Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sapling on May 01, 2017, 06:30:00 AM
-
The carrier in my fleet seems to be automatically issuing commands to the fighters.
My question is, is it possible to issue commands to the fighters myself?
-
I've been wondering the same thing myself.
-
In short: no. You can issue commands to the carriers however, who will use their fighters to follow them.
-
It would be nice to get some more granularity. Like distribute the fighters from one ship to act as point defense for multiple ships. Send some to cover bombers and others to stay back etc.
-
Yeah it would. This is one of the downsides of the fighters-as-weapons thing. Since we now have more command points, it would be nice to have a couple of extra commands that work just for fighters. Like Attack, Bomb, Defend. We used to have Strike, which was a bombing run AFAIK. We still have Harass which is a frigate order - and quite useless to me personally. That could go if it meant bringing one or two fighter orders back into the game.
I know Alex is trying to cut down on commands, but the AI sometimes does boneheaded stuff like pulling 3 carriers onto the same defense point and having their 12 fighter wings all huddle into a ball instead of taking apart one or two of the incoming destroyers with that firepower - which they could easily do. Or switching between friendlies to form up with instead of being given a dedicated order.
That aside, you can still order wings indirectly by giving the carrier an attack order or setting targets with your flagship.
-
I rather like the more hands-off thing with fighters. Don't have to waste loads of command points ordering them around for them to be effective - under the carrier's command, they can actually get stuff done without me having to micro their every last move.
-
Also, at present there is a bug where if you set a carrier to engage/eliminate a target, its the 'carrier' that goes and attacks, rather than its fighters. If its not already fixed for the next version, Alex is aware of it.
-
Also, at present there is a bug where if you set a carrier to engage/eliminate a target, its the 'carrier' that goes and attacks, rather than its fighters. If its not already fixed for the next version, Alex is aware of it.
But hey, sometimes that's good when dealing with Remnant or Domain stuff. But yea, on the whole it's getting a bit too close for comfort.
-
You can't anymore as a fleet commander. Your options are:
- Do nothing and hope the carrier handles itself reasonably well. Quite boring as you're no longer playing the tactical game
- Give an order directly to the carrier and hope it assigns fighters appropriately. Usually just gets itself massively out of position and killed. Do not advise
- Fly the carrier as a flagship; your direct control over fighters in an action game sense is much improved. No way to give waypoints to avoid flak though, so just treat them like super missiles rather than interceptors/bombers/fighters. Also precludes you from flying line ships. Probably the best option in the current iteration, if a bit sad for what we've lost
-
I rather like the more hands-off thing with fighters. Don't have to waste loads of command points ordering them around for them to be effective - under the carrier's command, they can actually get stuff done without me having to micro their every last move.
Don't see why we couldn't have both. All ships should operate reasonably well without orders, but also abide by ones we issue if we decide their worth the command points (which imho they absolutely are).
-
I rather like the more hands-off thing with fighters. Don't have to waste loads of command points ordering them around for them to be effective - under the carrier's command, they can actually get stuff done without me having to micro their every last move.
Don't see why we couldn't have both. All ships should operate reasonably well without orders, but also abide by ones we issue if we decide their worth the command points (which imho they absolutely are).
With as powerful as fighters are in the current version, I can't help but think that raw power combined with that level of tactial micro in the players hands would give you too much advantage. Why would anyone ever use something other than a carrier when they have that much control over their lethal wings? The lack of of the ability to micro/focus the fighter squadrons is the only reason to use a non carrier in the present version, IMO. Carriers are that good now, they actually need to have "one arm tied behind their back".
-
I rather like the more hands-off thing with fighters. Don't have to waste loads of command points ordering them around for them to be effective - under the carrier's command, they can actually get stuff done without me having to micro their every last move.
Don't see why we couldn't have both. All ships should operate reasonably well without orders, but also abide by ones we issue if we decide their worth the command points (which imho they absolutely are).
With as powerful as fighters are in the current version, I can't help but think that raw power combined with that level of tactial micro in the players hands would give you too much advantage. Why would anyone ever use something other than a carrier when they have that much control over their lethal wings? The lack of of the ability to micro/focus the fighter squadrons is the only reason to use a non carrier in the present version, IMO. Carriers are that good now, they actually need to have "one arm tied behind their back".
