On Fighters

[Tampa_Gamer]

You shouldn't have to modify the tech files. (However, I am at work and my brain is a little fried from reading documents all day). You will have to modify the design and research files of the AI if you want them to use it. Now that I think about it, another way to get the AI to use them without heavily modifying their files would be to make these PDC levels 6-10 and then you would only have to change the AI research files to max-out at PDW TL10 instead of TL5. Hmmm....

[This message has been edited by Tampa_Gamer (edited 25 January 2001).]

[dmm]

A great use for cruddy small fighters: use swarms of them to suck up enemy PD fire, so your wave of seekers (or large fighters) coming behind them can waltz right in and destroy the enemy's capital ships. Especially satisfying to take out dedicated PD ships this way, early in a battle.

[Sinapus]

Phased-energy PD?

Fine, I'll start on that small phased-shield components for fighters in the shield tech area.

Hmm... throwing all those small fighters in to distract enemy fire sounds like building chaff ships in Stars! (Or the Wild Weasel planes the US Air Force uses to thwart SAM sites.)

------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough
to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a
pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors
come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless
eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your
associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

[This message has been edited by Sinapus (edited 26 January 2001).]

[Aegis]

I like the idea of changing most weapons to inflict one hit. Then the ability to 'stream' damage (stolen from MOO), so that multiple casualties can be inflicted with a single weapon firing, could be attached to some of the presently more useless weapons (meson bLasters spring to to mind).

As to the question which should be more powerful, a fleet of fighters or a cap ship... well my personal take is they should be balanced. A fully loaded light carrier should be equivalent to a warship, a heavy carrier to a dreadnought. With Heavy fighters that should be upped a little in the carriers favour. A baseship should always be stronger than a carrier filled with ships, provided they're at the same tech level. And the Death Star I'm tinkering on can take on a fleet of either. (No, it's not vulnerable to a single fighter torpedo. I'm not the Emperor. I don't make mistakes like that, after all, I've read the 'How to be an Evil-Overlord').

-Aegis

[Commander G]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sinapus:
Phased-energy PD?
Hmm... throwing all those small fighters in to distract enemy fire sounds like building chaff ships in Stars!

---

The chaffers will not be so effective in the new Stars!. I believe they are adding maintenance costs to ships. Fighters in SEIV should have a maintainace cost as many have argued before. Otherwise, they may well become the dominant decoy in SEIV that cheap Frigates are in Stars!

[fdlu]

How about this ??
Add a new mount type(say shotgun mount, same stats as large mount, up from 400 kt etc.)
you can either build a large caliber
gun (large etc.) doing more damage on cap
ships but only one hit on fighters, missiles
etc.
the shotgun mount is kind of D(ouble) P(ourpose) Gun, making normal damage to
cap ships but has the ability to say split
its beam etc. into tiny beams to increase hit
prop. on small targets. (between dedicated PD-guns and large guns)
In my opinion this type of gun can defend against smaller numbers of fighters without
sacrificing to much specialization.
PD guns/ships. are stll needed for large battles.
(current equivalent should be the 76 to 130mm
navy gun range)

[Firemane]

Isn't all this posting about "super-anti fighter weapons" and "how much do we despise fighters" sort of a show of envy?

IMHO, fighters are quite well portrayed in SE IV. They are fast and hit hard. No, I don't think that thet should have a "one hit capital ship obliterating" weapon, but neither should capital ships have a "one shot fighter group obliterating" weapon. I see it as kinda shooting at fighters with a thousand pound shell.

On the side of balance, a capital ship with 4 main guns and 4 PD's can take "technically" 8 fighters per turn. It would also force _us_, the mighty space admirals, to broaden our horizons instead of solving the thing with the conventional "mega-weapon" approach... satisfying as it might be.

Force concentration, and dedicating platforms for anti-missile, anti-fighter defense strikes me as a reasonable solution that would take care of the one-shot-one-kill, or any other fighter related business.

For those of you who still live in the 'battleship' age, remember WWII on the pacific.

As far as my experiments went, I have the Cue Kappa on the run with my new 2-shield heavy fighters, my Rommel class light carriers, and my PD Escorts.

[Puke]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firemane:
IMHO, fighters are quite well portrayed in SE IV. They are fast and hit hard. No, I don't think that thet should have a "one hit capital ship obliterating" weapon, but neither should capital ships have a "one shot fighter group obliterating" weapon

---

I agree with Firemane entirely. Late game, I usually load dreads with 6PD, BCs with 4PD, and have at least two deadicated PD cruisers in each fleet. fighters and missiles dont touch me, even from the mighty EA. of course, I give up alot of weapon space that way. want to balance fighters? design better capital ships.

[Nitram Draw]

Do repulser beams work against fighters? I'd love to see a group of fighters pushed to the opposite end of the battle map

[Instar]

I believe that fighters and ships are well balanced.
Hey, I heard that Wild Weasel comment. Don't get me started about napalm and bombs and stuff.