Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IIE16 Yoshi]

Every fleet would have to roll with a full hangar just to stay on even grounds with any other fleet their size. And those that don't are at a serious disadvantage.

[Mattk50]

Any solution that fixes fighters needs to allow fighters to be there without hangars and flight decks in the fleet, this is the whole reason they act like they do now.

[Thaago]

I still think fighters shouldn't use fleet points but should instead use hanger points.

And, again, I have to voice my objection.

That would create a massive game imbalance. Every "full" fleet would be using way more fighters than any other ship type, and would be forced to do so to compete with any other fleet. The game would turn in to a massive dogfight, and every ship that isn't a fighter would have weapon load outs with excessive amounts of point defenses on it. No ship would be caught dead without a flak cannon or burst PD laser.

I don't see how that imbalances anything. If you want, you can use the unused hanger space for something else. Possibly make unused hanger space open to cargo space. Or let ships store extra ammo if they're not not using the hanger space.

It's trivial to balance.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of fighters not taking up fleet points in the campaign, but they must be below the hangar space maximum. This makes the hangar stat more of a measure of a ships firepower and less of fleet convenience. I do not think that the fighters should be launched from ships in battle and I think that the flight decks should stay exactly as they are. In terms of reinforcements fighters would take up the usual number of points to actually deploy.

It is true that fleets would have to roll with a near maxed out fighter complement to compete with similar fleets - but is that  bad thing? Many ships have no hangar space at all so those that do would be more valuable. Also if this suggestion were actually implemented there would probably be significant changes to hangar values. I imagine the actual number of fighters in combat would remain about the same.

[BillyRueben]

It is true that fleets would have to roll with a near maxed out fighter complement to compete with similar fleets - but is that  bad thing?

Without a hanger space rework? Yes. I have no problem with things like carriers, freighters, and capital ships that have hanger space, since those generally take up a large number of FP and slow your fleet down. My issue would be the ships that are very effective in combat that would also have hanger space.

I imagine the actual number of fighters in combat would remain about the same.

Then why not just leave it the way it is? If this was implemented, they'd either need to keep their FP number for engagements, or there would need to be some fighter specific way of limiting their deployment in a combat situation. What we have now works, and I don't see any particular need to change it.

[Catra]

i'm not really seeing any imbalance if a change like this went through, if anything it would show off the factions more:

1 onslaught = 20
2 dominators = 20
3 enforcers = 9
6 hounds = 18
_____________
12 ships  + 67 HS (which is 33 Talons / 13 Piranhas / 13 Talons + 5 Piranhas / 8 Piranhas + 9 Talons)

1 conquest = 20
2 eagles = 20
1 falcon = 5
3 hammerheads = 18
2 vigilance = 10
______________
10 ships + 73 HS (  10 thunder / 12 broadsword / 7 thunder  + 4 broadsword / 7 broadsword + 4 thunder )


1 astral = 50
3 apogees = 30
4 tempest = 16
__________
8 ships + 126 HS ( 31 Wasps / 18 Xyphos / 18 Wasps + 7 Xyphos / 12 Xyphos + 10 Wasps )

with this, it better shows off that the low tech are more numbers oriented, whereas high tech would be the fighter junkies, and the middle tech strikes a good balance between the two.

none of them wouldn't be at much (if any) of a disadvantage against any other:

low tech has an extreme number of turreted guns + SRM capable mounts ( 12 from the enforcers, 6 from the dominators and 4 from the onslaught, that's ALOT of missiles in the air )and have extremely good staying power to make up for their junk fighters.

middle tech has good fighters and a decent amount of turrets for A-F

high tech has speedy hit and run ships and their carrier is a beasty tank should it get into a bind. high tech has their carrier to emphasize that they are the fighter junkies, if i replaced it with one of their other capitals they would still have an fighter advantage over middle tech and middle tech would still have more ships (along with a gun count advantage).


also, this is achieved, as you can see, with a -very- precise fleet makeup, in order of what is missing and could be added into a fleet to throw off numbers:

low tech:

Lasher

middle tech:

Brawler
Sunder

high tech:

Wolf
Omen
Hyperion
Medusa
Aurora
Odyssey
Paragon

if however, you also meant a fleet with atleast -some- flight deck capability, then:

1 onslaught = 20
2 dominators = 20
3 enforcers = 9
2 condors = 30
_____________
8 ships  + 79 HS (which is 37 Talons / 14 Piranhas / 17 Talons + 9 Piranhas / 12 Piranhas + 13 Talons) *

1 conquest = 20
2 eagles = 20
1 Venture = 25
3 hammerheads = 18
2 vigilance = 10
______________
10 ships + 93 HS (  12 thunder / 15 broadsword / 9 thunder  + 7 broadsword / 10 broadsword + 6 thunder ) *

* half-assed the math, i'm hungry and want dinner sometime tonight.

in this example yes the middle tech has more ships , but they are still quite outgunned and their force is up against forces who will be having a giant cloud of flak around them at all times ( where as before they were up against ships that could simply fly away from them, which is kinda bad for both sides ).

[Morrokain]

One thing nobody that I've seen has mentioned yet to make the carrier a vital fleet ship for a fighter heavy task force without maiming fighter use without them is a carrier specific ship system. It could have a medium to low OP cost that effects fighters in some way. For instance it could make them faster or more maneuverable or make their A.I smarter. The justification for this is a system that coordinates their attacks from a central command location (carrier) and makes them generally more effective. This way you could also give a smaller hanger space and flight decks to a more varied assortment of ships than the game currently has to keep fighters in small group engagements while still having a tangible benefit to carrier centric battle groups.

Also I agree fighters should be able to launch and dock to flight deck capable ships. I mean come on, you are going to choose which guns go in which spot on each of your ships and hull modifications but you can't be bothered to click and drag a fighter wing to its hanger space? The additional time and thought process that would take is negligible in the grand scheme of things and creates much better immersion imo. Keeping fighters having a FP cost is necessary however unless fighters and bombers were nerfed to compensate and had their cost reduced.

[hadesian]

One thing nobody that I've seen has mentioned yet to make the carrier a vital fleet ship for a fighter heavy task force without maiming fighter use without them is a carrier specific ship system. It could have a medium to low OP cost that effects fighters in some way. For instance it could make them faster or more maneuverable or make their A.I smarter. The justification for this is a system that coordinates their attacks from a central command location (carrier) and makes them generally more effective. This way you could also give a smaller hanger space and flight decks to a more varied assortment of ships than the game currently has to keep fighters in small group engagements while still having a tangible benefit to carrier centric battle groups.

Also I agree fighters should be able to launch and dock to flight deck capable ships. I mean come on, you are going to choose which guns go in which spot on each of your ships and hull modifications but you can't be bothered to click and drag a fighter wing to its hanger space? The additional time and thought process that would take is negligible in the grand scheme of things and creates much better immersion imo. Keeping fighters having a FP cost is necessary however unless fighters and bombers were nerfed to compensate and had their cost reduced.

I've noticed this. A fair bit.

I know I have the hangar space but I rolled for ages and with fairly big fleets without any kind of carrier support for my fighters. Carriers provide only one benefit: invincibility and unlimited ammo to fighter wings, provided they get away safely, the carrier is safe and you have the supplies necessary.

[Morrokain]

Well if you guys agree that would be a possibility to solve the problem the question is: is it easy to do technically or would it require a revamp of ship systems since it would be a fleet wide benefit for fighters instead of just focusing on that specific ship?