Hangars Regenerate in Combat

[Cordane]

I've posted some thread-killers in the past, where I've tried lumping all of the various fixes to missiles and strike craft into all-inclusive posts (linked below). I'm wanting to call out certain changes in separate discussions to see if a more focused look at them can result in more constructive criticism.

Hangars are currently still following a heavily based-in-reality format in not allowing any regeneration of their strike craft if those craft are destroyed during combat, regardless of the combat's length. This is at odds with the ignore-reality stance of a lot of other systems for warships, including missiles being able to fire continuously for months at a time, or kinetic or even energy weapons having any accuracy over ranges measured in light-minutes. A good example of a no-combat-regen system that has an out clause is Shield Capacitors, which grant in-combat shield regen even though it's normally not allowed.

Hangars could have a cooldown that starts when the last launched craft from a hangar is destroyed (or some other break point, like half of the squadron quantity), followed by a regeneration phase, and then a launch of the regenerated craft (rather than launching them piecemeal). I don't know how much balancing has been done to strike craft effectiveness with regard to their one-and-done status currently, but I would assume that a system like this could be put in place without having to downgrade strike craft effectiveness too much. Perhaps, similar to the Shield Capacitors, force the ship to have to use one of its auxiliary slots on a Fabrication Plant, if unassisted in-combat regen is too much.

Again, I'm not advocating this change as the only thing needed or even being requested - I just want to focus the discussion on this portion of the problem.

 

[Slynx]

good call.

at least it can be a separate A-slot item that will enable strike craft regen in combat

ps: oh, wait. that's exactly what you've said in the last sentence ;D

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The combat system is bland enough as it is. I'd rather ships & their weapon systems have more differentiation, not less.

 

[Cordane]

The combat system is bland enough as it is. I'd rather ships & their weapon systems have more differentiation, not less.

I'm not sure I follow - how does making hangars a more viable choice lead to less differentiation? Right now, strike craft are not being used, in part because they don't survive long enough to be effective in anything more than a skirmish-length battle. Without hangar regen working in combat, a whole set of choices is essentially taken off the board. Combined with missiles being just as wildly ineffective, all that is left are kinetics and energy weapons.

The only other thing I can think of is that strike craft currently have pretty limited loadouts - more variation in strike craft versus-bonuses would be useful, although I'm not focusing on them in this thread.

 

[DukeLeto42]

The combat system is bland enough as it is. I'd rather ships & their weapon systems have more differentiation, not less.

What I think we need is a balance -- hangers need to regenerate at a rate comparable to shields, but also fix that quantity once battle ends. That way, long battles will whittle down strike craft as regen can never quite replace losses, but so that the number of strike craft can recover. If they are also buffed significantly, this will make carriers behave differently from other ships -- powerful soon after entering battle due to their strike craft, but decreasing in power as the battle slogs on and the strike craft are lost. Moreover, battles beginning one after another can whittle down both shields and strike craft, making them have a different weakness due to long periods of successive battles.

Perhaps, similar to the Shield Capacitors, force the ship to have to use one of its auxiliary slots on a Fabrication Plant, if unassisted in-combat regen is too much.

This is perfectly in keeping with this idea -- maximizing strike craft effectiveness means losing significant shield or other auxilliary options.

There should also be a repeatable tech (I know, 3 is a lot for a weapon type, but this is a ship loadout of some specialization) that boosts either the regen rate or the max number of strike craft.

 

[GC13]

I'm not sure I follow - how does making hangars a more viable choice lead to less differentiation?

I mean, we could use the lack of regeneration to balance strike craft in different ways. Neither of them are good, but here are a couple of balance scenarios that lead to more differentiation:

• Strike craft get their hit points buffed to the point where point defense does not meaningfully erode their damage, which makes them overpowered when used with missiles.
• Strike craft get their damage buffed to the point where despite point defense thinning their numbers they still contribute to the fight with a good alpha strike, which makes them overpowered when the enemy doesn't have point defense.

Strike craft could also be made non-targeted by point defense, but I think that leads to less differentiation rather than more.

 

[Slynx]

there is a problem with strike craft that you can't make specialized mothership-class carriers with 2-3 hangars. cuz after the initial strike they'll become entirely useless. with or without buff to the number\damage capabilities of strike crafts.
regeneration in combat(even as slow as 1 squadron per month) can partially solve this issue giving us more diversity with ship compositions...

