Strike craft.... need to be refactored completely. Some ideas here, please propose more!

[GnoSIS]

Reading the other posts I fell I should write on this.

They are in a dire need to be remade into something else.

1. Split the damage types into kinetic, energy, plasma, explosive - with more types we can have diversity, add plasma shield/coating.
2. Add strike craft with respective roles and sizes with multiple choices of weaponry types. you slot hangars into ship slots (they have tiers), and then select strike craft type per slot like amunition.
3. Introduce strike craft superiority. The side that looses most strike craft suffers major penalties, the one with superiority gains bonuses.
4. Strike craft replenish only outside of combat.
5. Strike craft are more lethal in bombarding planets.
6. Strike craft also play the role of PD. But missiles are far more destructive now and have tech upgrades to help them with PD.
7. Many hull sections have added dedicated strike craft slots and PD slots.
8. Strike craft are affected by repeatables that are both offensive and defensive.
9. Combat log reports status of superiority.
10. The fight isn't over until the strike craft are also defeated. A fleet with no strikecraft is helpless even if it kills all the opposing capital ships.
11. Add carrier hull size.
12. Strike craft engage distance is the entire system.
13. Replenishing strike craft after combat, takes time and alloys. fleet status panel has the relevant info and progress bar, similar to refit but can be done in motion.
14. Alpha strike artillery fire at the other end of the system, wiping out total fleets, must be removed from the game.
15. Strike craft gain xp, and a fleet might auto promote an ace free leader. Aces will have unique bonuses. Time to create an alcoholic Blorg Starbuck.
16. More techs exist that help strikecraft and pilots/xp and aces survive.

 

[Talanic]

Make advanced strike craft be squadrons of specifically designed and designated corvettes.

 

[Cronos988]

I know "space fighters" are a common space opera trope and thus should have a place in Stellaris. However, I do not want Stellaris to adopt a carriers > everything else meta. So getting rid of artillery to buff strike craft or having a bunch of different types to equip is too much for my taste.

Instead, I'd rather give strike craft more utility functions, like impacting enemy tracking or accuracy.

 

[Pancakelord]

That... is a lot more than just strikecraft changes lol.

Bombardment rework?​

New hulls?​

Rework PD/Missiles? (which were put out to pasture in like 1.2)​

​

I don't disagree with some (most) of the list but, realistically, none of it gets at the root issue with strike craft.

If your carrier goes pop, your strikecraft vanish - and your carrier goes pop the moment an L-slot battleship looks at it.​

This is partly because of balance - but moreso because the vanilla solar systems are not really large enough to make carrier warfare (either WW2 or modern-style) really work - and the solar systems definitely wont get a rework as its part of the game's core art design too (though rescaling mods do a decent job).​

At best, because I don't see solar-system scales getting changed, I think carriers could get an Aux mod to let their strikecraft launch and join/support battles in adjacent systems (probably handled via events easily enough) but even that is hackish and likely exposed to a ton of exploits (send in a conga-line of high evasion corvettes, whilst 2mil FP carriers wait 1 jump away, sending their SCs in too).

Failing that, accept that Strike craft in Stellaris are more short-distance swarm-like things, give them a role in sensor-saturation (a la electronic warfare) - the more SC you have in the air, the less accurate enemy guns are (ideally we'd have accuracy non-linearly drop with target distance, which would finally bring down L-guns and make M-guns viable... but it is what it is), as their radars are bathed in the noise of your SCs shielding your fleets.

 

[tremor3258]

I feel like everything keeps moving forward into engagements.

More behaviors would help - carriers keep huddled to the back for engagement trying to stay back from artillery - different designs could be set to prefer different targets first (like say, corvette carrier hunter/killer packs, as an example).

 

[Iosue Yu]

We need Gundams.

Even not Gundams, humanoid combat machines are a thing in many Sci-Fi. May also be reflected in different shipsets.

1. Add Combat Robots as new Classes of Strikecrafts
2. They don't fly by and shoot, they stand and fight.
   1. Melee Attacks against other Combat Robots.
      1. "Beam Sabres, go brrrr."
   2. Mid-Range against Ships.
   3. Sniper Rifle against long ranged targets.
3. Also please give different sizes
   1. Aircrafts - regular Aircrafts
   2. Variable Fighters - similar to Valkyries from Macross, think of them as hardy Aircrafts
      1. Also we should have a few "Singing Units" like Fire Bomber from Macross 7, who just sings to the enemies to demoralise them.
   3. Medium-sized Humanoid Platforms - carries the same ranges of Weapons that you have researched
   4. Large-sized Mechas - Combined by 3 Aircrafts using very specialised Weapons

Ok... maybe this is a bit much. I am simply disappointed how Combat Robots, being a large sector of SF, aren't present in Stellaris.

