Stick to ship combat and no fighters.

[Wing_008]

Seconded.
i think fighters/Bombers should play a limited role in combat, rather than being an independent method of warfare, so maybe against structure and civilian ships they can be effective, but i imagine having a strong hull and shields to be essential, therefore small crafts against energy weapons moving at near light speed are sitting ducks.

 

[Just a Joke]

Small crafts are sitting ducks against energy weapons? It depends. When don't have proper countermeasure like jamming, flare, SEAD or so, aircrafts are also sitting ducks against anti-air missile today (think how US and IDF air force slaughtering their enemy). That's what happens in many 4x games and the cause of damned be-all-end-all kind battleship spamming, as combat mechanics become simple raw damage vs defence.

 

[Knightfall52]

okay. it works like this.

Lets say you want to attack an enemy ship, but you don't want to endanger your ship in the process. So since weapons become less and less effective as distance to target increases you say to your self, i want a way to deploy a weapon system away from my ship, oh lets create a small ship with a pilot in it and put our big bomb on it and call it a bomber.

Hm that seems logical, lets see how we can expand on that idea, maybe put in a cool commando squad in that small ship and try to capture the enemy ship without destroying it and you end up with a boarding ship. But what about multipurpose small ships, that can do more cool things and even, you guessed it, counter the bombers or boarders, lets call it a fighter.

So now we have a small bunch of ships that can work with my bigger ships to a greater advantage, by being able to execute cool tactical tricks, like attack from multiple vectors, exploit weaknesses in ships or fleets.

Now a bunch of small 1 or 2 man ships or drones need higher coordination to work and are skill intensive and i dont want them to die because their pilots are hard to replace or their systems are really expensive, so i will create a ship role that coordinates, repairs, carries, or even has additional ships to recover the pilots in case they eject. I will call them carriers.

So unless for some weird sci-fi reason, having multiple vectors of attack, tactical flexibility, boarding capability and general all purpose utility is not recommended in stellaris there will of-course be small ships in stellaris.

 

[kreissig]

okay. it works like this.

Lets say you want to attack an enemy ship, but you don't want to endanger your ship in the process. So since weapons become less and less effective as distance to target increases you say to your self, i want a way to deploy a weapon system away from my ship, oh lets create a small ship with a pilot in it and put our big bomb on it and call it a bomber.

Hm that seems logical, lets see how we can expand on that idea, maybe put in a cool commando squad in that small ship and try to capture the enemy ship without destroying it and you end up with a boarding ship. But what about multipurpose small ships, that can do more cool things and even, you guessed it, counter the bombers or boarders, lets call it a fighter.

So now we have a small bunch of ships that can work with my bigger ships to a greater advantage, by being able to execute cool tactical tricks, like attack from multiple vectors, exploit weaknesses in ships or fleets.

Now a bunch of small 1 or 2 man ships or drones need higher coordination to work and are skill intensive and i dont want them to die because their pilots are hard to replace or their systems are really expensive, so i will create a ship role that coordinates, repairs, carries, or even has additional ships to recover the pilots in case they eject. I will call them carriers.

So unless for some weird sci-fi reason, having multiple vectors of attack, tactical flexibility, boarding capability and general all purpose utility is not recommended in stellaris there will of-course be small ships in stellaris.

Yet....if they are there, it will most likely be part of a missions section - and of course their effect will be as balanced as HOi III aircraft are.

 

[Knightfall52]

Yet....if they are there, it will most likely be part of a missions section - and of course their effect will be as balanced as HOi III aircraft are.

I havent gotten into hoi, so i dont know how aircraft works there. But of course its a fair assumption that it will just be a section part of a ship that provides bonuses in the same effect as other systems maybe with the extra of some cool graphics when you view combats.

 

[Harle]

The arguments against fighters makes some sense, as a fighter is just a delivery system for ordinance, and in a sufficiently advanced military, there would be no need for the extra resources required for fighter craft. They'd just develop more and more advanced missile technology. Computer processing would quickly outstrip organic reaction times, etc.

HOWEVER.

And this is a big however.

Fighter craft in space games are like, a beautiful abstraction and a staple. I would be super sad if they weren't in the game. They don't have to specify whether they are manned fighters or drones, so go with whatever works for you, but I just love the whole Battlestar Galactica aesthetic. Carriers are quintessential to the whole 'space navy' feeling of a good space battle.

And since the battles will be handled with formulas rather than physics, it will be easy to balance fighters against other kinds of ships.

So yeah. Fighters. Keep 'em.

 

[TheDungen]

I'm just worried that swarms of fighters may cause a lot of lag... Aside from that it's awesome.

That's the one thing I never liked about trek, how the space battles were two capital ships lobbing single shot projectiles at each other.

 

[Just a Joke]

The arguments against fighters makes some sense, as a fighter is just a delivery system for ordinance, and in a sufficiently advanced military, there would be no need for the extra resources required for fighter craft. They'd just develop more and more advanced missile technology. Computer processing would quickly outstrip organic reaction times, etc.

