Make carriers great again!

[robertqin]

The biggest problem with fighters in Stellaris is that they are not stand-off weapons, which not just takes the flavor out of them and also makes them very useless.

Thus I agree with the propose mentioned above that fighters should be ships with no FTL that can engage independently, while carriers are like movable space ports for these fighters. Carrier escorts and fighters can engage the enemy, not the carrier itself.

Nerf PD is needed, as currently they are too effective against missiles and fighters. Other than the common way of nerfing, I propose an alternative way to nerf PD and buff fighters, regarding their weapon range.

Modern naval aviation focuses on stand-off attack as fleet air defense has evolved to be very effective with the addition of missiles, autonomous system, VLS and the ability to target multiple targets. We can do something about this. Maybe increase the weapon range of fighters so that they can circle enemy ships outside of their low tier PD range but on the edge of equal tier PD range. This makes technology in PD and fighter more relevant than just DPS.

I thinking that low tier PD vs fighters are like WWII, where fighters can brawl with ships as their air defense is not that good, while the high tier PD vs fighters will be like modern time, where air defense is pretty decent and fighters rely on stand-off weapons.

 

[laptor]

I thought about this for a long time and this thread seems the right one to post my suggestions into.

A possibility to make Carriers viable:

1. Make Fighters/Bombers separate Ships with extremely high evasion and no FTL.

• They will not be destroyed when the carrier bites the dust.
• They provide effective screening and draw enemy weapon fire.
• With ca.100 base evasion they can be hit by small weapons. But they'll always be a one-hit, so it's not overpowered.
  
• They can can carry out orders and engage independently of the carrier. (like it is used in RL... noone sends the carrier in enemy gun range)
• Carriers can replenish fighters, since they themselves are not engaged.

2. Increase the Numbers of Fighters. Currently you only get 4 per slot. This makes it very easy to simply eradicate them... You can't swarm someone if you`re outnumbered,
especially if they outgun you.

3. Optional: Make a additional Carrier-Shipclass as Dedicated Carriers.

• These would provide MASSIVE amounts of Hangar slots and would be able to act as a independent fleet but easily overwhelmed by a real fleet in direct combat.
  
• These could combat the Doomstack problem, since you could use more of these simultaneously in mutliple enemy systems.
• A DOOMstack can't be everywhere and the Fighters could buy the carrier enough time to flee from direct engagement.
• This would make it necessary to prevent them from beeing added into a real Fleet -> independent ship type like constructors or science ships.

I would like to know what you guys think of these Ideas. Especially if a Dev stumbled upon this.

Signed

 

[Wulfram]

Strikecafts are ATM crap, just as useless as missiles. There are multiple reasons:
- They are slow, unlike real-world naval fighters, they are not striking first - they are striking last, after all X, L and most of M weapons fire...
- They cannot replenish in battle, which mean Your carriers are useless vs against any kind of PD.
- Point Defense is too efficient vs strikecrafts


Last time we have seen large naval battles with battle cruisers and carriers:
- carriers were able to engage enemy fleet via airplanes far beyond the range of any battlecruiser
- aircraft casualties to Point Defense were relatively low, escorted by destroyers BB Yamato was sank by aircrafts with minimal American casualties (~10 planes)
- natural counter to bombers and fighters were own fighters
- Carriers were holding multiple squadrons, deploying and reloading/refueling them for entire battle

None of these interactions takes place in Stellaris. Fighters engage range is limited. Limited range with slow speed makes strikecrafts the last weapon able to fire at enemy fleet. Point Defense is massacring strikecrafts, making own fighter screen unneeded. On top of that each hangar bay is holding one, non-replenishable, squadron only, effectively turning your carriers to one-barrel riffles. Seriously, strikecrafts are at the same, useless, level as missiles.

Basically carriers in Stellaris are inferior to carriers in WW2 in many aspects - and making them useful require returning WW2 fighter-bomber-carrier-battlecruiser-PD interactions.



Making strikecrafts specifically good for Hive Minds should not be excuse for keeping them useless for everyone else.

Real world carriers are basically overpowered from a game point of view, we don't want to emulate them too closely because that would just stop everyone from building battleships.

