Value of Fighters

Tomgs · #1 February 12th, 2001, 10:57 AM

I agree that fighters are very powerful if used correctly and it seems you do. I don't use them myself anymore because the micromanagement is very high with large numbers of fighters in combat and if you build a good infrastructure I don't think maintaince is a problem. Of course as you say if the computer building queue problems go away then this might change. Right now I can win without them so I usually ignore that tech. I do win against missle and fighter AI races that I meet in the game very easily and all it does is give me legendary ships from all the point defence hits I get.

So what I am saying is yes they are very good and against the computer they are probably unstoppable unless you mod the game to put more point defence in the ships. If you do that of course something else gets weaker so its a tradeoff. Against a human it won't work as well but you might win the first battles until his designs change sufficently to counter you. I Usually put at least 3 PD in any light cruiser and above when I fight seeker and fighter races and I don't think you could surround many of my fleeted ships with light fighters. My solo scouts however would die easily to that tactic. Of course large fighters with shields are able to take on larger ships and it takes a bit more to take them out. When I did use fighters I really liked the large fighters speed and in large enough Groups most ships would have trouble with them.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 12 February 2001).]

raynor · #2 February 13th, 2001, 03:02 AM

quote:
Against a human it won't work as well but you might win the first battles until his designs change sufficently to counter you. I Usually put at least 3 PD in any light cruiser and above when I fight seeker and fighter races and I don't think you could surround many of my fleeted ships with light fighters. My solo scouts however would die easily to that tactic.

In general, I agree with you. But because fighters don't pay maintenance, I wonder if it might not be a worthwhile sacrifice to lose tons and tons of fighters against point defence cannons rather than pay the maintenance on a fleet of ships.

For example, let's say you build a light cruiser equipped with PD V cannons and some shielding. In the simulator, this 7000 point ship can be overcome by 23,000 worth (about 75) small fighters. Is this trade worth it?

On the face of it, this trade looks pretty one-sided against the empire using fighters. But what happens to the balance if you consider the resources spent maintaining that ship. Over a period of 12 turns, the maintenance on that ship bumps its cost up above the cost of the fighters.

Of course, the next question would be: Can the fighter empire build enough fighters quickly enough--especially when he must spend three to four times as many minerals to equal one ship. It all depends on how long the other player has been maintaining his ships. I wonder if there might not be a point in time when it makes more sense to invest in fighters *even though* you are going to lose them in such large numbers against the enemy's PD cannons.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

JSnider · #3 February 13th, 2001, 04:36 AM

Use fghtrs, but more as 2ndry units to clean up after battle or pick off lone combatants that might sneak pass the front line .. still in general as originated in the game a fgthr (singleton) is useless. only good pt is can build 100s-1000s and not pay maint. don't like to use the englobe approach as seems somewhat unfair to take advantage of a minor prog bug ..
Have been considering mod'ng game to a certain extent to change individual fighters to rep squadrons or wings and scale up accordingly .. anyone else thinking of similar changes. this would allow me to build grps as 1 item deploy same accordingly and get rid of some of the micromanagement .. just wondering.

jsnider

Drake · #4 February 13th, 2001, 04:51 AM

quote:
Originally posted by raynor:
Over a period of 12 turns, the maintenance on that ship bumps its cost up above the cost of the fighters.

You could always set your ship maintenance to zero and ignore using fighters completely...

Besides, if you really want to hurt them from a maintenance perspective, use engine overloading weapons on their ships and just leave them there if they don't have repair components or self-destructs and are in your territory. *evil grin*

-Drake

Aussie Gamer · #5 February 13th, 2001, 06:59 AM

I love using fighters, they rock.

But if you run a group of fighters into a minefield they don't Last long.

I run into a minefield of four mines, a "friend" put it there, and I lost all 21 fighters. Only one mine was used up. That's an ouch!!!

So for every attack there's a good defence..

Tomgs · #6 February 13th, 2001, 10:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by raynor:
In general, I agree with you. But because fighters don't pay maintenance, I wonder if it might not be a worthwhile sacrifice to lose tons and tons of fighters against point defence cannons rather than pay the maintenance on a fleet of ships.

Well I would worry about that if maintaince ever slowed down my building but it doesn't unless I am building stellar manipulation and then if I blow up your star all your fighter go away anyway

. The truth is if you build a good infrastructure maintaince is non existant because you are bringing in more minerals than you spend anyway. If I didn't build ships at every planet that wasn't building facilities the minerals would just be wasted and lost anyway so the maintaince is a plus because at least my minerals are useful.

raynor · #7 February 13th, 2001, 11:05 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tomgs:
Well I would worry about that if maintaince ever slowed down my building but it doesn't unless I am building stellar manipulation and then if I blow up your star all your fighter go away anyway . The truth is if you build a good infrastructure maintaince is non existant because you are bringing in more minerals than you spend anyway. If I didn't build ships at every planet that wasn't building facilities the minerals would just be wasted and lost anyway so the maintaince is a plus because at least my minerals are useful.

Uh, well... if you're achieving the kind of infrastructure sufficient to compete in the TG tournament, well, yeah, I think you probably have more than enough minerals coming it not to worry about maintenance too much. Man! Almost 300 M score in a small galaxy. And Geoschmo at 60 M *without* ringworlds. How much of their score is resources and how much is ships?

Speaking of infrastructure.. I never ever bothered to research computers to get the Robotoid factories on up. Against the current AI, there wasn't any need. Hopefully, I'll do more than just scratch the surface of the game and be afraid for my life later this week with the new patch.

Just to set the record straight. The main game I used fighters was a high bonus game in which I was surrounded on all sides by major empires and at war with one of them from the beginning of the game. By about turn 70, I still just had one system and had only 10% the resource production of the #1 empire--and that was *after* you figured in a 20% trade tready with the #2 empire. So, I had a real problem with NO infrastructure. Fighters were the only thing that kept me alive. The AI wasn't sending very many ships. But the ships it did send were BIG and had the latest tech. Fortunately, you would be surprised at what 500-800 fighters can do on defence. Oh, and I did eventually win that game.