Fractal Softworks Forum
February 23, 2019, 06:03:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Starsector 0.9a is out! (11/16/18); In-dev patch notes for 0.9.1a (01/31/19)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
  Print  
Author Topic: Fleet control system suggestions and feedback.  (Read 27446 times)
j01
Lieutenant
**
Posts: 90


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: February 27, 2012, 09:16:12 AM »

The Xyphos is not an interceptor from that point of view - it's a heavy fighter.

As a side note, I am very strongly of the opinion that xyphos fighters should not be considered heavy fighters while their singular weapon is a beam weapon. Even a dozen of them isn't going to dent a shield.

Right now, they are at best a defense or support role fighter useful mainly for momentarily distracting or getting the odd lucky hit in from the flank in any manner of skirmish that can be considered "heavy".

Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.
Logged
Nori
Captain
****
Posts: 405



View Profile Email
« Reply #136 on: February 27, 2012, 10:33:53 AM »

Just wanted to add my two cents... Not sure what of this has been covered before but seeing as fleet control is my main complaint (though not that big of a one) in the game I thought I should add my thoughts.

First off, I love the *idea* behind the fleet control system, and for the most part it works good, but it does need tweaking.

Few things:
  • I really want to be able to have ships automatically retreat when they have taken significant damage, the enemy AI already does it. You might say I should retreat ships manually, but there is two problems with that. One it requires extensive micromanaging and monitoring ships. The fleet interface isn't great for monitoring your ships as you get no info other than their position unless you click on them. Second there just isn't enough CPs to retreat your ships regularly.
  • I would really like to group ships and then have groups do assignments instead of single ships. For instance, in midgame, heck even early, talons suck, and they should since they are super cheap. But their lives could be greatly extended if they band together. Currently there is no way to do this. Now I could assign escort orders to say a frigate and have a single wing of fighters follow it, but that is one ships and once you have dozens it isn't enough.
  • I feel as though I have little control over my larger ships. I put a assault order somewhere and they plod over there, but then I discover that the enemy cruiser is way over here, I can put a defend order where I think they are going to be, or else do a direct command... Neither is what I really want to be honest... I really wish I could group the cruiser or capital ship with a destroyer, two frigates and two fighter wings and send them as a group to go after the enemy. I find that a army of fighters and bombers trumps the annoyance that is commanding cruisers and capital ships.
  • Sometimes it would be nice to have a strike and harass command at the same time on a ship... Pretty please?

Overall the idea works it just needs some tweaking and more CPs...

One other thing, are more weapon groups planned? 4 is fine for frigates and destroyers, but once you get up to cruiser it is not enough...
Logged
Sordid
Commander
***
Posts: 224



View Profile Email
« Reply #137 on: February 27, 2012, 10:36:10 AM »

Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.

Technically anti-fighter fighters are air superiority fighters (or space superiority fighters, I guess). Interceptors are fast but not as maneuverable, primarily designed to intercept bombers.
Logged
Iscariot
Admiral
*****
Posts: 852



View Profile
« Reply #138 on: February 27, 2012, 12:45:21 PM »

Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.

Technically anti-fighter fighters are air superiority fighters (or space superiority fighters, I guess). Interceptors are fast but not as maneuverable, primarily designed to intercept bombers.

In the modern day, those two things are often the same thing though. F-22, F-15... all superiority aircraft, designed primarily as interceptors as well.
Logged


The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.
Ishman
Commander
***
Posts: 197



View Profile
« Reply #139 on: February 27, 2012, 01:05:08 PM »

Otherwise, they are the best anti-fighter fighters I can think of, thus, honestly, interceptors.

Technically anti-fighter fighters are air superiority fighters (or space superiority fighters, I guess). Interceptors are fast but not as maneuverable, primarily designed to intercept bombers.

In the modern day, those two things are often the same thing though. F-22, F-15... all superiority aircraft, designed primarily as interceptors as well.

I think it's just a function of how the more a piece of technology advances, the more functions it rolls up into its purpose, as miniaturization lets it fit in more and better mechanisms. The Xyphos is fast, maneuverable, well-armed, durable - thus combining all the desired traits into a superior fighter.
Logged
Sordid
Commander
***
Posts: 224



View Profile Email
« Reply #140 on: February 27, 2012, 04:13:04 PM »

Not only that, but modern guided surface-to-air missiles have rendered the pure interceptor obsolete. Hence multirole fighters.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!