Print

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

[Regularity]

I'm sure most of us have by now reached the end-game, wherein we graduate from our frigate fleets to mightier vessels. But one common problem when moving up a pay grade like this is that it becomes harder to catch fleeing vessels in combat. Your big, shiny new ship is sure tough, but also quite slow. Initially I kept my old frigate fleet around in reserve and used them to hunt-down fleeing transports and the like. But once I'd saved up enough cash, I decided to upgrade to a carrier and fighter support. However, I soon realized that fighters weren't all what I thought they would be... it almost feels like they are effectively just another class of frigate. A much crappier one at that.

Fighters seem to have roughly the same initial cost, same burn speed, same combat speed... but generally inferior offence and defence. You might suspect that they have a "hidden" defence bonus because they move faster than frigates, and therefore can dodge fire -- but that point is moot if you use high-end frigates like the Wolf, whose combined combat speed, teleport, and longer-ranged guns lets it dodge fire better than any fighter (but with much heavier shielding and armament than fighters). Initially I thought their inferior combat ability would be compensated for by using them with a carrier, you know, so that instead of a good ship with a single life (frigates) you'd get bad ships that could die over and over (fighters).

Then I looked at the heavy fuel and supply demand of fighters+landing bays (the carrier's upkeep costs divided by the number of landing bays), and found the results surprising. While the per-unit cost of a fighter with landing bay had roughly the same per-unit fuel costs as frigates, they consumed far more logistics (works out to ~4-7 supplies/daily per fighter with landing bay, compared to 1-2 supplies/daily with frigates). So the frigates are more combat-worthy, AND cheaper to maintain? Even if fighters can be re-spawned for "free", their increased daily supply cost means that for the same price tag, you could afford replacing the occasional frigate without losing money.

Anyways, that's my review of the fighter, and why I'll probably never use them again until they're rebalanced. It's worth noting that I'm still a fairly new player to the game, so please feel free to point out any oversights I may have made. I genuinely love the concept of fighters and carriers in space sims (I mean, who doesn't? They're as iconic to space sims as the battleship) but I feel like they're simply worthless for anyone who wants to squeeze the most combat ability out of their fleet.

[Igncom1]

I have had the opposite opinion in my play through.

I don't use frigates any more due to fighters and bombers.

And their immortal nature, is really nice in a almighty strikecraft blob.



But I like the choice, as frigates don't need support ships to use efficiently, but are more vulnerable to heavy weapons (All of my frigates eventually get annihilated by heavy weapons, and the wolf's are usually the quickest to die if their engines get hit.)


Cost for cost, you are likely right.

But as a fleet admiral who never has or likely will pilot his own ships, high tech ships like the wolf or those phase bastards seem to all in their special ability, and are usually easily countered by carriers. They are however exceptionally good vs cruisers and other combat ships who they can kite to death (Lost my first fleet to them).

[Thaago]

Are you remembering that a single flight deck can support anywhere from 3-5 fighter wings? The decks do NOT act as capacity for fighters - they are how quickly the ships can rearm/refit fighters in combat. I don't have time right now to run the numbers, but a single Heron can support 6 fighter wings + 2 Bomber wings if you're careful.

As to the question: not in my opinion. They play different roles: a frigate fleet has a faster burn as it does not have a flight deck ship, and has good firepower/deployment cost. Fighter fleets are slower out of combat, but in combat have much longer endurance and can concentrate firepower better. Fighters have very low supply/day when at max CR, but cost lots of supplies to deploy.

[Hopelessnoob]

I find fighters to be stickier than frigates.

By that I mean if i fly frigates unless I micromanage them I'll have to replace them every so often. If i fly fighters and a carrier I only need to replace bodies, those are a lot easier to find than some of the better frigates.

[StarSchulz]

a single frigate can easily take out a fighter wing, but 2 or 3 and most frigates cant handle it. something like a tempest could probably kite and kill many wings if it doesn't let its engines get hit, or it is surrounded.
something like a Lasher though, its MG's cant handle the swarm and it eventually fills up on flux and starts taking hull breaches... we know what happens after that.
 
BUT, if the fighters have no carrier and cant re-spawn at all, a frigate or two becomes much more deadly if they can keep range.

This is at least in my experience flying with fighters, i think if the AI had more PD focused ships in the larger fleets it would be catastrophic to a fighter based fleet.
seems pretty balanced to me, i haven't found either to be too effective against the other.

i personally don't prefer either, i like a mix of them.

what we really need is a Tri-Tachyon Medium carrier. would go well with my fleets of High Tech frigates and interceptors.
( maybe ill make one myself and mod it to my game if i figure out how to! ha! )

[Silverware]

I fly a Wolf pack of six Wolfs at the moment. Fighters are my bane.
Sure they are easy to kill, but they tend to hit me in the flank, and when there are big ships around you have to maneuver to keep all the targets in front of your shield so you don't lose engines and become the fish in the barrel.
Fighters are best used in a mixed fleet as harassment, cheap, maneuverable, and fast. The idea is to get the enemy frigates to engage them while your big boys rip into the now unprotected rear of the frigates.

Fighters are a tactical tool, and if used right can get your enemy exposed to fire.

[Megas]

The thing that discourages fighter use for me is the carriers are so slow - burn 4 at best and less Navigation bonus (for destroyers+) than frigates.  I use frigate swarms the whole game, even endgame; although I think Hyperion flagship is required (if you want frigates only) for endgame bounty fights, and that requires a lucky Hyperion spawn or capture.