 

[LughC]

just bring back the distinction of interceptors and bombers

Make bombers 1 unit that can be dealt a maximum of 1/8th its health at a time and drop 1/8th its damage for every 1/8th health lost. This will reduce lag and cause their fire to be more focused. Keep the visual representation of 8 craft -1 per 1/8th health lost.

keep interceptors separate and have them stay near the fleet not attack the enemy. They should be better than pdf against bombers. and their abilities to chase and engage from further out would give them advantages over flack. only if the host ship gets close should two fleets interceptors engage.

complicating them more than that will cause bloat and be harder to balance. PDX can't even make it so that weapons have a choice there are really only one or two builds that out preform the rest. It would be the same with fighters.

 

[InvisibleBison]

I don't like strikecraft. I would like having an option to remove them from the game entirely.

 

[Dlin369]

I wish Strike craft could be used to help with planetary invasions as a form of Close Air Support, but I guess that would be too close to Hoi4 territory

 

[Coconut_Cookie]

I feel like everything keeps moving forward into engagements.

More behaviors would help - carriers keep huddled to the back for engagement trying to stay back from artillery - different designs could be set to prefer different targets first (like say, corvette carrier hunter/killer packs, as an example).

That is because all ships do keep moving forward. They stop moving at full speed at the distance their combat computer tells them to stop but they never fully stop or try to stay at the distance at which they engage.

 

[TrotBot]

I know "space fighters" are a common space opera trope and thus should have a place in Stellaris. However, I do not want Stellaris to adopt a carriers > everything else meta. So getting rid of artillery to buff strike craft or having a bunch of different types to equip is too much for my taste.

Instead, I'd rather give strike craft more utility functions, like impacting enemy tracking or accuracy.

i want carriers to stay as strong as they are now, they're not useless, they're crazy strong early, fall off midgame, then can be upgraded back to being crazy strong if you want later. this is fine. last thing i want is to have to make different kinds of carriers with different kinds of strikecraft.

 

[mial42]

i want carriers to stay as strong as they are now, they're not useless, they're crazy strong early, fall off midgame, then can be upgraded back to being crazy strong if you want later. this is fine. last thing i want is to have to make different kinds of carriers with different kinds of strikecraft.

...How? They don't even have functional repeatables; given enough time even null void beam/mining laser would beat strikecraft.

 

[TrotBot]

...How? They don't even have functional repeatables; given enough time even null void beam/mining laser would beat strikecraft.

what? they have fire rate repeatables, theoretically you could just drill down into those and have strike craft that annihilate everything

 

[mial42]

what? they have fire rate repeatables, theoretically you could just drill down into those and have strike craft that annihilate everything

But those repeatables don't work.

And even if they did, the way repeatables are set up offense gets stronger faster then defense, making alpha-striking (and thus XL/artillery setups) ever stronger the deeper you get. Even if you gave strike craft 10000000 damage, it wouldn't matter if the carriers just get erased by +300% damage tachyon lances before the strike craft even arrive.

 

[King Harkinian]

Just fix the bug where stat buffs only affect a single Strike Craft in the squadron, and bring back Fighter/Bomber distinctions. Fighters to fight other Strike Craft, missiles and Corvettes, and Bombers to take out capital ships and stations. There was never a good reason to merge them into just one type.

No need for any massive overhaul.

 

[Question]

But those repeatables don't work.

And even if they did, the way repeatables are set up offense gets stronger faster then defense, making alpha-striking (and thus XL/artillery setups) ever stronger the deeper you get. Even if you gave strike craft 10000000 damage, it wouldn't matter if the carriers just get erased by +300% damage tachyon lances before the strike craft even arrive.

The issue is not repeatables. The issue is that strikecraft squadrons with more than one fighter do not benefit from modifiers properly.

I also suspect that modifiers added to ship_sizes do not affect strikecraft at all, which means that starbase strikecraft dont benefit from the +50% fire rate. Would have to test that again to be sure.

 

[GnoSIS]

My suggestions are not about turning combat into a carrier based naval affair, where they dominate. There is a point where the design can be balanced and tuned, so that the game can move past the BB lance alpha strike meta which dominates.

I find pure focused designs boring, I belive the component slots should be spread and specialized/fixed into weapon types and defense types. E.g. Just going all out shields & energy weapons is boring.

 

[Coconut_Cookie]

My suggestions are not about turning combat into a carrier based naval affair, where they dominate. There is a point where the design can be balanced and tuned, so that the game can move past the BB lance alpha strike meta which dominates.

I find pure focused designs boring, I belive the component slots should be spread and specialized/fixed into weapon types and defense types. E.g. Just going all out shields & energy weapons is boring.

I think the whole combat needed to change to have a specific role for fighters (in space battles at least). If you wouldn't be able to see everything in a system that you are in fighters could be the best way to scout for the opponent. Then there could aslo be different kinds of fighters like interceptors, bombers and mechs that have different roles and maybe could also influence the ground combat. I fear that the window of opportunity for these changes has passed. Apocalypse would have been a good one to adress this or the last update focussed on intel gathering.

