As most of us know, there are currently several issues impact strike craft viability.
Thankfully, in the last few weeks, one of the devs mentioned that they've identified the source of one of these issues, a bug that can sometimes cause strike craft to fly off aimlessly and not contribute to the battle, so hopefully that fix will be implemented soon.
However, there is still another key issue that challenges Strike Craft viably - the fact that they are typically competing with L-slots (large-size slots) [seeing that Hangar bays are generally allotted space on hull segments equivalent to them taking up the same amount of space as a L-slot; its 4 Small = 4 Point Defense = 2 Medium = 2 Guided = 1 Large = 1 Hangar, except for the anomalous Picket Bow of the Destroyer which has 1 less PD or S slot than it should by this convention and is thus underpowered]. And its not just that Hangar slots use the same number of slots as large weapons, but also that the ship sections they are mounted on tend to use Medium or Small plus point defense [except the Battleship Hangar core, which is 4 Medium and 1 Hangar and is the only Hangar-providing ship section with no point defense]. So you are also trading out ADDITIONAL large guns, not just for the Hangar's slot equivalencies, but with the other guns offered on Hangar sections.
Anyways, the point is that the typical late game fleet could be mounting Neutron Launchers or Kinetic Artillery in these large slots that the Hangar slots compete for. These have massive ranges (130 and 120) and also have bonus damage vs. hulls.
Combined with other factors (such as these guns also striking the target instantly, while strike craft must fly out there), this makes Strike Craft a losing proposition.
But what could we do to make them more worthwhile?
One possibiltiy would be to give Strike Craft a large anti-Hull (+% damage vs. hulls) damage, like the other weapons they are competing with (Neutron launchers and Kinetic Artillery) both have. Perhaps even a SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER bonus than either of these weapons.
Flavor-wise, it could be justified with the idea that since strike-craft are able to get so much closer to the enemy ships, they have the opportunity to very precisely target weaker points in the enemy craft at essentially point-blank range, allowing them to deal extremely effective damage.
Moreover, per existing mechanics, ships lose combat effectiveness as they lose hull points, so this could also justify strike-craft bonus damage vs. hull with the idea that the strike craft are targeting key systems (gun batteries, shield generators/projectors, engines) to debilitate enemy ships during their attack.
This might not solve all or even more of the issues of strike craft, but it could help alleviate the issue.
What do people (players and/or devs) think?
Thankfully, in the last few weeks, one of the devs mentioned that they've identified the source of one of these issues, a bug that can sometimes cause strike craft to fly off aimlessly and not contribute to the battle, so hopefully that fix will be implemented soon.
However, there is still another key issue that challenges Strike Craft viably - the fact that they are typically competing with L-slots (large-size slots) [seeing that Hangar bays are generally allotted space on hull segments equivalent to them taking up the same amount of space as a L-slot; its 4 Small = 4 Point Defense = 2 Medium = 2 Guided = 1 Large = 1 Hangar, except for the anomalous Picket Bow of the Destroyer which has 1 less PD or S slot than it should by this convention and is thus underpowered]. And its not just that Hangar slots use the same number of slots as large weapons, but also that the ship sections they are mounted on tend to use Medium or Small plus point defense [except the Battleship Hangar core, which is 4 Medium and 1 Hangar and is the only Hangar-providing ship section with no point defense]. So you are also trading out ADDITIONAL large guns, not just for the Hangar's slot equivalencies, but with the other guns offered on Hangar sections.
Anyways, the point is that the typical late game fleet could be mounting Neutron Launchers or Kinetic Artillery in these large slots that the Hangar slots compete for. These have massive ranges (130 and 120) and also have bonus damage vs. hulls.
Combined with other factors (such as these guns also striking the target instantly, while strike craft must fly out there), this makes Strike Craft a losing proposition.
But what could we do to make them more worthwhile?
One possibiltiy would be to give Strike Craft a large anti-Hull (+% damage vs. hulls) damage, like the other weapons they are competing with (Neutron launchers and Kinetic Artillery) both have. Perhaps even a SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER bonus than either of these weapons.
Flavor-wise, it could be justified with the idea that since strike-craft are able to get so much closer to the enemy ships, they have the opportunity to very precisely target weaker points in the enemy craft at essentially point-blank range, allowing them to deal extremely effective damage.
Moreover, per existing mechanics, ships lose combat effectiveness as they lose hull points, so this could also justify strike-craft bonus damage vs. hull with the idea that the strike craft are targeting key systems (gun batteries, shield generators/projectors, engines) to debilitate enemy ships during their attack.
This might not solve all or even more of the issues of strike craft, but it could help alleviate the issue.
What do people (players and/or devs) think?
.... There's been so much speculation for so long concerning what's wrong that I wouldn't be surprised if you had to fix a half dozen things ... and even then they still might only be "situation-ally good".