Should strike craft get bonuses from weapon techs?

[HFY]

Which is actually in a way interesting. Because it would mean that PD would at some point become good enough to hard counter strike craft, and missiles. Missile attack speed goes up, so it would take longer as they don't need to replenish the way strike craft do. But eventually they'd be destroyed so quickly it wouldn't matter as their HP are static.

Don't they have armor & shields, which each benefit from a repeatable?

 

[-Marauder-]

Don't they have armor & shields, which each benefit from a repeatable?

They might have shields. Which means a single factor that increases. While for PD/Flak attack speed and damage increases. I don't think they can increase production rates though. Albeit I might be wrong on that.

 

[Cordane]

I would like to see strike craft be more fleshed out as a dedicated weapons preference, since the other three weapons types have a 5 tier main sequence, a 3 tier subtype, and a 2 tier subtype, but strike craft only have a delayed 3-tier sequence. Making them scale more incrementally by moving some of their tier upgrades to associated techs is one way to do that without needing to jam more techs into engineering.

This is a huge factor against Strike Craft as a weapon type, but then again, Stellaris also doesn't have warship Hangars until (wiki) Tier-3 Cruisers, T4 Battleships, and T5 Titans. Defense Platforms are indicated as a Tier-0 (starting) tech, and they have Hangars available, there are only non-Tiered Scout Wings. T1 Basic SC and T2 Improved SC are only usable on DPs and Starbases, and T3 Advanced SC are already the best standard SC available to any warship type Hangar.

There are Amoeba Flagella and Swarm Strikers as SC subtypes, but one is a non-improvable Tier-2 salvage tech and the other is an uncommon Tier-5 salvage tech. If there was both a clear opportunity for nearly all stellar empires to salvage the Amoeba tech and then the ability to create improved and/or hybrid Flagella at T3 and T4, that might be a useful 3-tier alternate SC. The Strikers are actually too far along and too uncommon to be part of a peer development path to Kinetic Batteries/Artillery or Proton/Neutron Launchers (BTW, what is the equivalent to those now for energy weapons?).

First thing to make SC progression look more like Kinetics (5-tier Mass Driver, 3-tier Autocannon, 2-tier Kinetic Launcher techs, and also non-reliant on salvage techs) would be to have them available in warships no later than Tier-2, by offering a bow section on Destroyers with a Hangar. (Perhaps better would be offering Destroyers at Tier-1, including the bow Hangar, but small steps first.). Second would be revising the progression from a clear Tier-0 starting SC to T1, T2, and T3 versions, and finally a T4 - these would be the standard hybrid fighter/bombers like we have now. For the first subclass, you could go with bomber-only variants (just 4 vessels, better suited for anti-CA/BB/Titan work, either doesn't or can't attack other SC); a second subclass could be gunships ( :cough: Gunstar :cough: ) that would be also limited in count per Hangar, but another hybrid and very durable. A different set of options could be a 3-tier "defender" progression (doesn't venture far from carriers, primarily focused on anti-SC work) followed by a 2-tier bomber set.

Of course, I have a ton of other ideas to expand and clarify the role of Strike Craft in Stellaris, but I don't want to derail this conversation too much.

 

[HFY]

or Proton/Neutron Launchers (BTW, what is the equivalent to those now for energy weapons?).

They're still in the game.

They're just in a slot which is harder to mono-spam.

 

[Cordane]

They're still in the game.

They're just in a slot which is harder to mono-spam.

But do they count more as missiles (torpedoes) or still as energy?

 

[mial42]

No, but they should get speed boosts from thruster techs. Biggest weakness lategame is that despite having stronger repeatables, they take too long to reach their targets before the carriers are blasted away with hitscan weapons.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

But do they count more as missiles (torpedoes) or still as energy?

Still energy.

The big problem with Neutron Launchers now is that the only way to get G slots to mount them is from sections that also have small slots, and all existing small weapons have anti-synergy with launchers. Either their range is so short that if they're in range the target is closer that the launcher's minimum range and they can't fire*, or they're shield-penetration missiles that cause the launchers to waste a ton of shots at -50% damage trying to eat through the shields only to have the target die before they can come into play.

Launchers want to have either sections that use a combination of G and L slots so they can be combined with kinetic artillery, G & P so that could do PD for artillery battleships in a mixed fleet, or for there to be decent-range small-slot anti-shield weapons kind of like the energy siphon except not with absolutely horrible stats.

*Technically you could combine them with Mass Drivers, but that leaves you with a tiny 5 range zone between the launcher's minimum range of 45 and the small mass driver's maximum range of 50 in which they can both fire.

 

[Cordane]

No, but they should get speed boosts from thruster techs. Biggest weakness lategame is that despite having stronger repeatables, they take too long to reach their targets before the carriers are blasted away with hitscan weapons.

Strike Craft do get some increases in flight speed as they improve by Tier, but they should be higher than they currently are. Current progression from Tier-? Scout Wings to Advanced SC is 550/600/650/700, but should be closer to 550/690/830/970 (1240 for a new Tier-4 SC). If that's baked right into the SC tech progression, they wouldn't need anything separate from thruster techs. That doesn't solve any other sources for sub-light speed bonuses not applying, but gets you closer.

 

[HFY]

Launchers want to have either sections that use a combination of G and L slots so they can be combined with kinetic artillery, G & P so that could do PD for artillery battleships in a mixed fleet, or for there to be decent-range small-slot anti-shield weapons kind of like the energy siphon except not with absolutely horrible stats.

Mix of hangars & neutrons would also be fine -- strike craft are penetrating but won't wreck the range calculations, and should target separately.

Honestly though it's super annoying that G slot is split between range 0-30 and range 45-120. Maybe just move neutrons into the M slot? Then they can be mounted on Cruisers and Battleships without changing much.

 

[Nefezer]

One of the way to make SC to be relevant is to slow down the battles.

Either by decreasing dmg / increasing various HP, or by a rework of fleets management /sublight speed systems.

If 2 fleets / bastions start fighting as soon as they are in the same system, you could have different way of doing the battle. But considering the graphic engine they used for stellaris, this is not a possible option.

So.. Or strike craft get a sublight speed of lightspeed/time travel, or battles need to slow down.

I really want battles to slow down.
So, like, the enemy sends their fleet to attack my starbase.
I would very much like to have the time to send reinforcements if I don't think the starbase can handle it by itself.
It would also mean that using a deathstack would be more risky, as you could end up having a large part of your fleet locked in battle for more than 30 days.

Mix of hangars & neutrons would also be fine -- strike craft are penetrating but won't wreck the range calculations, and should target separately.

Honestly though it's super annoying that G slot is split between range 0-30 and range 45-120. Maybe just move neutrons into the M slot? Then they can be mounted on Cruisers and Battleships without changing much.

In my mod FCR I try to obtain precisely that. Check if you approach your needs at least a little.