A not permanent retreat for fighters that are currently not needed, but might be needed later on. Think Talons waiting to recapture objectives after the enemy Wasps have been dealet with, bombers waiting for the second enemy capship to appear etcetera.
I've previously been pretty skeptical of this idea, but you've really sold me. I really really like the docked fighters showing up in the ship info panel!
This would require a direct order for fighters: Dock. But with the new command system thats not a problem - you could dock any number of fighters for 1 CP with 2 key presses. Of course any carrier that has a fighter ordered to dock at it would have their launch toggle set to Do Not Launch.
Can we assign combat groups out of combat at the moment? (From the fleet screen?) I don't think we can. If we could: assign fighters to a group (a little number would appear under the picture of the wing). Drag any fighter onto a carrier to assign all fighters in that group to that carrier. (The fleet screen needs a little bit of TLC, so speculation on this might be a bit moot).
Here is one concern: say you launch a carrier with fighters inside, but do not have the FP to deploy the fighters. The carrier is destroyed before you have the FP - are the fighters destroyed? I would say yes!
Being able to send fighters back to dock with the carrier until needed is a great idea. I usually have to assign them to a way point in the corner so they don't get destroyed by the enemy. Then you could include a feature that would make them return to the carrier by default whenever their assigned objective is complete, instead of wandering the map getting destroyed.
Also instead of assigning the fighters to an objective you assign the carrier, the carrier AI would deploy the most appropriate fighter (bombers for strike, interceptors for captures, launch all when carrier is under fire). But that may be less"simple".
Another suggestion I want to slip in through this thread is maybe by carrying fighters into the battle through carriers, wings get fleet point discount for battle deployment only? This idea was suggested before and it seem to go hand in hand with this suggestion.Mh...that's good. Gives more incentive for a good carrier fighter infrastructure. Fighters will have to catch up after the other ships got all those OP improvements, to build up the synergy effect between fighters and carriers would be a nice way of realizing that.
Here's my idea:
Another suggestion I want to slip in through this thread is maybe by carrying fighters into the battle through carriers, wings get fleet point discount for battle deployment only? This idea was suggested before and it seem to go hand in hand with this suggestion.Mh...that's good. Gives more incentive for a good carrier fighter infrastructure. Fighters will have to catch up after the other ships got all those OP improvements, to build up the synergy effect between fighters and carriers would be a nice way of realizing that.Here's my idea:
Interesting idea, but it would not work. How many FP would it cost to deploy a assigned wing before it's carrier?
- Zero FP? You can just spam fighters.
- Normal fighter FP? You will not have enough FP left to deploy the carrier.
- You cant launch fighters before the carrier? Fighters become useless because they can't deploy early to capture points.
Here's my idea:
- Increase FP cost of carriers in proportion to (but less than) their fighter capacity. (I'd suggest ~66%)
- Fighters assigned to carriers now cost 0 FP.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ruthlessly poke holes in people's ideas. I love the general concept of reinforcing your fleet with fighters launched directly from carriers, and I'd love to help refine this concept into something truly awesome.Here's my idea:
- Increase FP cost of carriers in proportion to (but less than) their fighter capacity. (I'd suggest ~66%)
- Fighters assigned to carriers now cost 0 FP.
Personally, I don't feel that adjusting fleet point values in this way is a good idea. The difference in combat effectiveness of a Talon wing (3 FP) and a Warthog wing (10 FP) is huge, and fighters are balanced around these fleet point costs. Say I could assign three wings of fighters to my Gemini -- why would I deploy three Talon wings when I could send out three Warthog wings for the same cost? IMO, this requires too much balancing work for too small a benefit.
The only difference I'm proposing is that the FP cost of fighters be rolled into the FP cost of the carrier; though with a slight discount to make carriers a more efficient way of delivering fighters into battle.
For what it's worth, I think this is a good idea.As do I :)
dittoFor what it's worth, I think this is a good idea.As do I :)
Love this idea, but here's my thoughts. Fighters should be 0fp but you need hanger space to use the , except maybe for some ships that seem really good. Yes this could eliminate small lone fighters but instead just hav alone fighters with a lousy carrier.
Btw Question: why is fighters fp if we have hanger space?
Because to me there is no reason to have it.
Love this idea, but here's my thoughts. Fighters should be 0fp but you need hanger space to use the , except maybe for some ships that seem really good. Yes this could eliminate small lone fighters but instead just hav alone fighters with a lousy carrier.
Btw Question: why is fighters fp if we have hanger space?
Because to me there is no reason to have it.
I can see this working except for one problem. At the start of combat you would be forced to deploy your carrier rather than individual fighter wings and frigates. Most worth-while carriers are at least cruiser class and the vast majority of them are capital ships. This would use up almost your entire starting FP allotment. Rather than making fighters more versatile it forces an almost all or nothing choice on a player. Does he want to deploy his carrier and have fighters available immediately or does he want to be able to utilize frigates or destroyers?
At the moment, fighters, as useful as they are in certain situations, are woefully under-powered in general combat and without heavier backup can very quickly get picked apart. Particularly cheap/early game ones like the talon or piranha class. If you've only got fighters and a carrier on the field but your opponent fields a series of fast/powerful frigates he may be able to intercept you before you capture the points you need to bring on backup and at that point you are well and truly screwed because fighters vs frigates is only going to end one way.
I don't follow this argument. Carriers, all 5 of them, aren't particularly expensive in FP, especially the ever so popular and versatile Venture (12 FP for a cruiser what?). And for the really confusing part, there are plenty of non-carrier ships with hanger space... so what the hell?
To top that off, if fighters/bombers were to cost zero flight points with enough hanger space, you can bring in those fancy regular ships and fighters would be included in your fleet in addition for FREE, so what are you talking about needing to bring in more reinforcements?
Well maybe this will balance fleets out? Because right now it seems that frigates are really only for capturing ATM( or that what I've seen from me and the two youtubers) and they as well as well as fighters need more uses. This could fix these both.
Well maybe this will balance fleets out? Because right now it seems that frigates are really only for capturing ATM( or that what I've seen from me and the two youtubers) and they as well as well as fighters need more uses. This could fix these both.
It depends on where you are in the game. Early on and even into the mid-game a fast attack pack of frigates can be devastating. Later on though when you're up against cruisers and capital ships I think its right that frigates get relegated to a scouting/harassing role since if they were a serious threat to ships of that size why would anyone bother with a Capital ship?
Fighters are always useful in a scouting role but as long as you don't mind taking a few casualties they remain useful right through the game for harassing and slowing down the enemy's bigger ships. Holding up an Onslaught by forcing it to raise its shields and take pot shots at a couple of squads of wasps can very easily give you the extra time you need to get a pair of strike cruisers into position to intercept it.
My point was that while carriers are not particularly expensive in FP for their class they're also not, in general, particularly powerful for their class in my experience. Taking the venture as an example. It has only one flight deck so can only deploy one fighter wing from it at a time.
For the same cost you can field three or four frigates
I did not quite get what the advantage of 0FP fighters would be yet. So...what would the advantage of 0FP fighters be?
Well I was just confused on why fighters have to have hanger space and an Fp, why have hanger space if they have Fp?
I was thinking is a carrier can only deploy 1 fighter in a period of time, or per flight deck.(time based on what's balanced) and so the only really menacing carrier is the capital ship(which the name escapes me) and this should be a scary ship.
Oh and just of a fix for that issue!! So fighters could have a "early deployment" fp if you want/need to deploy them without a carrier.