 

[GnoSIS]

17. Strike craft move and fire speed greatly increased. (other numbers reduced to compensate) - in fact I'd support the change for movement speed in the current build, as is! at least x5.
18. Superiority bonuses could be something done like combat phases, same as EU4 or plans in HOI if you achieve it, the rest of the capitals gain offensive and defensive % until next phase/day/week. Some randomness is needed for this to not keep snowballing and be one sided.
19. Defensive bonuses include cover with damage reduction, and even gaining extra shield and/or armor/hull points.

 

[Cordane]

Reading the other posts I fell I should write on this.

They are in a dire need to be remade into something else.

1. Split the damage types into kinetic, energy, plasma, explosive - with more types we can have diversity, add plasma shield/coating.
2. Add strike craft with respective roles and sizes with multiple choices of weaponry types. you slot hangars into ship slots (they have tiers), and then select strike craft type per slot like amunition.
3. Introduce strike craft superiority. The side that looses most strike craft suffers major penalties, the one with superiority gains bonuses.
4. Strike craft replenish only outside of combat.
5. Strike craft are more lethal in bombarding planets.
6. Strike craft also play the role of PD. But missiles are far more destructive now and have tech upgrades to help them with PD.
7. Many hull sections have added dedicated strike craft slots and PD slots.
8. Strike craft are affected by repeatables that are both offensive and defensive.
9. Combat log reports status of superiority.
10. The fight isn't over until the strike craft are also defeated. A fleet with no strikecraft is helpless even if it kills all the opposing capital ships.
11. Add carrier hull size.
12. Strike craft engage distance is the entire system.
13. Replenishing strike craft after combat, takes time and alloys. fleet status panel has the relevant info and progress bar, similar to refit but can be done in motion.
14. Alpha strike artillery fire at the other end of the system, wiping out total fleets, must be removed from the game.
15. Strike craft gain xp, and a fleet might auto promote an ace free leader. Aces will have unique bonuses. Time to create an alcoholic Blorg Starbuck.
16. More techs exist that help strikecraft and pilots/xp and aces survive.

1. I've wanted the Devs to do something like this for GW for a while, and I could easily see a similar thing for SC. However, Kinetics are pretty well gimped on choice, too. There maybe needs to be a reckoning among the weapon types to shift the options around, maybe in making Energy weapons and Kinetic weapons into "Beam" and "Ballistic". That would have some of the particle weapons from Energy move to "Ballistic", in that they have a slower movement speed (still near instantaneous on the map/calendar scale) than light speed weapons, and that leads to different Tracking and Accuracy considerations. After that there might be a little better balance of choice between the two, and then you can have some variety for GW and SC as well.
2. Different sizes for SC is something I've talked about before, but currently there is only a single size for Hangars, so the flights would end up with effectively the same hit points and capability going out. Roles is another issue and can be used to create bombers (only interested in Corvettes on up offensively), interceptors (chase bombers on up), and patrols (stick close to their carriers and focus on nearby bombers and incoming GW).
3. SC Superiority would be very hard to pull off - there isn't any specific class-based bonus/penalty applied to fleets for, say, not/having Destroyers or Cruisers, so I'd have difficulty accepting a similar penalty that is currently based just on weapon-type.
4. Sorry, can't support this - depending on how big you classify SC relative to Cruisers or Battleships, a Hangar actually would have multiple squadrons of SC per, and the replacements would come from that stock. The slow refresh speed is a necessary weasel to allow replacements throughout the fight, same as GW not flushing the tubes at the beginning of a battle and then being useless.
5. My name is Cordane and I endorse this message.
6. The balance for GW and PD/SC/Flak is still out of whack - without more details, I can only give a "tell me more" recommendation.
7. I could see Hangars going as low as Destroyers (it's just another L-slot equivalent).
8. The modifiers, both affecting their carriers and SC themselves, need to exist and they need to affect entire SC squadrons equally.
9. See #3 above before trying for this.
10. While SC are considered part of a carrier's weapon slots, they should still have a level continued existence based on their carrier's.
11. What size are you thinking would be for Carriers as a class? Twice that of a Battleship? In the 6x Corvette gap between Cruisers and Battleships? As long as there are options to go full-hog Hangars on Cruisers and Battleships (or at least Hangars/P-slots), along with proper functioning carrier computers, I don't think you necessarily have to have a dedicated hull-size/type.
12. Fleet engagement is troublesome with regard to SC, on top of the calendar/map scale completely screwing up ranges in general. Whether the engagement range for carriers is a bit too small can be discussed, but I wouldn't be in favor of a carrier group immediately battle-locking the entire system on hyperlane arrival.
13. SC/Hangars as weapon slots should not require re-arming/replacing costs - same for GW. If you want to talk about SC as legitimate separately-tracked mini-warships, that would be a wholly different conversation (and one I'd be interested in).
14. See #12 above - I am in agreement that it shouldn't be happening, but the calendar/map scale is the first issue to be addressed.
15. While SC/Hangars are weapon slots, this doesn't make sense. See the end of #13 above. (Actually, the only thing I would offer is available Admirals being generated based on fleet actions with SC, Admirals that are carrier-focused.
16. See #13 and #14 above. Right now, SC are glorified projectiles. If you end up completely changing what SC are, then you can look at making them survivable long-term.