 

[Exarian]

Real world carriers are basically overpowered from a game point of view, we don't want to emulate them too closely because that would just stop everyone from building battleships.

Nobody say carriers should be overpowered.

Carriers should be balanced

Balanced mean:
- useful
- with own niche
- cost-efficient under common circumstances
- counterable

IMO SciFi interaction best fitting Stellaris are these from Battlestar Gallactica, where fighters, missiles, direct weapons and battleships were all viable.

It translate to:
- Nuclear missiles are deadly to ships, but are hardcountered by fighters
- Direct fire weapons are moderately effective vs ships
- Point Defense is moderately effective vs fighters, bombers and missiles
- Bombers hard-counter ships, but are hard-countered by fighters

 

[Princess Stabbity]

Here's how I would fix both missiles and strike craft at the same time:

- Missiles can ONLY be shot down by PD
- Strike craft can ONLY by shot down by strike craft (fighters)
(and while at it, missiles should travel faster and strike craft should respawn)

Is it extremely gamey? Yes. Does it make perfect sense? Not really. Is Stellaris a 4X strategy game or a naval warfare sim?

I'm pretty sure we can live with arbitrary rules. The game already has lots of that going on but for the most part that's a good thing.

 

[faljen_isus]

highly doubtful they will dabble with the combat mechanics in this patch/expansion, but they will in the next 2 (most probable as it is one of the weaker points, but not as weak as the internal politics and gov system they are tackling now)

a couple of months ago i proposed a simple solution for strike craft that doesnt interfere with game mechanic but only adds 2 new techs

1. superior tac squadrons: a few additional fighter/bomber craft with onboard shields and higher evasion to increase survivability against PD and other craft but not being able to replenish
2. advanced drones: same amount of fighters/bombers as above, but without higher evasion and shields, but with the ability to be replenished

 

[balmung60]

Here's a big problem for everyone who keeps bringing up the strengths of naval carriers for space carriers - space is NOT an ocean, and in many ways that nullifies the strongest advantages of strikecraft over big guns (or directed energy weapons). In space, there is no limited line of sight, no range limits on gunfire as it doesn't fall back or slow down and directed energy weapons don't diffuse from atmospheric interference. On the other hand, strikecraft no longer have the relative benefits of aerodynamic lift and still have to lug fuel both ways.

If you want to make fighters/bombers better, ironically, range isn't much of an answer - long range stuff is kinda weird already, it isn't actually realistic, and it adds a long "fighters closing distance" phase to battles.

For some ideas for solutions (not necessarily suggesting just one or all of them at once, but throwing some ideas out there):

• Make them replenish in battle (realism be damned, a weapon that fires seven (or however) semi-reusable shots that may never get close enough to shoot even once then runs dry for the rest of battle is worthless).
  
• Make them sturdier - they should be all but guaranteed to get at least one shot off before PD can down them unless the other side brought fighters, too, or used a lot of PD. In fact, regular PD should be marginal at actually killing strikecraft and flak should be only sightly better, but PD and especially flak should have a disruption effect that reduces rate of fire (simulating that it's difficult to do an attack run under heavy fire (think something like reducing sortie efficiency in HOI IV)). In exchange for making flak even stronger here, reduce its effectiveness against missiles in some way or another.
• Make them come in larger squadrons - again, at the very least, helps make sure something gets through.
• Reduce power use - if carriers can afford to budget more power for shields or use cheaper reactors, there's another perk.
• Special carrier computer for cruiser and battleship hulls - boosts strikecraft performance, boosts strikecraft regen, and keeps the ship at maximum operational range (cruiser carriers rushing in like gunship cruisers is obviously not desired). If it needs a trade-off, have it reduce the effectiveness of non-PD/flak on the carrier.
  
• If they don't already, give strikecraft 100% accuracy and tracking, allowing them to hard-counter evasion tanking.

 

[lief1]

Add an A slot called "Carrier Factory" that replenishes X many fighters/bombers every month.

