enough to be slung under a fighter's wing I think they call it HEL.

Now assuming multiple capital ships operating in a carrier group like operation you'd have overlapping layers of defense, CIWIS,Laser, anti-missile missiles, and counter fighter missiles.

It would be pretty suicidal if you think about it.

Now take away atmosphere and like I said have a rough mass-to-thrust ratio high enough on your capital ships and they can be just as fast and just as "maneuverable" as a fighter and yeah I'm pretty sure they would be able to hit a fighter with a naval gun as I have said all you'd really need to do is sweep the area with multiple beam weapons.

Assuming solid shot weapons all you'd need is very rapid fire rail cannons (such as the neoBSG or Pegasus) or worse for the fighters proximity explosion weapons such as nukes or even fragmentation weapons.

A fighter is a deathtrap because it can't have the RAD shielding of a big ship and can't take the Damage a big ship could, a nuke goes off against a futuristic starship it may survive, a nuke goes off in proximity to fighters and it aint gonna be pretty.
Even if the fighters aren't destroyed a Neutron warhead would deep fry your pilots in a horrible way.


(edit) Oh and modern Warships are Larger then their WWII counterparts (think a modern Cruiser is about 3/4 the size of a WWII battleship/battlecruiser?) so that alone lets you know sizes change http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Battleships of the wet navy are not quite an adequate defense either as their big guns are SLOW and not even capable of arcing high enough to hit a fightercraft lol but we've all seen how deadly their AAA batteries were in WWII now imagine all of them replaced by CIWIS cannons (shudders)

Battleships of the wet navy were also rendered "obsolete" too early according to a great many naval types because they were quite capable of putting down cheaper shells instead of uber expensive missiles for the same job. That and a battleship could practically shrug off modern ship killers and sink the bastard that shot it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

And there are actually plans for future "battleships" in the modern US navy, they won't have the big guns but they'll have a crapload of missiles and enough AA and 5in' guns to make anyone else regret getting close. I'll try and find a link

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Now that was a hefty read. A lot of interesting things to consider. To bad we cannot take full advantage of such concepts and ideas as those that have been expressed in this forum over the years.

I personally liked the subspace (Submarine) concept. But oh well.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Starhawk:

The point is that we should make SE4 fighters viable. For FUN.

All of the stuff that is bothered to be added to the game should be viable. That requires that nothing be overpowering or otherwise ubered.

Things do not need to be equal in combat, but each thing does need an important role to play.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

See that's why I play mods SJ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif especially Devnull where fighters pack a punch but not so much that it makes it crippling to get them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I also like good ol' fashioned gunships which I designed personally when I figured out that I didn't have enough "oomph" behind my "stock devnull" fighters.

I mean it's not a "problem" if you can fix the fighters on your own and mainly that just means adding enough size to pack shields/ecm/engines/weapons and the like.

I also have had a great deal of use out of fighters used in small tactical units not big honking 1,000 fighter swarm fests http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I mean to me it's a matter of tactics fix it if you don't consider that viable I guess that's a problem http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

This is where I am coming from. Other players may not "like" the idea of fighters EVER playing a big role, I do.

Would it be breaking the NDA to get someone on the Beta test for SEV to comment on the viability of fighters in SEV?

I'm scared by how useless they were in Starfury.....

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Starhawk said:
Does not quite fit Fyron a frigate is designed to do different tasks then a destroyer and a cruiser.

I do believe that was my point.

It would be pretty suicidal if you think about it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Now take away atmosphere and like I said have a rough mass-to-thrust ratio high enough on your capital ships and they can be just as fast and just as "maneuverable" as a fighter...

Physics would disagree. Torque and inertia work against the huge ship from being as manueverable as a small ship like a "fighter." Now, if you make your ships all be spheres you might be able to pull it off...

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Yep, it would be.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Besides, there's no guarantee that the viability of fighters won't change drastically, for better or worse, between now and release, so any such comment on the current viability of fighters would be largely meaningless.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Ya know when I read that I could just imagine a US Army sergeant with signature stubble beard, half-burned cigar and squinting look standing in front of a map waving a rod, pointing at markings, while a military march was being played in the background http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

*****

To get back to the subject of fighters:

You're right, fighters aren't much use for much in stock SEIV. That's why so many mods make so many changes to them. Devnull's been mentioned here, Proportions, and not to forget SJ's Carrier Battles mod..... People are devising ways to improve fighters all the time. Including yours truly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

No really I'm still kind of working on the End of Galactic Civilization mod (which is overdue for a rename) and I'm planning to give it the fighter combat system I was planning to give the Capship Mod. (Oh dear, he's going off on a rant again.) Don't worry, I'll keep it short. (Or at least I'll try.)

Basically, it revolves around the following:
Fighters are split up into three (four, if you count specialist and civilian craft) categories: Interceptor, Space Superiority and Bomber.
Interceptors are fast, small and very cheap and can be produced by the batch-load.
Space Superiority Fighters (SSF's) are expensive little buggers capable of carrying heaps of anti-fighter weaponry.
Bombers are large, lumbering craft capable of packing an enormous punch against capital warships. If you want to take out an annoying flight of orbital bombardment ships, send in a few flights of Bombers to dispatch them with impunity.