Well, though $$$ of missile may not matters in this game, normal missile can't perform partrol and recon mission, or stay in battlefield and wait for new target. I'd be glad to call "retriveable drone with sub-muntion" type missile as unmanned fighters.

 

[TheDungen]

Well if your advanced enough a pilot could simply upload his mind into a drone and fly it, perhaps joined to an AI to some extent, the best of both worlds the sheer computing power of the computer and the intuition and insticncts of a organic pilot.

 

[fabius]

Fighter craft in space games are like, a beautiful abstraction and a staple. I would be super sad if they weren't in the game.

.....but I just love the whole Battlestar Galactica aesthetic. Carriers are quintessential to the whole 'space navy' feeling of a good space battle.

This.

 

[TheDoctor987]

I don't think there will be fighter units, but maybe a carrier section for the bigger ships or star bases that gives it different combat abilities.

 

[Yaskaleh]

okay. it works like this.

Lets say you want to attack an enemy ship, but you don't want to endanger your ship in the process. So since weapons become less and less effective as distance to target increases you say to your self, i want a way to deploy a weapon system away from my ship, oh lets create a small ship with a pilot in it and put our big bomb on it and call it a bomber.

Hm that seems logical, lets see how we can expand on that idea, maybe put in a cool commando squad in that small ship and try to capture the enemy ship without destroying it and you end up with a boarding ship. But what about multipurpose small ships, that can do more cool things and even, you guessed it, counter the bombers or boarders, lets call it a fighter.

So now we have a small bunch of ships that can work with my bigger ships to a greater advantage, by being able to execute cool tactical tricks, like attack from multiple vectors, exploit weaknesses in ships or fleets.

Now a bunch of small 1 or 2 man ships or drones need higher coordination to work and are skill intensive and i dont want them to die because their pilots are hard to replace or their systems are really expensive, so i will create a ship role that coordinates, repairs, carries, or even has additional ships to recover the pilots in case they eject. I will call them carriers.

So unless for some weird sci-fi reason, having multiple vectors of attack, tactical flexibility, boarding capability and general all purpose utility is not recommended in stellaris there will of-course be small ships in stellaris.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

Broadly beyond the obvious of - are carriers realistic in space combat? - There is another question to take into account when it comes to there usefulness and likliehood in the game.

How will Carriers ingratiate themselves with the various FTL methods?

WORMHOLE STATIONS - Wormhole stations are not as conducive to carriers as the other methods of jumping, as the ships do not require an FTL portion leaving more room for ordanace, missile bays, laser batteries, and other weapon systems, this makes more room on a Battleship for both Ship-to-Ship weapons and also Point-Defence weapons to defend against carrier strikes, meaning its less likely that carriers will be as important, as a larger group of corvettes might be able to achieve the same role of fast, weapon delivery while not requiring the carrier.

HYPERLANE - Slightly better for carriers than Wormhole stations, due to having to have a jump drive on all your ships. This means that ships that carrier other vessels such as carriers more efficient, however due to the speed of system to system travel, I would presume that it would just be more conducivee to have battleship style capital ships that can move quickly, with supporting vessals and a small amount of carriers for support.

JUMP DRIVES - This is the form of FTL that most favours carriers, due to requiring a large and costly jump drive on all ships, it means it is highly inefficent to outfit corvettes in this way, that is why I assume that the most logical way to set up Jump fleets is a majority of your capital ships will be carriers/battleships with carrier capacity, and even escort carrier cruisers, and the majority of your strike capacity will be on your fighters. It's also possible you will use jump incapable ships for picket defence, corvettes and the like that are then supported by your carrier fleets.


With this in mind I think the choice of carriers or not has a strategic element that permeates to the other technology of the game, that is quite interesting. Also

Carriers are cool in space - true story.

 

[Denkt]

I think fighters could be represented as a weapon (given how the combat system works). Figthers would do well against ships with heavy weapons which have poor ability to hit and damage figthers and you could expect the carrier to be outside the effective range of these weapons. Figther would only break the game if they are like extra hp which you regain for free after each battle. As a weapon they would work just like other weapons and not be special snowflakes.

 

[derPzJager]

I, personally, would like to see carriers in the game.
at the same time i hate the way i can swarm enemy with my fighters in other games.

so i would propose something like WWII approach to carrier based craft:

* torpedo bombers - powerful against capital chips. defenceless against fighters. after torpedo run they have to rearm at carrier.
* fighters - speed, agility, light weapons. defending fleet against bombers. powerless against capitals.
* heavy fighters armed with light torpedoes and limited capability against fighters.


effects we get from this

for battleship fleet:
* battleship fleet wouldn't be "be all end all". pure battleship fleet would be defenceless against carriers (like in wwii)
* it would make smaller hulls useful. escorting big guns with frigates and destroyers would make sence now.
* even going with battleships it would make worthwhile adding some escort carriers with fighters for defence against bombers.

carrier fleets:
* carriers have to stay relatively close to battle for bombers to be able to rearm quickly. that again makes escorts useful for protecton from fast frigate/destroyer attacks.
* you have to plan your carrier group composition - bombers alone will fail against fleet with some fighter support.
* carriers would need some extra transport with spare fighters/bombers to replace losses.

