Nice. Did I read that wrong, or are all fighter wings now going to be instantly repaired outside of combat, regardless of having a flight deck or not?
Also, does it consume supplies directly to repair your fighters? You did mention it takes CR, which uses supplies in a round about way, but does it use supplies directly?
one particuliar (funny?) detail im denoting is that if my memory serves me right (please do correct me), i think only the astral as more than 1 flight deck, with every other carrier having only 1.
thats...i dont know, kinda akward ?
Yeah the game needs a medium carrier with 2 flight decks.
Looks good! How will we know how many fighters we can expect from a full CR squadron or whatever we happen to have- is it something flat like 'Replacing 50% of the wing costs 10% CR' or is it set per-wing so we could have small, but easy-to-replace wings?
Now I wonder how frigates will compare to fighters. They're both getting enough changes that I can't theorycraft an answer, but I'm leaning more towards fighters at this point. The whole 'unable to be permanently destroyed' thing is pretty damn useful.
Alex, IMHO, You really need to add an assortment of new ships. There is just no real variation right now. It's all pick this if you want a carrier, This if you want an energy cruiser..... etc
If replacements are automatically made, what's the point of individual fighters retreating? Lower supply cost to repair/no CR loss? Also, how does it pick what fighter to replace? First come first serve, by value, by order in the fleet screen, by wing closest to death?
And finally, about bombers and fighters returning for rearmament:
- Will it cost as much CR as replacing a craft? Less? Nothing?
Oh, I like it a lot. Seems to make anti fighter warfare a much more tactical sport. Single fighters flying around is nice too, in German you'd call the "livelier feel" having a high Wuselfaktor. I love me some Wuselfaktor, jawohl!
Hope the new assignments are flexible enough to meet the demands, though. Seems as if the shifting front lines of a battle could force you to relocate your rally points as often as CP permit.
Will there be any direct difference in fighter replacement speed between carriers (with the same number of decks)? Or maybe there will be a indirect effect because of better CR upkeep on certain ships? Or is a Gemini (freighter) still just as good a carrier as an Condor (dedicated carrier)?
Fighters stop deploying once they have dropped to 0% CR, right? Will the death of the last fighter mean the destruction of the wing?
- Say a Piranha wing lost one craft during a strike run. The two remaining bombers will now return to rearm. Assuming I have no rally point (out of CR or shifting front lines), will the replacement bomber go on another run on his own?
Yeah, haven't played around with it enough to really say, though battle lines don't tend to shift *that* much. I'd thought about allowing "fighter rendezvous" on ships, but then it's a bit of a quagmire (why not allow "rally strike force", too? "defend"? etc?). Mulling it over in the back of my mind.
It'll try to rejoin its wing. If the path takes it over a viable target, it'll drop bombs, but otherwise it won't pick a target of its own.
-What about manned fighters VS unmanned drones?
The max crew size for fighter wings should be increased to a "squadron size" say 20-50 pilots with the skeleton size still the bare minimum to field your 4 talons. Then you just end up burning through 1 or 2 crew for each fighter killed... expensive, but hey, pilots are people too, you know. And no-one ever liked Gold 4 anyway. ::)
Love the buff, though I am somewhat disappointed that you didn't mention anything about carriers actually carrying fighters into battle/in the campaign map. For a fleet I can't imagine having fighter flying around your formation having much point other than wasting fuel and training new pilots. Having to actually deploy your carrier (assuming you have one in-fleet) to deploy your fighters makes some sense, but I suppose they could be deployed off-combat and fly into the fray.
This is really exciting stuff. Fighters are going to be much more fun to use and fight against!
I'm liking this system. Makes much more sense intuitively, and solves a bunch of gameplay problems all at once. I do have one question though: how will crew casualties work with this system? If fighter wings cannot really be destroyed while carriers are active, does that mean that you won't take any casualties for any crew assigned to fighter wings when your fleet contains carriers?
-Will there ever be an in-battle ammo resupply and repairs and will carriers support that role or would it be a separate "weapon" or ship?
-Any plans for phased carriers/fighters?
-Any plans for suicide "fighters"? Probably drones that are build from carrier and suicide into other ships for lots of damage?
... but I suppose they could be deployed off-combat and fly into the fray.
-Any plans for suicide "fighters"? Probably drones that are build from carrier and suicide into other ships for lots of damage?