Interceptors must rely on two things to be effective; Speed and Numbers. They're used to overwhelm enemy SSF defenses and/or to make swift strikes at Bomber groups. Interceptors only carry light weaponry. SSFs on the other hand are more slow moving and are better suited in a defensive role, to screen your ships against enemy Bomber strikes. You can also send them to attack enemy SSF screens to give your Bombers a clear path. Bombers are the only fighters capable of packing anti-capital ship weaponry; and boy are they packing. A well-executed Bomber strike has the potential to cause more damage than an attack executed by a massive capital warship. A medium-sized flight of Bombers can easily wipe out a small ship.

Fighters aren't a requirement for effective combat; they're merely an alternative to the "big ships, big guns" approach which is also not without its own bulky, lumbering charms.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

No no Navy Strategia they have Admirals not Generals http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Now you want something that comes from Generals here's an Army General:

"Only an infantrymen can drag some son of a ***** come out of his foxhole to sign a peace treaty." (can't remember who said that)

And a Marine General:

"Every single day I look up at the sky and I praise the lord! Yeah I praise the lord for another beautiful day in the United States Marine Corps! ooorah!"


http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Two questions for Strategia_In_Ultima:

1. With regard to Interceptors, Space Superiority Fighters, and Bombers, are these actual fixed hull classes, or can the same hull be configured to any fighter type by incorporating the appropriate components?

2. Doesn't the "bomber" designation seem a bit...primitive? I mean, doesn't it just invite visions of unguided gravity-propelled iron-wrapped TNT firecrackers? Wouldn't the category "attack" or "strike" fighter be a tad more sophisticated? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Have you tried the P&amp;Nism mod for Starfury?
If you start a new game in P&amp;N Episode 2, you can start with a prototype TCN fighter which features a warp drive and leaky armor!

Quite fun, especially when you are outgunned by destroyers and have to use your manoueverability and speed to avoid getting wasted.
Its also quite nifty due to the fact that missiles and torpedoes can't target you, but PDC can and PDC hurts!

Defending a cargo ship against a battleship and its cruiser escort in the mercenary jobs is quite a unique experience too.
You can't scratch a BB's shields alone, and there is a lot of firepower in a capship fleet.
Distracting the enemy capships and luring them away from the cargo ship is my primary plan, and if you can lure them close to a TCN patrol, the fireworks are great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Flying behind and between the enemy capships also makes them take friendly fire. Just don't stay there long, or you'll get walloped in the crossfire. And never EVER sit in the line of fire of a TCN battleship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


As for AI piloted fighters, they're pretty decent in P&amp;Nism too. None of the stock insta-fraggings, and they can be used to soften up an enemy, provide support fire during your battle, and most importantly, can be used to draw fire and distract the enemy ships while you limp away if you take serious damage and need to retreat.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

*stands just outside the door and revels in the fine banter*

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

That's pretty much all I use them for. They can kill fighters and small ships or finish off crippled ships, but that's about it (maybe different with a carrier brimming with fighters).

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

No, no, not like that. Like this.

* /Me walks in with a lawn chair, a bag of pop-corn and a bottle of A&amp;W root beer and lounges whilst the fireworks display is on.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

With a handful of them, properly managed, and with some patience, you could take down ships. Just make sure to recall them for repairs before they take too much internal damage.

The extra firepower is quite handy for a destroyer class ship, too. Every point counts in P&amp;Nism.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

Well, I usually set out with a dozen or more in my cargo bays and use them as cannon fodder. They are dirt cheap compared to the money made off of just a few looted weapons. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

It is so easy to keep them alive with a little hands-on management, though. Poor schmucks.

Note to self: never work for Fyron.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

All applicants must sign a waiver dissavowing me of all responsiblity in the event of their timely demise.

Re: Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?
 

1. Int's, SSFs and Bombers are fixed hulls, however you can customize them to a certain extent. For example, you can make an SSF loaded out with several long-ranged missiles to take out enemy Bombers at long range, or build one with multiple short-range rapidfiring cannons to tear up enemies which come near.

Int's are not large, somewhere in the order of ~15kT or so I guess, SSFs are larger (think 40-60kT) and Bombers are almost starship-sized (think (just) over 100kT).

2. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make; Bombers are huge superheavy hitters with the maneuverability and attack power of a rampaging rhino and the speed of a tricycle. (so to speak) Bombers are slower than some of the smaller ships, and almost all non-capital starships can outrun them if they have full engine loadout.

The Bomber philosophy is this; stick a few hideously overpowered capital-ship-killing weapons on a comparatively massive platform, slap a cockpit and a rudimentary engine onto it and send it off to take down its own tonnage in enemy ships several dozen (hundred) times over. "Strike fighter" implies "a fast fighter designed for swift attacks", while "Bomber" implies - and means - "a rather oversized mobile weapons platform with more firepower than a warship thrice its tonnage".

Of course, Bombers will have their drawbacks - researching them is expensive and takes a long time, and while they pack more firepower than a warship more than three times as large, they are also about twice as expensive as said warship, especially if you load them out with the most powerful weapons available for Bombers. Go for Bombers and you must focus on Bombers (and other fighters) alone; be prepared for the fact that you cannot muster capital ship power like most other players.

(A slight clarification; I make a distinction between "capital" ships and "normal" ships. Capital (war)ships are massive ships weighing in at several thousand kT, and are built to withstand extreme punishment. Normal ships are smaller, more nimble and more versatile. Capships are mostly specalized, with most being warships and the rest mainly carriers)