+ carriers could be very useful in planetary assaults supporting troops on the ground or destroying orbital defences.

my two cents...

 

[Harle]

I, personally, would like to see carriers in the game.
at the same time i hate the way i can swarm enemy with my fighters in other games.

so i would propose something like WWII approach to carrier based craft:

* torpedo bombers - powerful against capital chips. defenceless against fighters. after torpedo run they have to rearm at carrier.
* fighters - speed, agility, light weapons. defending fleet against bombers. powerless against capitals.
* heavy fighters armed with light torpedoes and limited capability against fighters.


effects we get from this

for battleship fleet:
* battleship fleet wouldn't be "be all end all". pure battleship fleet would be defenceless against carriers (like in wwii)
* it would make smaller hulls useful. escorting big guns with frigates and destroyers would make sence now.
* even going with battleships it would make worthwhile adding some escort carriers with fighters for defence against bombers.

carrier fleets:
* carriers have to stay relatively close to battle for bombers to be able to rearm quickly. that again makes escorts useful for protecton from fast frigate/destroyer attacks.
* you have to plan your carrier group composition - bombers alone will fail against fleet with some fighter support.
* carriers would need some extra transport with spare fighters/bombers to replace losses.

+ carriers could be very useful in planetary assaults supporting troops on the ground or destroying orbital defences.

my two cents...

You make some interesting points, but I have to take issue with this:

* carriers have to stay relatively close to battle for bombers to be able to rearm quickly. that again makes escorts useful for protecton from fast frigate/destroyer attacks.

This doesn't make much sense, and it is the opposite of how carriers operate, at least in real life. Carrier taskgroups avoid detection and fleet combat as a priority. The whole point of fighting with aircraft rather than with guns or missiles is that they can perform reconnaissance and reach farther away, perform devastating strikes without putting the fleet at risk. Putting the carrier into a position where it can be fired upon by enemy ship guns is probably a maneuvering failure. The planes are perfectly adequate weapons at long ranges; more than that, they are expendable and can be replaced reasonably quickly. The carriers themselves not so much.

Plus, the game is going to be handled in ticks of hours or days, 'rearming quickly' isn't a priority for realism or gameplay.

Because this is space, and most fleet actions will take place in an unobstructed vacuum, I feel like fleets should engage in long range skirmishes using torpedoes and fighter craft, before they ever close to within broadside distance. Maybe you can set fleet 'tactics' that allow you to decide whether to evade at long range or pursue close range engagements. Do you build a mobile carrier fleet that tries to remain at long range and do damage with minimal ship losses? Or do you build a fast assault fleet full of smaller ships with big engines, powerful short-range weaponry, and loads of point defense? Or do you build a fleet of defensive ships and a handful of torpedo ships that engage at long range with dozens of missiles, hoping a few will break through the rain of point defense weapons? These kinds of battles are a lot more realistic in the open battlespace of stellar warfare, than the sort of close-range broadside battles that we see in most games and movies, in my opinion.

 

[derPzJager]

with "carriers have to stay relatively close to battle for bombers to be able to rearm quickly" i didnt mean carriers stick neat enemy battleships. idea was stay out of gun range and rearm bombers to maximize their damage (less time spent flying to and from carrier). but yes, i see your point.

 

[Schnitzelwurst]

From our curennt understanding of Physiks I think that manned fighters/bombers dont make much sense, since AI controlled crafts react faster and dont have to care about thinks like G forces.
Also you further you are away from the enemy and the faster both ships/fleets move the more useless your weapons become( information travels at maximum with C) and your ordinance needs time to reach your target as well.
I really liked the idea about space battles portraied in the book " The Forever War". There ships had a set of battledrons (mostly with a kamikaze approach IIRC) that delivered nuclear weaponary with wave attacks in the hopes to overcome enemy point defence (and AI controlled laser PD is VERY fast). I dont mind if some sort of Fighter/Bomber drones are handled in a "Deliver ordinance and return to rearm" matter, as mobile PD systems(imagine the enemy uses some sort of MIRV missles and they go out to intercept them) or if they take a more japanese way on bombing enemy ships, but i just cant imagine a space battle where you got a ships of huge sizes just with some lasers and railguns and shoot at an enemy thousands of kilometres away and just pray to hit him.

 

[TheDungen]

Trying to predict technology reliably even a couple of decades into the future is a futile effort, and we're talking centuries give up on the idea of realism and do what's cool.

 

[Mathrafalovich]

There is no scenario*, realistically, in which a fighter craft is better in space than a missile.

You carry twice the fuel to do half the missile's damage. The reason fighters are useful in terrestrial navies is because they can extend past the horizon, but there is no horizon in space.

*Actually, there are two edge cases. The first, involving true starfighters, involves are complex geopolitical situation and a combat zone restricted to a single planetary system. The second is, if you have fighters to support your ground operations it might be worthwhile to deploy them for extra firepower in a space battle.