 

[Cordane]

I'm seeing a number of comments asking for a way to separate out the strike craft so that they can perform some of the kinds of attacks seen in the Pacific Theater during World War II. This is a very significant deviation from how they've been programmed to date, and it may not be possible in any reasonable time frame, but here's what I would want to look at:

(Any ship with a hangar is considered a "carrier" for this discussion. Some elements to be discussed below can apply for stations or even planetary defenses that include strike craft.)

The carrier is designed, constructed, and upgraded as usual, with the strike craft being an integral part of the ship. Once a carrier is part of a fleet, it can launch its strike craft as squadrons from each hangar - it's possible they could launch as individual ships (but exiting all at once), as this might help during recovery if not all carriers survived combat and you need to consolidate damaged squadrons, but it might be easier to manage at the squadron level. The tricky part here is launching some squadrons and not others, either within a fleet or a single carrier - a chooser window would be needed for players to manage this process.

If a squadron is launched, it will either form a new strike craft-only (SCO) fleet or join a nearby SCO fleet - these fleets can be merged or split similar to regular fleets that share the same FTL type. If an SCO fleet attempts to merge with a regular fleet, the squadrons will try to dock in empty hangars that match their type. If there aren't enough empty matching hangars available for the SCO fleet, any remaining squadrons will stay in the SCO fleet and further attempts can be made to merge with this or another carrier fleet. Strike craft that try to operate in a solar system without carriers with hangars of their type would do so at a significant penalty (i.e., can't re-arm, re-fuel, swap crews) - this would highly discourage dropping off strike craft and then bailing with the bulk of the fleet. (Possibly one or two carriers, with enough different hangars, could be used to support a whole ton of strike craft operating in one system, while the remainders of the carriers sit in the next system over, but you might be able to officiate any lesser penalties based on the number of squadrons counting on one hangar to support them all.)

Once a fleet with carriers enters a system, it can look to launch strike craft in order to achieve multiple objectives or just to get them started toward a common target. The tricky part here will be how well the AI can split and merge fleets on the fly. If a carrier is entering combat (e.g., it drops into an FTL anchor) and still has its squadrons on board, it will automatically launch them, unless told to not do so (a setting at the fleet or carrier level, from the same chooser window) - this would be appropriate perhaps against a PD-heavy foe. If there are hostile units in the system, squadrons will default to launching if the carrier fleet is set to an aggressive stance. A fleet with carriers that have empty hangars of types that correspond to launched squadrons, will generate a warning when trying to FTL out of the system.

SCO fleets operate just like normal fleets in system, able to move and attack targets, with no penalties for distance or time away from their carriers (except if the carriers leave the system). If an SCO fleet forms from a carrier fleet that is on the move or tasked to attack a target, the new fleet would default to the same target point and then would adjust based on AI or player decision. However, as the SCO fleet is a separate element from the carrier fleet, any combat that either enters would not automatically enter the other because of any connection. Players should note that an SCO fleet should have a sublight speed a notch or so above Corvettes and a high combat speed.

That's all I have for now...

 

[faljen_isus]

10 bombers that can deliver a yield of a single massive gun arent useless in space, because you have to take down 10 targets

more targets means defenses can be overwhelmed, and same as a single battleship will have issues with many corvettes it will have even more issues with as many corvettes worth of bombers/fighters

so even if you remove atmospherical interference the power of quantity (a quality in and of itself) is not to be underestimated

hell, if you have kamikaze fighters they could still do significant dmg to massive ships when you use then en masse

also, even the best nav system on missiles can be jammed, fighters have pilots to react, drone AI can be hit by electronic countermeasures and get disabled, pilots dont care about that, and pilots can hit targets of opportunity whereas even future AI would have trouble finding it

fact is that carriers mean that you get many vessels instead of just 1, and if you take out a battleship you take out his firepower, whereas if you take out a carrier, his fighters and bombers can continue the fight and continue to do dmg, and since space has numerous advantages the craft can make a big dent in your fleet

this scene does the swarm mechanic for strikecraft a lot of justice

 

[Avalon8782]

As an alternative, instead of PD shooting down Strike Craft and missiles, make it give an accuracy/damage penalty to them.