Those are called missiles :)
I'm thinking there'll be a chance to lose crew for every fighter lost. The chance probably won't be too high, ejection systems and all that.
Reminds me; could there perhaps be fighter refits? Like, fighters use "fighter-size" weapons, and buying them in bulk could be part of their repair cost, and occasionally some of the fighter weapons can be recovered? Modified fighters, anyone? :P
-What about the idea of different types of carriers for more ship variation?
Things like:
a catapult - fighters launch instantly at full speed
landing strip - fighters land instantly without slowing down
factory - much faster rebuild speed
external dock ports - faster rearm but can't rebuild
Simply cannot wait!But if you could just add hangars then what's the point of traditional carrier ships? I just don't think it could work.
Now this is just an idea but as far as shopping in the campaign I see it in 2 separate entities.
Buy a wing. Cheap set of fighters if you don't have the facilities to fabricate more of them.
Buy a factory/hangar. A much more costly hangar that's installed like a weapon system on a carrier ship.
This allows for someone without carrier support to invest in some fighter wings for cheap. A bit like what we have right now.
But it also gives each carrier a set fighter type(s)/wing(s) assigned to it.
For example you could decide to bring in your carrier with bombers go flank the capital ships while you keep the one with the interceptors closer to your fleet.
I dunno just a random idea that seemed ok in my head.
-Will there ever be an in-battle ammo resupply and repairs and will carriers support that role or would it be a separate "weapon" or ship?
Pretty much no. Thought about ammo resupply, just don't like it. Too fiddly, and ammo is not a mechanic I generally want to highlight in the first place. Repair drones could concievably come up as a ship system, but I don't have any specific plans in that direction.
I'm not sure if it was said earlier, but what about the incombat replacement of fighters with a carrier which arrives later?
Lets say I have a large engagement and I can't deploy my full fleet, so I only deploy a few wings and and a destroyer. Then the wings get destroyed by an frigate and afterwards I call in my carrier. Will it than start to reproduce the wings or are they lost for the duration of that engagement?
Then why are there sprites for munitions ships, and munitions bays on some ships like the Odyssey? I always thought the orange bays were for munitions drones, so some ships could resupply other ships but munitions ships were generally un/lightly armed.
Simply cannot wait!
Now this is just an idea but as far as shopping in the campaign I see it in 2 separate entities.
Buy a wing. Cheap set of fighters if you don't have the facilities to fabricate more of them.
Buy a factory/hangar. A much more costly hangar that's installed like a weapon system on a carrier ship.
This allows for someone without carrier support to invest in some fighter wings for cheap. A bit like what we have right now.
But it also gives each carrier a set fighter type(s)/wing(s) assigned to it.
For example you could decide to bring in your carrier with bombers go flank the capital ships while you keep the one with the interceptors closer to your fleet.
I dunno just a random idea that seemed ok in my head.
Lets say I have a large engagement and I can't deploy my full fleet, so I only deploy a few wings and and a destroyer. Then the wings get destroyed by an frigate and afterwards I call in my carrier. Will it than start to reproduce the wings or are they lost for the duration of that engagement?
From what I deduce, they will be gone for that engagement, but will be available again in the next engagement of the same encounter (so if you lost them during a fight and the enemy flees, they will be available in the following escape scenario).
PS: I just want to thank Alex for this awsome game ;D
Then why are there sprites for munitions ships, and munitions bays on some ships like the Odyssey? I always thought the orange bays were for munitions drones, so some ships could resupply other ships but munitions ships were generally un/lightly armed.
...
I think David might have been a bit too enthusiastic with drawing them ahead of time :)
1) How will this work with multiple carriers? Will each resupply every Fighter Wing equally or will certain wings go towards certain carriers?
Assigning wings to specific carriers is something I'd thought about. Too much mircomanagement for my taste, though.I'd guess it's a function of distance and busyness of all carriers, whoever can provide service fastest does so.
2) How will this impact Bombers/Torpedo Bombers? Having them break off from their formation and go in one-at-a-time would make them largely useless.
Will "Rally Strike Force" make them form up as a full squad before going on another run?
- Say a Piranha wing lost one craft during a strike run. The two remaining bombers will now return to rearm. Assuming I have no rally point (out of CR or shifting front lines), will the replacement bomber go on another run on his own?It'll try to rejoin its wing. If the path takes it over a viable target, it'll drop bombs, but otherwise it won't pick a target of its own.
