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.
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.