Are fighters really that bad?

[TheGrouch91]

Hi there,

as the title says. I've read that a few times now and am curious if this is actually the case. Also maybe an explanation as to why.

I do like the idea of using a mix of carrier battleships and missile cruisers to overwhelm the enemy point defense. But before I invest in something terrible I thought I'd ask.

 

[Theter]

Yes :

- They are worth an L slot in most configuration, yet deal less damage than equivalent, even ideally.
- They deal little damage by shot, making enemy vessels jump instead of killing them
- They bypass only shield , meaning you have to commit into everything else that bypass it too. Namely missiles which also are...
- ... countered hard by Point Defense.
- They take time to reach enemies and can be destroy even before having done any damage.
- They take more time to replenish than their attack speed, meaning they are even worse than missiles when facing point defense (which replenish at their attack speed)

They could have been good versus old Shield Capacitor (the regenerating one), but now it doesn't make any sense, as far as I know.

Edit : Only the Swarm Strikers are worth considering, as they are almost immune to PD, yet they have low damage and no tracking

 

[SpectralShade]

there are a whole lot of other issues with them too, where the turning radius, firing arc of weapons, launch direction and so on also makes that they get to do only a small amount of damage compared to what their paper stats are.

 

[mergele]

And the there is the whole issue of them quite regularily flying off to the other end off the system before turning around and actually starting to approach the battle.

 

[Agamemnic]

And the there is the whole issue of them quite regularily flying off to the other end off the system before turning around and actually starting to approach the battle.

This. I've watched them literally fly to the edge of the system and fail to engage before the battle ends

 

[CuddlyTurtle]

This. I've watched them literally fly to the edge of the system and fail to engage before the battle ends

If I remember correctly this would happen if the ship carrying the strike craft was either engaged by enemies who had weapons with greater range than the strike craft themselves or if they were in a fleet with weapons with greater range than their strike craft. Why strike craft don't have system-wide range is beyond me.

 

[Bankipriel]

There are several mods on the steam workshop that buff speed, turning radius, and a few other things. I've tried out focusing my fleets on fighters w/ a couple of these mods. The reasonable ones make fighters comparable in efficiency to unfocused mixed fleets. The OP mods are, well, OP ... but, really fun, because fighters then become the best weapon choice in the game. In vanilla Stellaris, because of all the reasons listed in previous post (but IMO mostly because of their terrible Alpha Strike) fighters seem to under-perform every other weapons combo I have tried. I recommend avoiding them completely in the current meta, because you will suffer higher ship loses than with fleets focused on long range alpha strike capability. Or, if you really want to play them, check out the mods that buff fighters, and choose if you want them to be "okay" or "the best."

 

[Sayakus]

There are several mods on the steam workshop that buff speed, turning radius, and a few other things.

I would love to have some of those non op mods

 

[permeakra]

Hangar Bays on starbases have +2 protection range instead of +1. But that's it.

 

[Mavkiel]

Hangar Bays on starbases have +2 protection range instead of +1. But that's it.

100% agree. I'd expand on that, that Paradox felt hangers were underwhelming enough that they had to buff it in some way to compete with other options. The problem is, if you are doing things right that expanded range shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Nakkivene]

I use a mixed cruiser/battleship carrier fleet in SP just for fun. Here's what I've found out :

- Even while only half of the fleet has Whirlwind missiles, they outperform strikecraft in both armor and hull damage by around 170%
- Even while disruptors are terrible and short ranged the random medium/small disruptors outperform strikecraft in hull damage by around 150%
- Even while there's only 8 Arc Emitters in the fleet, they outperform strikecraft in hull damage by around 500%
- Even while the PD has to eat through shields and armor, it outperforms strikecraft in hull damage by around 110%

So in essence everything is better than strikecraft.

 

[Zeelilus]

My first thought on seeing the name of this thread was "Nah, they're actually much worse."

Everyone else pretty much covered all the issues. Hopefully Paradox figures a way to at least get them back to "sub optimal, but usable" instead of what they are currently.

 

[TurtleShroom]

You haven't had space dogfights correctly unless you have shot baby Space Amoebas at your enemy.

Space Amoebas in your hangars. Accept no substitues.

 

[Adolf - Finite War]

The only reason I use fighters as they are is that point defense on larger ships is only available in ship sections that contain hangars.

 

[Amorenkaire]

The only reason I use fighters as they are is that point defense on larger ships is only available in ship sections that contain hangars.

Shame there's no difference between point defense and anti-capital fighters though, being able to make dedicated fighter ships which are designed to sit in the back and use their fighters to screen against enemy missiles and fighters would be an interesting design choice, provided its adequately balanced against the extra worth of the hanger slot, and the greater area the fighters could protect.

 

[Adolf - Finite War]

Shame there's no difference between point defense and anti-capital fighters though, being able to make dedicated fighter ships which are designed to sit in the back and use their fighters to screen against enemy missiles and fighters would be an interesting design choice, provided its adequately balanced against the extra worth of the hanger slot, and the greater area the fighters could protect.

There should be much more options for hangars - fighters, bombers, fighter-bombers, a mix of these, defense drones, attack drones, repair drones, a mix of these.

And if possible damageable ship components. Fighters take down your titans hyperdrive - better hope it comes back online in time for an emergency jump...

 

[Kruesae]

In StarDrive you could Design the Fighters by your own.

Are the amobas any better then normal Fighters?

 

[Askorti]

There should be much more options for hangars - fighters, bombers, fighter-bombers, a mix of these, defense drones, attack drones, repair drones, a mix of these.

And if possible damageable ship components. Fighters take down your titans hyperdrive - better hope it comes back online in time for an emergency jump...

IIRC there used to be separate fighters and bombers, but got scrapped/unified.

 

[Amorenkaire]

Yeah, sadly they did, most people didn't use the fighters. But with I think it was NSC+ they changed the fighter AI to have it stay around the ships it was protecting, so people like my friend who used extensive hanger vessels tended to go half and half and make ranged artillery fleets that would use a fighter cloud for defense and a bomber cloud for extra punch.

The amoeba, meanwhile, is better than T1 and T2 fighters objectively in almost every category. Its remarkable in the fact that its so easy to get early and outclasses the next tier as well.

 

[Blurb]

The only reason I use fighters as they are is that point defense on larger ships is only available in ship sections that contain hangars.

As I see it, that's another reason why strike craft are horrible: In order to acquire H slots, you'll be trading away L slots.
This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if these were of equivalent value, but you're also getting S and P slots in the trade - which aren't always attractive.