So, will fighters vitually be indestructable with the next patch?
Well, I guess Carriers will become even larger targets in the long run then, huh?
As a side note, with the massive increase in the usefulness of carriers with the next update, will the Astral in particular be made a bit squishier?
Ah. The lore section in my brain is satisfied with this explanation for fighter wing-immortality.So, will fighters vitually be indestructable with the next patch?
As long as you have a flightdeck in your fleet, fighters can't be lost. I'd assume that their blueprints are stored on board.
Without a single flight deck, fighter wing loss is permanent.
Now if we can only think of an explanation for why a fully-destroyed fighter wing can't redeploy...
As a side note, with the massive increase in the usefulness of carriers with the next update, will the Astral in particular be made a bit squishier?
Hi, new to the game, just dropped a dozen hours into it and one thing I noticed is that fighters/bombers seem to cost waaaaay too much FP when compared to capital ships.Capitals have a disproportionate firepower to FP ratio at the moment (you can see a previous discussion on this here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=5440.0)). This will probably be balanced out in future updates by strategic factors such as operating costs and travel speed, as well as availability.
Yes, I know they get the benefit of repairs/rearming from a cruiser, BUT COME ON! 5-10 FP?!? A cap is 20. TWENTY! The four Gladius fighters last less than 2 secs against a capital ship.
Either decrease the fighters FP or increase the capitals FP. I think all the other ship classes FP are fine, but.... the way fighters and capitals are now... it's not balanced.
:-\
i hope this wont impact me...im a carrier guy and i have alot of fighter wings...will it be worse for me?This will be very GOOD for you.
i hope this wont impact me...im a carrier guy and i have alot of fighter wings...will it be worse for me?
...
With this update and now that FP is gone, we might see a proper use for Warthog and Gladius fighters.
Wait, what was that about FP being gone? Did I miss something?
It'll be nice to have Gladius/Warthog wings that won't be a complete loss if they get wiped out by random missiles hitting them. And I think swarms of Talons might actually become a viable (If somewhat pricy) tactic.
Seems so. During combat they are renamed to Deployment Points, in the campaign they are completely replaced by the impact a ship has on the logistics rating.Yay, that's definitely a step in the right direction :)
This sounds awesome. Now only if I was able to actually try it soon ;D
BTW if 3 deck on Astral is an overkill in current scale of the game, exactly how epic of an battle are things going to get in proper final end game phase?!? Another awesome hint at good things that should come... someday!
I can see an argument for 2 deck carrier but how will a 'dedicated' destroyer-class carriers be any different from gemini or condor when those two are pretty bare bone already? I think their relatively large cargo space actually makes a lot of sense for dedicated carrier design. Lore says they are modded ships but gameplay wise they already fit the dedicated carrier role very well.
Though I dont know if working on the galaxy counts as out of alpha. What is the boundary case?
Alpha to me means "is the game engine and game working as intended? No major game-breaking bugs?" In my terms, this game is way past that objective. ;)
Alpha to me means "is the game engine and game working as intended? No major game-breaking bugs?" In my terms, this game is way past that objective. ;)
Alpha to me means "is the game engine and game working as intended? No major game-breaking bugs?" In my terms, this game is way past that objective. ;)
Well, when you make your game you can upgrade it to a beta when you feel like it.
AW SNAP!
So how will this work for single fighter squadrons like those found in mods?
So how will this work for single fighter squadrons like those found in mods?
What do you mean? It will work just like with fighter squads. No danger of destruction as long as a flight deck is available.
I think he meant single fighter, such as Erick Doe's Antediluvians Fighter Heavy Escort. Flight deck out, no worries! (or you don't have to deploy carrier either?)So how will this work for single fighter squadrons like those found in mods?
What do you mean? It will work just like with fighter squads. No danger of destruction as long as a flight deck is available.
maybe he meant about fighters splitting off formation for repairs ? nah, thats just silly...
Well considering if your whole wing is lost it is out of the battle, single fighter wings will be much easier to take out of a fight, but they they will also probably peel off for repairs sooner now, so I dunno.
Seems risky. Not sure if they have cr related benefits or what.
man, each patch compells me to restart playing starsector a lot, but 0.6 in particuliar feels bigger than the others.
cant wait
...