And that arm should never be bad AI or lack of controls for your cariers, but more balance of dmg and similar. Never put bad AI to balance something out, as that doesnt fix anything just makes more problems
-
I rather like the more hands-off thing with fighters. Don't have to waste loads of command points ordering them around for them to be effective - under the carrier's command, they can actually get stuff done without me having to micro their every last move.
Don't see why we couldn't have both. All ships should operate reasonably well without orders, but also abide by ones we issue if we decide their worth the command points (which imho they absolutely are).
With as powerful as fighters are in the current version, I can't help but think that raw power combined with that level of tactial micro in the players hands would give you too much advantage. Why would anyone ever use something other than a carrier when they have that much control over their lethal wings? The lack of of the ability to micro/focus the fighter squadrons is the only reason to use a non carrier in the present version, IMO. Carriers are that good now, they actually need to have "one arm tied behind their back".
And that arm should never be bad AI or lack of controls for your cariers, but more balance of dmg and similar. Never put bad AI to balance something out, as that doesnt fix anything just makes more problems
Well, "lack of controls" depends on whether you think you're playing a primarily action oriented combat sim, or a fleet level tactical sim. It's possible that the game you think you're playing is not the game Alex is making.
As far as "bad AI", I disagree, and think that the AI for carriers is pretty good, in that you can mostly leave them alone and wait for them to win the battle for you. They dont need too much babysitting as long as you dont issue them stupid orders, which is what I want out of a ship AI.
As far as balance, carriers *should* be powerful, but they should also be much more vulnerable then they are now, requiring heavy escort. They should definitely be a ship the enemy AI prioritizes. I personally think that carriers of human piloted strike craft are an anachronism in a sci fi setting, but if youre going to use the concept then carriers are something that need escort because they are vulnerable to a number of threats without it. In the game at present, there are no real threats the carriers are particularly vulnerable to that cant be solved with their fighter bays.
-
Well, "lack of controls" depends on whether you think you're playing a primarily action oriented combat sim, or a fleet level tactical sim. It's possible that the game you think you're playing is not the game Alex is making.
As far as "bad AI", I disagree, and think that the AI for carriers is pretty good, in that you can mostly leave them alone and wait for them to win the battle for you. They dont need too much babysitting as long as you dont issue them stupid orders, which is what I want out of a ship AI.
As far as balance, carriers *should* be powerful, but they should also be much more vulnerable then they are now, requiring heavy escort. They should definitely be a ship the enemy AI prioritizes. I personally think that carriers of human piloted strike craft are an anachronism in a sci fi setting, but if youre going to use the concept then carriers are something that need escort because they are vulnerable to a number of threats without it. In the game at present, there are no real threats the carriers are particularly vulnerable to that cant be solved with their fighter bays.
And its possible to have both in the game and not force it one way or another by removing features from the game or dumbing it more down.
Bad Ai is when computer does random crap when playing and when I cannot guide him to do what I want. If i can play fleet level tactical sim with other ships, I expect to have same control and AI of carriers, and not for them to be *** because of some balance thing. As said bad AI should be never considered as a balance thing in games like this. And no , AI of carriers is not good in any way or form. Or better said AI of fighters
-
I strongly agree with Miljan.
StarGibbon, I also agree with your view on carrier vulnerability, you might be interested in this discussion: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11477.msg206722#msg206722 (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11477.msg206722#msg206722)
-
... and not for them to be *** because of ...
(Language, please.)
-
Bad Ai is when computer does random crap when playing and when I cannot guide him to do what I want. If i can play fleet level tactical sim with other ships, I expect to have same control and AI of carriers, and not for them to be *** because of some balance thing. As said bad AI should be never considered as a balance thing in games like this. And no , AI of carriers is not good in any way or form. Or better said AI of fighters
You *do* have the same level of control over carriers as other ships. You can issue them the exact same commands, and they will obey them. Probably not a good idea to order a ship with weaker weapons/armor to directly attack a more powerful one on its own.
What you *dont* have is micro control over their fighters, because Alex apparently wants them to be more of a Damage over Time Aura now to offset their power, more than discrete craft of their own to command separately. Why should you get 4 separate craft to control for the price of one?
