Are fighters really that bad?

[Amorenkaire]

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.

This has at least been partially made up for now in 2.2, where point defense weapons are insane knife-fight range guns that punch far harder than any other 's' slot, at the cost of vastly reduced range.

Seriously, if I get t2 point defense early, I think the point defense corvette becomes the best design because that guardian turret deals twice the dps of a t2 laser or kinetic. And I only need to slap two lasers on it to burn down the armor for it to remain at peak effectiveness.

 

[Nakkivene]

Are the amobas any better then normal Fighters?

Allegedly, but I tried it and the single Kinetic Artillery I slapped on the carrier battleships in this stupid federation fleet would deal 300% of the Hull Damage the 3 slots of Flagella did, to say nothing of the damage it does to shields. While it only hit 57% of the time! And enemy point-defense downed all of 6 strikecraft.

And 2 hangar slots take the space of three Kinetic Artilleries.

Still, the dumbest thing is that the other battleship hangar section takes the place of the spinal mount weapon and gives you just one hangar bay.

 

[Blurb]

This has at least been partially made up for now in 2.2, where point defense weapons are insane knife-fight range guns that punch far harder than any other 's' slot, at the cost of vastly reduced range.

Seriously, if I get t2 point defense early, I think the point defense corvette becomes the best design because that guardian turret deals twice the dps of a t2 laser or kinetic. And I only need to slap two lasers on it to burn down the armor for it to remain at peak effectiveness.

Like Strike Craft, point defense "weapons" have greatly inflated stats.
Sure, on paper they should deal tremendous damage, but looking at fleet reports they're usually the bottom feeders with an abysmal damage output.

 

[nuyu]

If you guys play Sword Of The Stars, they have Riders. Carrier can carry smaller hull ship types, but only carrier can FTL with small self defense turrets and the riders are only for battle purpose only. If carrier destroyed, you need another carrier to scoop that riders.

Example:

Carrier: Destroyer >> Rider: +4 Crovette
Carrier:Cruiser >> Rider: +2 Destroyer / +4 Crovette
Carrier:Battleship >> Rider: +2 Cruiser / +4 Destroyer / +8 Crovette
Carrier:Titan >> Rider: +2 Battleship / +4 Cruiser / +8 Destroyer / +16 Crovette

Mechanic like this can be implemented if it reduced the command points/cost.

 

[The Boz]

If you guys play Sword Of The Stars, they have Riders. Carrier can carry smaller hull ship types, but only carrier can FTL with small self defense turrets and the riders are only for battle purpose only. If carrier destroyed, you need another carrier to scoop that riders.

Example:

Carrier: Destroyer >> Rider: +4 Crovette
Carrier:Cruiser >> Rider: +2 Destroyer / +4 Crovette
Carrier:Battleship >> Rider: +2 Cruiser / +4 Destroyer / +8 Crovette
Carrier:Titan >> Rider: +2 Battleship / +4 Cruiser / +8 Destroyer / +16 Crovette

Mechanic like this can be implemented if it reduced the command points/cost.

A cheap, sub-corvette size ship with NO sensors or FTL capability? I like the idea. Especially if we could have L-size modules for rebuilding them in the field for ease of logistics.

 

[beckermt]

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.

This is the part that bugs me the most about hangars. I don't want small weapons or PD. The fighter should be handling tiny craft and missiles. I don't need it double.

A cheap, sub-corvette size ship with NO sensors or FTL capability? I like the idea. Especially if we could have L-size modules for rebuilding them in the field for ease of logistics.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but that's exactly what the current Hangar modules are.

 

[The Boz]

The current hangar module is a pre-defined weapon that you can't customize. No torpedo bombers, PD fighters, shielded vs armored, etc.

 

[Zulark.]

Can also be used in the Starbase to "scare" the AI.
Only platform H slot + module Hangar Bay => more value of powers than with other thing XD

My Starbase is going from from ~43k to ~ 53k when I tested the last time (in 2.2)

 

[Metztli]

Fighters are bad but don't ignore the "Hangar" tech because it's extremely useful for dealing with piracy late game (filling bastions with hangar bays, learned that recently and made my life way easier).

 

[Dinkelman]

I really think strike craft needs a rework, not just stat buffs to put it in line with L weapons. That's not what fighters and bombers are for. I think they should strongly influence battle dynamics. In space battles there should be a fight for air superiority and a need for deterring bombers, which means bombers need to be way better and more useful if allowed to freely attack the enemy. They could target weaknesses and disable things like weapons, thrusters, or shield generators, to make the ship vulnerable. So then shields need to be better to make bombers a useful tool for cracking those hard nuts. Shields should recharge HP during battle and generally be stronger.

I don't know, it feels like this would only scratch the surface of the battle mechanics problems. The game is going in the direction of simplifying and taking away choice in ship designing, which is the opposite of what I would like. If I could have it my way, you would be able to balance your designs meaningfully between offense, and defense. You could choose to use more power/slots for defense but the trade-off would be less power/slots for weapons. More like the old system, but better designed. I'd want to increase the variety and depth of strategies. A better balance between defensive and offensive ship tactics would reward more counterplay, and there wouldn't just be one optimal build, but rather many viable designs.

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

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.

Yah. Back before 2.0, when I still stubbornly used strike craft, I'd solve this issue by putting strike craft only on cruisers, which got in strike craft range much more quickly. Basically, if the ship that launched them isn't within "strike craft range" they still launch, but without a target, and fly towards some 0,0 coordinate probably.

Wouldn't work against certain very high-range weapons in 2.+, especially starbases that can engage everything in the system.

Unfortunately, can't just give them max range, or they'd engage all enemies within the system immediately as well. Unless that's what you want.

Has to be some solution (perhaps in the code, don't know if it's doable through the exposed stuff) to either:
1. Give them the range to acquire a target across the entire system, without engaging all enemies across the system.
2. Make them not launch till they have a target and/or make their default destination the parent ship instead of 0,0.

I prefer #1 personally. But it's moot, since even without this bug they still suck right now.

 

[Nakkivene]

Strikecarft need to be different from missiles somehow too. Now they do the same shield-penetrating armor damage - or would, if they did anything. Even if they did, a corvette gets missiles and a cruiser gets three missile slots vs. 1 hangar slot.

 

[Life is Comedy]

I don't know, it feels like this would only scratch the surface of the battle mechanics problems. The game is going in the direction of simplifying and taking away choice in ship designing, which is the opposite of what I would like. If I could have it my way, you would be able to balance your designs meaningfully between offense, and defense. You could choose to use more power/slots for defense but the trade-off would be less power/slots for weapons. More like the old system, but better designed. I'd want to increase the variety and depth of strategies. A better balance between defensive and offensive ship tactics would reward more counterplay, and there wouldn't just be one optimal build, but rather many viable designs.

I remember the old 1.0 where you had strike crafts and bombers,
shield rechargers and auras
ship sections and the destroyer +1U-1M slot (wich i always used )

to keep it fair, one thing they adde in variety was the ship AI behaviour, at least that nice addition

 

[Tacticus101]

Strike Craft are theoretically good; i have seen AI Nanite Strike Craft be incredibly effective, so if the behaviour issue was fixed and stats increased they might be viable.

However, the real issue is that they dont have a role. If they had huge range, so carrier fleets could fight from outside even Titan range, they might be useful. Otherwise, they are just competing with large slot weapons, but with a travel time and low damage.

 

[mergele]

Strike craft don't necessarily have to be the long range weapon. In my book they could also just as well be knife fight weapons for hyperlane ambushes. They just need something.