...Ah, thank you both for the clarifications. Yeah, so as far as I get it now, a single fighter wing will not be handled any different at all.
Fighter wings will re-spawn as long as there is free flight-deck capacity. So, as long as you have at least as many flight decks as wings you can't lose a fighter wing.
If you have fewer flight decks than fighter wings, the only chance to lose a wing is if one gets destroyed while all flight decks are busy re-producing fighters of another wing.
So, as long as you have at least as many flight decks as wings you can't lose a fighter wing.
Does the carrier's CR deplete as fighters are repaired/replaced?
Well, that's technically not true. Say you have 2 Talon wings, wing A and wing B, and 2 flight decks which are occupied replacing 2 lost fighters from wing A. If wing B gets killed off while wing A's fighters are still under construction, wing B would be taken out of the battle. What you said would be true if the fighter wings only contained a max of 1 fighter, though. To truly not risk having a fighter wing removed from the battle you'd need as many flight decks as fighters deployed (not fighter wings, fighters), minus the number of fighters in the smallest fighter wing, plus 1.
On the offensive side, are there any plans on making bombers more effective either AI wise, armament wise, or in a logistical sense (credit cost or maintenance cost)?
Well, that's technically not true. Say you have 2 Talon wings, wing A and wing B, and 2 flight decks which are occupied replacing 2 lost fighters from wing A. If wing B gets killed off while wing A's fighters are still under construction, wing B would be taken out of the battle. What you said would be true if the fighter wings only contained a max of 1 fighter, though. To truly not risk having a fighter wing removed from the battle you'd need as many flight decks as fighters deployed (not fighter wings, fighters), minus the number of fighters in the smallest fighter wing, plus 1.
On the offensive side, are there any plans on making bombers more effective either AI wise, armament wise, or in a logistical sense (credit cost or maintenance cost)?
Not at the moment. I'll definitely take a good look at it when the campaign is closer to completion, though.Well, that's technically not true. Say you have 2 Talon wings, wing A and wing B, and 2 flight decks which are occupied replacing 2 lost fighters from wing A. If wing B gets killed off while wing A's fighters are still under construction, wing B would be taken out of the battle. What you said would be true if the fighter wings only contained a max of 1 fighter, though. To truly not risk having a fighter wing removed from the battle you'd need as many flight decks as fighters deployed (not fighter wings, fighters), minus the number of fighters in the smallest fighter wing, plus 1.
Right, that's how it works. Fighters do have different repair times, though - using the "refit time" column in wing_data.csv, if you're modding inclined.
So, Wasps only take 5 seconds per replacement. And, yeah, there's a chance of losing a wing if multiple wings get hammered at the same time, but since you don't lose them from your fleet - just for the battle - I think that's perfectly fine. (Mechanics-wise, this is mostly to avoid a special case of wings being "deployed" with no members, no way to get them off the field (no icon to click on!), etc. Pick whatever lore explanation you like to justify this behavior, or just look the other way :)).
So, Wasps only take 5 seconds per replacement. And, yeah, there's a chance of losing a wing if multiple wings get hammered at the same time, but since you don't lose them from your fleet - just for the battle - I think that's perfectly fine. (Mechanics-wise, this is mostly to avoid a special case of wings being "deployed" with no members, no way to get them off the field (no icon to click on!), etc. Pick whatever lore explanation you like to justify this behavior, or just look the other way :)).Why not allow 0-fighters wings and have them build in combat? Or would that not make any sense coding-wise? Lore-wise means you got the schematics and you're ready to build them. Fighters would repair/replenish as normal ships do, say, one Wasp per 6 hours of travel-mode time?
Fighters do have different repair times, though - using the "refit time" column in wing_data.csv, if you're modding inclined.
Well, that's technically not true. Say you have 2 Talon wings, wing A and wing B, and 2 flight decks which are occupied replacing 2 lost fighters from wing A. If wing B gets killed off while wing A's fighters are still under construction, wing B would be taken out of the battle. What you said would be true if the fighter wings only contained a max of 1 fighter, though. To truly not risk having a fighter wing removed from the battle you'd need as many flight decks as fighters deployed (not fighter wings, fighters), minus the number of fighters in the smallest fighter wing, plus 1.