As for Carriers being an offensive term for someone with a developmental disability, my experience and yours differs wildly. I just played an all carrier game with "cautious" or "steady" officers in my carriers, escorted when necessary, and they never did what you describe. They were mostly hassle free hanging back out of trouble, and they kicked all kinds of ass. Fighters no longer *need* micromanagement to be effective, and I rather think thats a step up in the design, rather than a dumbing down. I dont want to have to manage my fighter wings while Im concentrating on the action.
If you had problems with your carriers, you may need to examine your strategy for using them.
-
StarGibbon, I also agree with your view on carrier vulnerability, you might be interested in this discussion: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11477.msg206722#msg206722 (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11477.msg206722#msg206722)
Will do, thanks!
-
Carriers work just fine as long as you leave them alone. The issue is why they work and how they break.
They work so well right now because fighters are ridiculously powerful and the AI does not appropriately prioritize the carrier, so as long as the carrier doesn't do something foolish it's an inevitable death by a thousand papercuts. I wouldn't call that the best outcome and I'd hope it gets addressed by making carriers more vulnerable and a high priority target, coupled (possibly) with a balance pass on fighters themselves and relevant skills.
Where it breaks is in two places.
1) if you do give them an order they will start doing foolish things, like charging into close range and get themselves killed, or out of effective positioning for rapid re-arm/re-launch, or any other number of things the player might like to avoid. I believe this happens because you can't control their positioning and their targeting at the same time (because they have such a long effective range if you give a target they can move wherever, or if you give a movement target they can attack whatever--this is not true for shorter range ships where attacking is implicitly linked with positioning).
2) Because you can't give orders you've lost agency over them, which pretty heavily degrades the tactical side of the game for those of us who enjoy it. Beyond that, it will be a very significant problem if fighters are ever toned down to the point that they don't just roflstomp everything by default, which is what's covering up a lot of sins right now.
-
1) if you do give them an order they will start doing foolish things, like charging into close range and get themselves killed
Even with cautious officers? I havent seen it. BUT. Carriers also tend to be pretty slow, so it's possible I just dont see their intent to suicide when Im off killing stuff with faster ships, and their fighters simply make short work of something before they get into trouble.
[edit]
2) Because you can't give orders you've lost agency over them, which pretty heavily degrades the tactical side of the game for those of us who enjoy it. Beyond that, it will be a very significant problem if fighters are ever toned down to the point that they don't just roflstomp everything by default, which is what's covering up a lot of sins right now.
Well, as a tactical wargamer myself, Im sympathetic, but this game would have to be a *lot* more focused on the tactical side of things for me to even consider it a tactical game. It's never come close enough for me to really miss anything there. The design seems to be about getting players into the action with a minimum of fuss, and that seems fine to me as long as it's succeeding in that. I mostly think it is right now.
-
Just to chime in on this: there's a bug (fixed for 0.8.1a) that causes carriers that are given orders to abandon their normal carrier-like behavior, often resulting in suicidal charges. E.G. if you order an "assault" or "defend" on a point, and a combat carrier is assigned to it, it'll stop using nearby allies to hide behind and will act more or less like a warship.
-
2) Because you can't give orders you've lost agency over them, which pretty heavily degrades the tactical side of the game for those of us who enjoy it. Beyond that, it will be a very significant problem if fighters are ever toned down to the point that they don't just roflstomp everything by default, which is what's covering up a lot of sins right now.
Just saying, what agency? The tactical side of using fighters (in my mind) was always just to make a deathball out of them and roll around the map killing everything. There was no tactical agency, not that I could find. Now that fighters are linked to their carrier, fighters are both more independent and require much, much less babysitting for them to be effective. I'm very happy with the current fighter changes, and I'd much rather they be kept this way.
-
Just saying, what agency? The tactical side of using fighters (in my mind) was always just to make a deathball out of them and roll around the map killing everything. There was no tactical agency, not that I could find. Now that fighters are linked to their carrier, fighters are both more independent and require much, much less babysitting for them to be effective. I'm very happy with the current fighter changes, and I'd much rather they be kept this way.
I'm going to quote myself from two earlier threads just so I don't have to retype it all, please excuse the fact that the text in question doesn't EXACTLY respond to your question:
Regarding tactical options that have been lost:
Hmm. I think for carriers, a right-click on empty space ("rally task force") would more or less do the job - they may choose from a lot of targets, but they will tend to choose targets already under attack, which in most cases is going to be what you want anyway.
Maybe. Maybe not. Generally not given how I play, but I understand that's not the case for everyone.
