Fighters are now unbalanced

[Lerchey]

so far, this has beena really good discussion. As was pointed out, the typical (WWII-ish) walls of lead, did not do much fighter killing. Heck, for that matter, flak cannons firing into bomber Groups weren't that effective at killing. Instead, since the AA did pose a threat, the figher or bomber pilots would be less inclined to close into a range which would make their firing/bombing accurate, and thus the overall effect was to reduce the *effectiveness* of the fighters and bombers.

That said, I like the changes in PDC vs fighters and main guns vs fighters. One thing to consider as a "fighter defense" would be to charge maintenance for fighters. This would make it expensive to build and maintain billions of fighters (hundreds at each planet!). Fighters (currently) are very expensive to maintain, so with the new, more realistic role, make maintenance more realistic as well.

Major John

[Omega]

I find point defense versus fighters in Version 1.35 to be quite balanced. In my current game there are two AI players that are using fighters. I have 3 PD cannons on all of my current ship designs. It is possible for six or seven of my ships to annihilate a swarm of 40 to 60 fighters without suffering any damage. You say you want point defense to be MORE effective? It seems to work quite well as it is.

[DaftWager]

Has anyone tried my new default strategies (interceptor and fighter/bomber) for fighters yet? They’re in the data mod forum, a few Posts down. I’d like to know what other think of them as opposed to the standard strategies.

They work very well for me, so much so that I don’t need PD ships 90% of the time against the Earth Alliance or other fighter races as long as my carriers have enough interceptors. I think it makes more sense to have fighters do the bulk of the fighter killing instead of PD. I know its just a game, but that bit of realism makes it more interesting to me.

[murx]

Q wrote:
I like fighters a lot but if you can kill 4 fully armed baseships with 30-40 fighters it is not fair any more

Uhm, Battlestar Galactica ? 3 Vipers and some Basestars ? Luke and the Deathstar ?

I think to get it realistic Fighters SHOULD own Ships. At least that's the look and feel from more 70% of SF movies and games in the past.

But I would like to see the Fighter School Facility together with Fighters gaining experience. Maybe even Fighter School Component to add on Carrier Class ships and have your Recruits hot 'in-field' training.

murx

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:

---

Luke and the Deathstar

---

*cough**cough*plotdevice*cough*

Still, fighters definitely own when SF ships are unshielded, and it is a first-hit usually wins sort of battle.
With shields, fighters need to match tonnage (roughly 10 fighters to a frigate) and use heavy bombers. Then you need additional light interceptors to take out enemy interceptors so the bombers can get through.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 05 May 2001).]

[Taqwus]

It depends on the base ship design, really. One bit where fighters MIGHT be a bit strong, 'tho, is their ability to fly about a system and guard a warp point for years on end -- that seems a bit strange.

In 1.35 you still don't need fighters to beat fighters, if you have a mass of fast ships with a fair bit of PD. When at war with the Rage, Darloks, Narn and EA (all of whom use fighters to some degree, especially the first two), my usual attack fleet included only 10-12 attack BC/BBs (and occasionally a DN), with 3 or 4 PDC V's each (or 5 on the DN, methinks), with zero carrier support. There might have been a few more PDCs per fleet due to shipyard and sweeper ships (Darloks and EA were pretty mine-happy), but that's it.

In a massed formation like Dark Wing where the ships could cover each other, even strategic mode generally resulted in the thrashing of all planetary defenses including upwards of 60 fighters, and tactical mode guaranteed it.

One of my (then quite low-tech) fleets very early in the Never-Ending War had demolished a Darlok fleet with 2 CVs (w/ ftrs) and 13 LC/CAs in a battle that probably went a long way towards earning 'em all Legendary status, again without either carriers or dedicated point-defense ships. Admittedly, that was fought tactically. :-)


------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Askan Nightbringer]

The most important thing here is how fun the game is. Now if fighters become the only way to wage war its gets a bit dull. I'de rather play a game with NO fighters than a game with ONLY fighters.

As for realism I don't think you could ever settle the arguement either way. Its too easy to come up with a hundred arguements either way.
Here's a couple of arguements for the fighters are too powerful in the game case.

1. If you were the pilot of a fighter would you happily sit in a cramped cockpit for years (OK..time is SE4 is abstract) guarding a warphole? At least in an escort you can walk around a bit. Realistically I think fighters shouldn't fly around in space (except for short journeys) but have to be launched from planets/carries/bases for combat.

2. In space, ships aren't really bogged down too much by weight. I don't think its inconceivable that ships could be so heavily armoured that the puny weapons a fighter could be equipped with would do nothing.

3. As for the big guns not hitting a fighter I believe thats complete rubbish. The guns of the german battleship the Bismark had settings for each of the allied planes of the time. The guns could be aimed by pointing at the plane and then the automatic setting would fire based on the speed of the plane. (The Bismark was sunk by older planes that the Germans hadn't counted on being used anymore). Now given that a computer in a spaceship could track the movement of a fighter, I don't think its so inconceivable that a single bLast from a Meson cannon would reduce the hapless fighter into space junk.

Basically I think there are many possibilities how space combat could be actually like. There are no right and wrong answers.
I just want the game to be fun and to cater for varieties in strategies.


BTW - Does these new changes mean the religious talisman now kicks ***?