I agree with Amoebka, saying "you dont have to use them," to excuse pisspoor balancing is a trash argument. I shouldn't have to deny myself an interesting part of the game because I know it breaks another part of it. At that point it might as well be unplayable full of crash bugs for all it's worth. Whether I'm avoiding it because it's broken in the sense it crashes, or it undoes the rest of the game, it's all the same and should be fixed so I can stop avoiding a section of the material. And dont forget, the AI doesnt care to not use it.
And reminder: I'm the guy who says bombers are the main issue. I also do see merit in the argument that's been presented here that the AI aiming at fighters weapons that really have no business doing so, or the AIs inability to trust it's armor at all. Once again I reiterate, "fixing" the problem means nothing right now since a new update is, I would hope at this point, far enough in that too much will change. Instead we should examine the problem and detail what makes people see issues with fighters and use that to find if the new update finds solutions to them or changes the field such they are no longer an issue.
Also Koprus is entirely wrong about the lore. Fighters and bombers were part of the mid-line cruisers school as an offshoot to warships in combined arms fleets. High tech intigrated them together into warships to avoid overdepending on them and leaving a far too vulnerable carrier which has little hope of breaking through an onslaught or the broadside of a conquest. So in lore they weren't strong enough on their own and risked being completely helpless if the front-line warships were ever overwhelmed enough, which left the fleet lacking for a response in that scenario. Thus they became relegated to support and point defense or capitalizing on disabling more powerful ships with ion cannons and the like.