I use[d] carriers as a force multiplier/rapid reaction force, not just part of the brawling mass. Previously I could split my forces to capture seperate points or scout out the enemy fleet and then rapidly reinforce where appropriate with fighters/bombers to let the forward element punch above their weight. Now I don't get to choose where those reinforcements go if multiple engagements are occurring. Similarly I may want to harry something in the backline (carrier/sniper/retreating ship/whatever) when my line ships are not in a position to engage; can't do that anymore without losing control of the position of the carrier, which has an unfortunate tendency of putting itself in some pretty dangerous scenarios. Hell, maybe I want the carrier in direct combat in one fight while the fighters are assisting in another fight so that I can get flanks or flux pressure in both fights. The flexibility of deployment is always what made carriers so special in my mind.
Being able to set at minimum both a carrier position and separate target are important for that flexibility.
Being able to set the vector with a fighter rally command was what gave me the feeling of being a fleet commander with a battle plan, but there's always been an abstraction of command ability in this game that I've appreciated and I could accept losing that fine level of control. Carriers without deployment flexibility just feel like super LRM boats to me though :(
Regarding the order of battle that was my general engagement paradigm previously vs now:
I used to issue a lot of orders before 0.8. Unfortunately 0.8 removed a LOT of orders and made it impossible to issue orders to fighters directly. As a consequence it's impossible to assign a seperate position and target command to carriers so they get suicidal the moment you tell them to engage. IMHO, 0.8 has made the game much less tactical.
In 0.72:
- Recon with interceptors to get the lay of the opposing fleet
- Capture nearby points while waiting for intel
- Rally a group somewhere between bulk of their forces and my back line to screen my carriers; just a delaying action.
- Rally carriers behind escort group
- Assault a mid point that is NOT the bulk of their forces; try to catch and eliminate one of their strike forces
- Move my initial capture groups up as hunter/killer squads to capture lightly defended points, and take out stragglers/snipers/carriers. Support w/ fighter/bomber cover to let them punch above their weight (using fighter rally points to avoid flak).
- Wheel my assault group into the flank of their main body while pushing up with my carrier escorts and coordinated bomber strikes
- search and destroy to mop up
- Throughout I may be reinforcing or assaulting different points where I feel it gives me an advantage
0.8: AI only flies in a deathball now and it can be very dangerous to break portions of your forces off with the carrier changes and lack of furtive [e.g. recon] commands. So it's much less interesting
- Capture near points
- Assign everything to escort me (no more recon command to get forward info, or easy ability to reinforce strike groups with fighters so lone frigates get toasted by fighters/assigning a carrier to defend makes the carrier suicidal....only option is to recon in force). Enemy fleet is likewise highly compressed
- eliminate closest target
- repeat
MUCH less satisfying in my experience. I've actually regressed back to 0.72 for the time being.
It's always possible to just overwhelm your opponent utterly if you have a massive numbers or tech advantage. For the sake of my personal enjoyment I regularly try to take on fleets much larger than mine, such that a deathball of fighters would mostly just leave me with a bunch of dead fighters (assuming 0.72 balancing rather than the current hotness they now represent).
-
Just to chime in on this: there's a bug (fixed for 0.8.1a) that causes carriers that are given orders to abandon their normal carrier-like behavior, often resulting in suicidal charges. E.G. if you order an "assault" or "defend" on a point, and a combat carrier is assigned to it, it'll stop using nearby allies to hide behind and will act more or less like a warship.
Sounds like Alex already addressed the issue at work here.
-
Just to chime in on this: there's a bug (fixed for 0.8.1a) that causes carriers that are given orders to abandon their normal carrier-like behavior, often resulting in suicidal charges. E.G. if you order an "assault" or "defend" on a point, and a combat carrier is assigned to it, it'll stop using nearby allies to hide behind and will act more or less like a warship.
Sounds like Alex already addressed the issue at work here.
Welcome relief on that point, at least. I'd still prefer finer control (as indicated in my wall of text just above your comment), but fixing this bug will definitely be a major improvement.
-
Just to chime in on this: there's a bug (fixed for 0.8.1a) that causes carriers that are given orders to abandon their normal carrier-like behavior, often resulting in suicidal charges. E.G. if you order an "assault" or "defend" on a point, and a combat carrier is assigned to it, it'll stop using nearby allies to hide behind and will act more or less like a warship.