 

[GC13]

It translate to:
- Nuclear missiles are deadly to ships, but are hardcountered by fighters
- Direct fire weapons are moderately effective vs ships
- Point Defense is moderately effective vs fighters, bombers and missiles
- Bombers hard-counter ships, but are hard-countered by fighters

Doesn't that make ships carry a combination of fighters and direct fire weapons? Fighters hard-counter the two things that can take down your ships most effectively and free you up from needing point defense to (less effectively) defend against those extreme threats, letting you focus on wearing down the enemy via attrition (the only way you really have to do it since they can so easily counter your long-range strikes).

I'm not saying it doesn't sound awesome, just that it doesn't sound balanced.

 

[Meneliki]

I don't find carriers to be underpowered at all. A good cruiser count sporting some advanced bomber wings is terrifying. Rediculous dps. I also find the AI doesn't go that heavy on PD, so you're in the clear for the most part.

 

[SuperGeek89]

Why do I keep reading the thread title as "Make Carriages Great Again"?

 

[Dr. B]

Where are the Space Marines I wonder?
Launch fighter pods with one goal: to latch on to the capital ships, drill a hole and take out/disable/capture them.

Game will get this in future DLC for sure, or Stellaris 2.

 

[The Blackthorn]

Did anyone else notice the +10% strike craft speed tech, that cknoor briefly hovered over in yesterday's stream. Was that always in the game or is there hope for fighters in banks?

 

[Jerev]

Did anyone else notice the +10% strike craft speed tech, that cknoor briefly hovered over in yesterday's stream. Was that always in the game or is there hope for fighters in banks?

Strike craft attack speed and damage were were in the game as repeatable techs. Boosting their movement speed should be new; at least according to the wiki. I could have sworn that movement speed was in as well.

 

[Milten]

Strike craft attack speed and damage were were in the game as repeatable techs. Boosting their movement speed should be new; at least according to the wiki. I could have sworn that movement speed was in as well.

Had to make sure myself. Wiki is right, it was damage only

Spoiler

tech_repeatable_weapon_type_strike_craft_fire_damage = {
    area = engineering
    cost = @repeatableTechBaseCost
    cost_per_level = @repeatableTechLevelCost
    tier = 3
    category = { voidcraft }
    ai_update_type = military
    levels = -1
    prerequisites = { "tech_spaceport_5" }
    weight = @repeatableTechWeight
    
    weight_modifier = {
        factor = @repatableTechFactor
    }
    
    ai_weight = {
        factor = 1.0
    }
    
    weight_groups = {
        repeatable
    }
    mod_weight_if_group_picked = {
        repeatable = 0.01
    }
    
    modifier = {
        weapon_type_strike_craft_weapon_damage_mult = 0.10
    }
}

 

[Hopit]

Where are the Space Marines I wonder?
Launch fighter pods with one goal: to latch on to the capital ships, drill a hole and take out/disable/capture them.

Game will get this in future DLC for sure, or Stellaris 2.

They actually fire boarding torpedoes for that more often than not.
Wh40k universe had it's carrier phase and it got phased out when massive battleships proved more effective (in world lore)

 

[AndragonLea]

Fighters and missiles should not have a range, period. It makes no sense that a weapon type with its own propulsion is limited to less range and speed than a weapon with a fixed trajectory.

In every realistic novel or series involving space battles, missiles and fighters have always been extreme range, energy weapons medium range (less damage but they usually travel at the speed of light or close enough to make the difference academic, so ships travelling at ridiculous speed still can't realistically dodge them) and ballistic weapons as extreme close weapon / point defense because the projectiles move too slowly to threaten a ship at any higher ranges - they'd just slightly change course and watch the salvo sail by.

Keep the damage, keep the travel speed, remove range restrictions and enable carrier ships to send out another flight of fighters once the original one is wiped out. This would give projectile weapons a clear niche (system defense on stations/star ports/planets, extreme range harass/damage).

They'd still be less effective than projectile and energy weapons in direct engagements but would shine in whittling the enemy down before they get in range.

This WOULD need a change in battle speed systems to enable ships to only slow down when shortly before weapons range, rather than slowing down when ANYTHING can hit (otherwise you'd have fleets slowly snail their way through the solar system because you accidentally have an obsolete missile corvette in your fleet and it engaged a mining station on the other side of the system).