Fighters are now unbalanced

[Barnacle Bill]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wierd bob:
That was Reverend Tembo... not Temba. Get the facts straight bowb!

---

Maybe I'm a Chinger spy...

[Marty Ward]

BB,
At least you would have to pay maintenance on the QR ship.
I think the way it is there will always be a way to keep them in space forever. There should be ways of making this expensive though.
One way would be to make their engines consume a lot of supplies, maybe 50 times what they do now. Then at least you would need a carrier or transport to move them into position. Making their weapons consume more supplies might cause them to run out after a particulary long or difficult fight too.
I don't even know if they are destroyed if they run out of supply, I've never had one run out. Does anyone know if this works?

[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 06 May 2001).]
Another thought would be to eliminate the standard move from fighter engines. This would give them combat move and eliminate fighters flying through space by themselves. I know some people do think that suggestion is bad but I've never liked the idea of fighters cruising around the solar system by themselves.

[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 06 May 2001).]

[Trachmyr]

I think fighters are just fine being the way they are, my reason:

Manuverability.... Engines on fighters are exposed to more "surface area" than the capital ships, this means they have more finite control over the direction of their thrust, allowing them to adjust their direction more profoundly in short periods of time.

Of course size plays an important part, I can't see fighters as a single 25KT fighter... that's ludicrous! A 50 MILLION pound fighter, come on... instead they probally refering to fighter squadrons (I changed the description in my game to just this)... you're talking about dozens of fighters, thus their actual size is MUCH smaller.

Finally their speed although similar, is probally generated diffrently between fighters and capital ships.... Capital Ships have slower Engines/Drives that can continuosly operate due to efficient use of fuel.... fighters are more likely to use rockets, very fast accelerating engines that burn large amounts of fuel, thus they accelerate and coast. I know the SE4 system dosen't represent this, but the SE4 system dosen't represent any realistic form of space movement (unless all the ships were equipped with an inertialess drive).

Personally, I would love to see that "combat movement" could STACK in a future patch... (give Afterburners the "one per ship" restriction), and make all fighter need 3 engines per move, but give all fighter engines 1 combat speed. Thus if you've got 9 Contra-terrene engines on a fighter + afterburners III, you'd have a combat speed of 14! but a normal move of only 4. Much better in my opinion. (Maxes would be 15 & 6 w/ quantum engines & AB3)

[murx]

I like the idea to kill the strategical move of fighters to zero and only have them combat movement.
They still could stay in space forever - but only at the point their carrier released them.
At a planet or at a carrier this would depict the fighters are 'on patrol' and just make short landings on the planet/carrier for crew shifts and resupply.
Another way could be to cut their movement to only 1 or maximal 2 spaces away from a landing point (or maybe 1/2 their maximal move) - depicting the same 'patrol' mechanism as before, but the 'main patrol' is at the location where the squadron is shown on the map.
But will be hard to programm, as the fighters should be destroyed when their 'landing base' moves away or is destroyed.
murx

[Barnacle Bill]

I'd actually like to go the other way. I'd prefer a system in which you had a short detection range (not able to see ships everywhere in the system, just within 2 sectors or so of your ships), let fighters move on the system map but make them land by the end of the turn. This would allow Midway-like carrier battles.

[Nitram Draw]

Go idea BB.
It does seem odd that you can always see an uncloaked ship from anywhere in a system. I guess that is hardcoded though.
If it could be changed it could give a use for the long range scanner. If basic ships and planet could only see 1-3 spaces then researching the long range scanner would give you a big strategic advantage. It would make planets located near a WP more valuable early in the game and probably make First contacts harder.

[rdouglass]

I like the idea about not being able to see the whole system without sensors or patrols. In Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC), cities can see 3 spaces around them, units (troops, ships, etc) can see for 2. They also have sensors that you can build to increase range and monitor perimeter, etc. You NEED to patrol and build sensors to defend your territory.

This IMO would definitely increase the importance of long-range scanners, fighter patrols, etc. in SE4 - especially around the fringes of your empire. Right now, long range scanners, etc. are useful, but not vital. It would IMO add a nice touch....