 

[VoidEmperor]

I'd love to make a bigger use of Strike Craft, If I really wish to use them now I have to fully commit to them with all my ships, which does give me a lot of strength but also cuts out on a lot. The only thing I can do rn about that is having 50k fleets with only hangars, some gamma lasers and tachyon lances, fully equipped with enigmatic stuff. The fighters would take out incoming strike crafts, missiles, etc. with their own tiny point defenses, while my cattlewhips.... I mean, battleships annihilate everything with their lances. This tactic currently is only viable against empires that mostly use nukes - which aren't that many. So.... I support the idea of regenerating strike crafts, even if it takes another slot, some super long research, whatever. But it would make sense, if you'd not see Hangars as simple storage compartments, but as autonomous strike-craft creating launch bays

 

[Milten]

Eh, I'm on the fence about this one. If PD tried more realistic approach, why not try to keep it for a change?
I think more easy way to balance the whole thing is to tweak strikecraft survival ability. Destroying every fighter should be a thing only for heavy PD oriented fleet.

 

[Exarian]

No historical carrier EVER run out of aircrafts mid combat. EVER. Carriers were launching and reloading airplanes for entire battles, effectively participating in combat.
Hangars "respawning" strikecrafts are method of "emulating" this mechanic.

One-shoot Fire-and-forget carriers in Stellaris are complete opposite of this.


More differences?

Carriers in WW2 allowed fleets to engage enemy fleets far beyond range of any battleship. Moreover, air forces was able to give strategic/tactical victory before any ship had a chance to shoot at enemy ship... Airplanes were giving first blow.

In Stellaris strikecrafts are relatively slow, and their engagement range is really low - before they hit enemy, fleets get close enough to allow basically every single ship to fire their weapon, even multiple times. Strikecrafts in stellaris are the weapon giving LAST blow in battle, which another "difference" to real world naval combat.

Another problem?

Point defence effectiveness. In WW2, planes casualties to naval AA artillery were really low. Way of countering enemy aircrafts were own fighter screen. For example, Yamato escorted by few destroyers (but without any fighter screen) was sunk by massive airstrike taking multiple hours - and American casualties were negligible. In Stellaris few point-defenses are effectively shutting down both fighters and missiles (which are utter crap, but are at least "unlimited")...



So, why carriers in Stellaris are not working?
Because these warships are not even close to act as "carriers"!




Solution?
- Respawing strikecrafts
- More speed
- Engagement range = gravity well
- Point defence toned down

 

[Milten]

No historical carrier EVER run out of aircrafts mid combat. EVER. Carriers were launching and reloading airplanes for entire battles, effectively participating in combat.
Hangars "respawning" strikecrafts are method of "emulating" this mechanic.

Again, why emulate something when see that the problem is over-effective PD?

 

[Exarian]

Again, why emulate something when see that the problem is over-effective PD?

Because over-effective PD is only part of problem, and not even the biggest one.

Main problem is bad design.


Everyone trying to implement carriers into such game should ask and answer 3 questions:
1 Which factors are making carriers+aircrafts viable naval weapon?
2 What are the main features of real-world carriers?
3 How to implement these features into game?

In Stellaris, carriers implementation was something like:
"lets add some hangars, it will be awesome!"

And that's why we have new "buff strikecrafts/carriers" thread every week.

 

[Milten]

Because over-effective PD is only part of problem, and not even the biggest one.

And strikecraft respawn solves only PD problem. If it solves something else, point me what exactly, please.

 

[Exarian]

And strikecraft respawn solves only PD problem. If it solves something else, point me what exactly, please.

To make carriers act as carriers.
No carrier ever run out of fighters mid-battle. Carrier role is launching/supplying/reloading fighters for entire battle, and that's how it was working in every conflict.
So there are two ways to solve it:
- Complex flight deck simulation, where fighters are starting, reloading, and replacement fighters are transferred from deeper decks
- Simple "respawn" mechanic

It is only one of 4 problems I listed few posts ago, but it is major one.

 

[Milten]

No carrier ever run out of fighters mid-battle.

That's still PD/strikecraft problem.

Carrier role is launching/supplying/reloading fighters for entire battle, and that's how it was working in every conflict.

And that's just WWII way. If we look at sci-fi tropes on carriers - fighters drop out and don't return until they are destroyed / battle is over. No refueling, no reloading.

 

[Cordane]

Again, I'm looking at a large number of changes to rebalance missiles and strike craft. But I think we get bogged down in how large of an issue it is and can't objectively look at even any one of the possible solutions. Focus on this to start - don't worry, I'll have a PD/Flak thread for you soon.