Right, that's how it works. Fighters do have different repair times, though - using the "refit time" column in wing_data.csv, if you're modding inclined.
So, Wasps only take 5 seconds per replacement. And, yeah, there's a chance of losing a wing if multiple wings get hammered at the same time, but since you don't lose them from your fleet - just for the battle - I think that's perfectly fine. (Mechanics-wise, this is mostly to avoid a special case of wings being "deployed" with no members, no way to get them off the field (no icon to click on!), etc. Pick whatever lore explanation you like to justify this behavior, or just look the other way :)).
So Alex, in fighter wings that only support one fighter do they survive if there's an open flight deck or are they lost for good?
I'm gonna go with soontm. ;) I'm also going to guess within 4 months. :P
the mechanics relating to the permanent destruction of a wing have improved... however... the idea of a wing being a thing you can actually "destroy" while your carriers continually *** out replacements as long as one is left alive is still questionable.
good news all around though.
Heh, the thing with energy PD is that you need a good amount of it before it gets effective. As soon as you hit that threashhold though, it's better.
THat line, in my experience, is all the small turrets on the side of an odyssey being PD.
So was playing a carrier fleet for funsies and preperation for this patch and was reminded just how huge the changes are, haha. Stupid kiting frigates. :)
Made me giggle. Not sure if that was intended, but it did. :PSo was playing a carrier fleet for funsies and preperation for this patch and was reminded just how huge the changes are, haha. Stupid kiting frigates. :)
For me, it's more important because occasionally the Fighter and Bomber AI gets whole squads killed when it mysteriously decides that it would prefer to:
-Fly straight into an enemy's main guns, emptying all of their High Explosive ordinance into the enemy's 0-flux shields and dying instead of doing anything useful (Pirahanas are bad about this)
-Do the above, but with shields active so they get overloaded and can't even fire their ordinance (Tritons and Daggers are pros at this)
-Ignore how slow they are and end up floating in the middle of space, alone, being picked off by enemy missiles (This is a favorite of Warthogs and Mining Drones)
-Fire incredibly piddly weapons against a Flak-loaded side of an enemy capital ship (The preferred tactic of Wasps and Talons)
-Chase and be kited to death by Frigates with longer-ranged weapons (Broadswords and Gladius' are bad about this)
Made me giggle. Not sure if that was intended, but it did. :PSo was playing a carrier fleet for funsies and preperation for this patch and was reminded just how huge the changes are, haha. Stupid kiting frigates. :)
For me, it's more important because occasionally the Fighter and Bomber AI gets whole squads killed when it mysteriously decides that it would prefer to:
-Fly straight into an enemy's main guns, emptying all of their High Explosive ordinance into the enemy's 0-flux shields and dying instead of doing anything useful (Pirahanas are bad about this)
-Do the above, but with shields active so they get overloaded and can't even fire their ordinance (Tritons and Daggers are pros at this)
-Ignore how slow they are and end up floating in the middle of space, alone, being picked off by enemy missiles (This is a favorite of Warthogs and Mining Drones)
-Fire incredibly piddly weapons against a Flak-loaded side of an enemy capital ship (The preferred tactic of Wasps and Talons)
-Chase and be kited to death by Frigates with longer-ranged weapons (Broadswords and Gladius' are bad about this)
That's assuming the Piranhas get close enough to an Onslaught to start dropping their payload. That's also assuming the Onslaught's PD doesn't just completely deny the Piranhas bombing attempts.
While discussing PD is completely off-topic, this comes up a fair bit, and there's a common misconception I want to clear up.
I think directly comparing energy and ballistic PD doesn't make sense - they don't generally compete for the same slots, or for the role of PD on the same ships. If you want to make an argument that energy PD is weak, that's potentially valid, though it should take into account the inherent properties of the ships it's usually found on. But if you want to argue that energy PD is weaker than flak, my response is "right, working as intended".
I suppose the real balance we need to discuss is the other small and medium stuff vs the PD. For example med burst PD is pretty much useless when you could have a real med energy weapon, and the smaller pd is usually less desirable than other small weps, if they face the right direction. If their range was extended a little it would increase their utility as both actual weapons and pd, probably balancing out a little.I have a few responses on thoughts about this... but it is pretty off-topic. Maybe you should make a thread in the suggestions forum with what you think is currently wrong & how you'd suggest fixing it?