The advantage of fighters is their immortality.  If you are averse to casualties and can bear slow burn of bigger ships, it is a good idea take a carrier and some fighters.

[Regularity]

Did some more testing, and I'm adding an addendum to my analysis. It seems ighters can phase through friendly ships and friendly fire. In small fleets this doesn't matter, but if you have 12+ frigates trying to focus onto a single target, all bumping into each other and crossing into one another's line-of-sight, well... it ain't pretty. But with fighters they can pass through your own shots, and even through one another, making swarming that much deadlier in huge numbers. That, on top of the inability to respawn seems to make frigate swarms much more micromanagement-intensive than fighter swarms.

That being said, if you do care enough to micromanage them, frigates still perform much better. For example, you have a burn rate three times higher than a cruiser/capital carrier group, which not only means you can escape or catch fleets you otherwise couldn't, but also that you have (theoretically) only 1/3rd the logistics cost of a carrier group the same logistical size (since you can move to places in 1/3rd the time). And frigates can still be custom-built with hullmods and weapon mounts to fulfil pretty much any role imaginable, unlike fighters.

One thing I still think needs balancing, however, is speed. Frigates seem to move sufficiently quickly that with even a small headstart they can outrun all but the fastest fighters. I don't think tankers and freighters should under any circumstances be able to escape interceptors. 

[Gothars]

The thing that discourages fighter use for me is the carriers are so slow - burn 4 at best and less Navigation bonus (for destroyers+) than frigates.

I never quite understood why you value burn speed that much. At the moment I have a Heron based fighter fleet with burn speed 7, and there's nothing I can't catch. Why would you want more?


I'll hold my judgement about fighters, but I think I can already say that Dagger torpedo bombers are much more cost efficient that every frigate. I have currently four wings, nothing can stand against 12 reapers... every ~30 seconds.

[Igncom1]

Another thing I will say is, that the AI doesn't seem to have very good PD and fighter cover.

I feels far to easy to swarm enemy ships that could easily be escorted by more PD ships, and have extra fighter support that sticks close to friendly ships more them going off on a chance to get blown away.

And I do now have flak cannons on my first battleship, and it SHREADS missiles and fighters that approach it, but the enemy never seems to do it to me. (Actually having problems right now finding a good fight in my campaign, my fleet is overwhelming.)

[CrashToDesktop]

I never quite understood why you value burn speed that much. At the moment I have a Heron based fighter fleet with burn speed 7, and there's nothing I can't catch. Why would you want more?

Even you should know by now that Megas is the one-frigate army kind of guy that values catching is prey and having his way with it 100% of the time, no exceptions.  Maximum speed and firepower at the cost of everything else is the kind of vibe I get from him.

I value fighters simply because of their supreme survivability over anything else - you can loose fighter after fighter and still have more fighters being launched out of carriers.  And the firepower that some of them come with like unlimited Harpoons and Reapers and LMGs-to-your-doorstep can put down just about any ship quickly.

[Megas]

Many frigates crowding an enemy may be a bit ugly, but they, at least Wolves and Tempests, work well without mishap, better than in 0.62.

Large frigate swarms do not need micromanagement beyond capture objectives and flee from overpowered threats.  In case of overpowered enemy capital, send in your Hyperion flagship alone and eliminate said capital.  After you succeed, either you can send in the rest of your fleet to sweep the enemy or solo the rest of the fleet yourself.

Small frigate swarms, small enough to squelch objectives, work best as flagship only, and the rest of the fleet as extra flagship lives.

I never quite understood why you value burn speed that much. At the moment I have a Heron based fighter fleet with burn speed 7, and there's nothing I can't catch. Why would you want more?

Simple, responding to events as quickly as possible, especially commodities or new bounties.  In case of commodities, if it happens at a nearby base where I already have lots of items stocked, go to base ASAP, sell en masse and make lots of credits and experience.  Chasing bounties across the map takes time, and even with burn 17+ in hyperspace (with Wolf swarm and Hyperion flagship), new bounties appear shortly after I eliminate and collect old bounties.  To make non-frigate fleets viable, I plant bigger ships near bounty planets so that if I do not feel like soloing a skilled Paragon with a Hyperion, I can grab an Onslaught instead.  The only time I travel much slower anymore is when I haul 10,000+ food from Eos to Askonia with my Atlas fleet.

I spend much time traveling through hyperspace in the endgame.  Speed is king.

[Gothars]

Even you should know by now

"Even" me? What's that supposed to mean?

Simple, responding to events as quickly as possible, especially commodities or new bounties.

Mh, I might adapt a similar playstile once there's actually time pressure in the game, but at the moment that feels like a race against yourself. I mean, there's always another bounty and another food crisis, should I miss one, and no end to the game...

[Cubed]

Yeah, burnspeed is great, economical, etc.
I liked falcon early in the game for its burnspeed alone.

On topic, my gripe about the fighter type is that I wish AI strike crafts (torps, bombs) would at least attempt to coordinate attack with Longbows when they are around.

[CrashToDesktop]

Even you should know by now

"Even" me? What's that supposed to mean?

Just that you've been here for a good long time, and Megas is rather vocal with his view of how he plays the game. Didn't mean to offend you if I did.

In the end, I do think, between Fighters and Frigates, it's a decision between either more firepower and more losses, or less firepower and more survivability (which includes being able to take more losses and staying in the battle much longer).  Frigate swarms also tend to cost a lot more supplies to recover off the bat in a quick, deadly battle - but this tends to level out with fighter as the battle goes on to replenish both CR and the fighters lost.