 

[Exarian]

That's still PD/strikecraft problem.

And that's just WWII way. If we look at sci-fi tropes on carriers - fighters drop out and don't return until they are destroyed / battle is over. No refueling, no reloading.

1. Even if there are no PD, carriers are "empty" after 5 seconds of battle - and their hangar decks are not participating in battle any way (unlike BOTH real world and huge majority of Sci-Fi)
2. We know how WW2 carriers were working. Most of Sci-Fi space battle mechanics are strongly based on Pacific War Theatre, and we really have no idea what "real" future intergalactic space combat will be. We can either choose a variant of known and working (balance-wise and lore-wise) mechanics, or choose something completely unfamiliar/imbalanced and call it "scifi" as excuse.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Depletable carriers serve a gameplay niche of ideally having superior performance initially, followed by much worse performance subsequently. Against a theoretically equal enemy, you should suffer tactical losses (but strategic victories) until the enemy force is depleted enough to not withstand your superior alpha strike.

'Consistent' carriers are just another form of missile combatant.

To make carriers act as carriers.
No carrier ever run out of fighters mid-battle.

that is because of real life limitations on airplane limitations that rarely apply in video games. If WW2 carriers were capable of quickly launching all their fighters for a massed strike - like you can in Stellaris - they would have. WW2 planes also attacked once and then retreated - since Stellaris fighters don't use ammunition or fuel, the rational method of employment is to keep attacking as long as you are capable.

Additionally, in pure gameplay terms, regenerative hangars are rather pointless; if a massed strike is destroyed by point defense fire, a wave of 12 fighters or so (from a regeneration tick) will be knocked down before accomplishing anything at all.

 

[Philthy]

I would go so far as to say we should go in the opposite direction. Double, even triple the number of strike craft, with appropriate tweaking for damage. Let strike craft come in as a huge wave of damage that eventually is all destroyed. If you had only hangars, you would lose out after that first strike if even a little enemy fleet was left. This lets strike craft serve as a "softener" or opening volley unless used on a much smaller fleet, basically wiping it out instantly if they don't have PD. It would add more variation and tactics. I would support emphasizing how different they are.

 

[Cordane]

Depletable carriers serve a gameplay niche of ideally having superior performance initially, followed by much worse performance subsequently. Against a theoretically equal enemy, you should suffer tactical losses (but strategic victories) until the enemy force is depleted enough to not withstand your superior alpha strike.

'Consistent' carriers are just another form of missile combatant.


that is because of real life limitations on airplane limitations that rarely apply in video games. If WW2 carriers were capable of quickly launching all their fighters for a massed strike - like you can in Stellaris - they would have. WW2 planes also attacked once and then retreated - since Stellaris fighters don't use ammunition or fuel, the rational method of employment is to keep attacking as long as you are capable.

Additionally, in pure gameplay terms, regenerative hangars are rather pointless; if a massed strike is destroyed by point defense fire, a wave of 12 fighters or so (from a regeneration tick) will be knocked down before accomplishing anything at all.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a "niche" - more like a "corner they're forced to sit in until they learn not to use carriers (as they exist currently)". Right now game balance for the one-and-done situation is to have a very high damage rate for strike craft, which only applies until they're shot down. If strike craft have better "consistency" over a fight, then they don't have to be balanced with as high of a damage rate during their alpha-strike.

A lot of the reasons why strike craft operate the way they do are based in the messed up scales used for time and distance in battles. In a more realistic scenario, space battles should be taking place at distances (relative to an entire solar system) that are really short (light-seconds), if anything other than missiles are to be used, and over time periods measured in hours (or at most a handful of days). It should not be dozens of light-minutes in distance or several months of time, but this is the environment in which the developers have decided to operate, so we have to make many concessions away from whatever reality we would prefer to base everything on. This includes having solid-enough accuracy for kinetic and energy weapons at ranges where they should NEVER hit, and strike craft that have to launch 2-3 weeks before they ever engage their targets - that's why they don't head back to their carriers after just a few attack runs. It also means NOBODY uses ammunition or fuel, including the primary warships.

The other thing I'm seeing here and in most of the other responses is not taking into account the fact that I'm calling for changes along a number of fronts, including significantly reducing the stranglehold PD/Flak has on strike craft and missiles. I've linked a number of my arguments for fixes in my signature and I'm going to be posting a focused thread on PD/Flak shortly.