Fighters are now unbalanced

[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.

[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 ***?

[Baal]

You bring up good points Askan. Fighters should just lower the accuracy of weapons a little, not so much that it is impossible to hit a fighter with a normal weapon.

I was a little surprised when I load the new patch and I go to play a game and all of a sudden I don't have enough PD in my whole fleet to deal with 2 carrier loads of large fighters.

Of course since fighters are now coming into some sort of position to be an extreme tactical advantage maybe it's time to have some new types of point defense. Like a PD repulser beam to keep fighter Groups from swarming a ship.

That's all I got for now.

[Q]

Thank you askan and Baal. I already had the feeling I was completely alone with my judgement!

[Marty Ward]

The point askan makes about fun is the most important point, I think. Since the game takes place in the future anything is possible. If one thing dominates the gameplay so much that the fun is removed then that is a problem.
I haven't installed 1.35 yet so I don't know how the changes will affect my style of play but I've always felt that PD was too effective. It sounds like the PD effect has been reduced and I like that.
What I would like to see is a need for more fighter vs fighter combat where you have to establish space superiority before you attack fighters are able to be effective. Maybe even two types of fighters, assault and space superiority where assault the fighter can do a lot more damage to ships. It would help define fighter roles.

[Daynarr]

Well, I believe that fighters should have two strengths vs. capital ships: numbers and maneuverability.

It seems that fighters it game are just about right.

The thing with the missing main weapons is also (mostly) a beginning game issue only. During game ships will receive Combat Sensors (up to 65% in accuracy), experience (up to 100% accuracy - 50% for individual and 50% for fleet experience) and PD weapons (always at least 70% chance to hit a target). The fighters, OTOH, only get Small ECM to improve their defensiveness (up to 30% of 'to hit defense').

If you want a real life example of fighters vs. ships in combat here is a short one:
- picture a WW2 ship trying to hit a fighter with his main guns. To say that ship has 1% chance to hit that fighter would be an overstatement.

Of course, the people that don't like fighters that can dodge main weapons can just edit vehiclesize.txt file and remove their defense bonuses, but IMHO it is just like it should be.

[murx]

Uhm, the thingie with the Bismark and targeting planes is a 'bit' stretched in the means of star combat.
The Bismark used their guns in a FlaK manner - meaning they had time triggered shells that would explode after some flight hopefully at the correct estimatet hight/range of the aimed at plane. I can't think of a Meson Beam on a large mount trigger an explosion in empty space - so this option would left to 'explosive' kind of weapons.


murx

[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