Sounds like Alex already addressed the issue at work here.
Welcome relief on that point, at least. I'd still prefer finer control (as indicated in my wall of text just above your comment), but fixing this bug will definitely be a major improvement.
I should walk back some things that I said. I think I entrenched myself too firmly in response to miljan's overstatement of some issues.
I'm not *opposed* to finer tactical control in principle, as long as it isn't necessary to distract myself from the action by micromanaging swarms of fightercraft during an engagement. And I certainly don't blame you for trying to impose your preferences for the game on the developer (I've done the same thing in another thread on this page).
-
@Allectus
Deploying fighters peacemeal isn't usually the best (or most effective) way of deploying them. The more fighters there are, the more damage they can cause before being sent back to the carrier. Besides, you never needed to use your interceptors to recon - the Sensor Arrays always gave you plenty of sight radius. Furthermore, the disposition of enemy forces in a space game isn't all too important compared to the disposition of vehicle on land, as on land there are obstacles blocking maneuvering, sight lines, and terrain providing tactical advantages such as a defense on a hill or a reverse-slope defense. None of those exist in Starsector - thusly, reconnaissance is nearly pointless, furthermore since you already know the exact fleet composition of the enemy before the battle even starts. Furthermore, getting flanked in Starsector is not nearly as disastrous as getting flanked in real life (for example, putting flanking fire down a group of line infantry, called "raking the line" in the American Civil War, which could cause some serious casualties because it was harder to miss and a single bullet could strike multiple soldiers), as shields exist and give the ship in question enough time to GTFO and remake the battle line. Hell, even in real life, reconnaissance is only useful on the largest tactical, moving onto strategic, levels. Cavalry during the American Civil War were so valuable because they were the eyes and ears of the armies - they kept track of the enemy army, fed information quickly back to headquarters, and could fend off enemy cavalry trying to do the same thing to them. But once the battle actually started, the cavalry were ditched - you already know where the enemy will be and can thus determine the place of battle. Skirmishers were there to engage and keep in place the enemy.
Furthermore, carriers already attempt to keep behind friendly ships (or if they don't, Alex has already confirmed any situations as bugs), so there's another beautiful thing of simplicity. Not everything has to be more complicated to be better.
-
@stargibbon:
Yeah, I don't want the game to be wrecked for folks that just want to pew pew. Similarly it was a gut punch when a previous tactical focus I enjoyed was cut. I think there's room for both.
@Allectus
Deploying fighters peacemeal isn't usually the best (or most effective) way of deploying them. The more fighters there are, the more damage they can cause before being sent back to the carrier. Besides, you never needed to use your interceptors to recon - the Sensor Arrays always gave you plenty of sight radius. Furthermore, the disposition of enemy forces in a space game isn't all too important compared to the disposition of vehicle on land, as on land there are obstacles blocking maneuvering, sight lines, and terrain providing tactical advantages such as a defense on a hill or a reverse-slope defense. None of those exist in Starsector - thusly, reconnaissance is nearly pointless, furthermore since you already know the exact fleet composition of the enemy before the battle even starts. Furthermore, getting flanked in Starsector is not nearly as disastrous as getting flanked in real life (for example, putting flanking fire down a group of line infantry, called "raking the line" in the American Civil War, which could cause some serious casualties because it was harder to miss and a single bullet could strike multiple soldiers), as shields exist and give the ship in question enough time to GTFO and remake the battle line. Hell, even in real life, reconnaissance is only useful on the largest tactical, moving onto strategic, levels. Cavalry during the American Civil War were so valuable because they were the eyes and ears of the armies - they kept track of the enemy army, fed information quickly back to headquarters, and could fend off enemy cavalry trying to do the same thing to them. But once the battle actually started, the cavalry were ditched - you already know where the enemy will be and can thus determine the place of battle. Skirmishers were there to engage and keep in place the enemy.
Furthermore, carriers already attempt to keep behind friendly ships (or if they don't, Alex has already confirmed any situations as bugs), so there's another beautiful thing of simplicity. Not everything has to be more complicated to be better.
The purpose or recon in this context is to let me know how to allocate my forces efficiently. Local superiority counts for a lot and info allows you to accomplish that; if I can get a job done with a single hound and a wing of talons (usually the ones doing the recce) then I have that much more to focus elsewhere. Similarly if I just send a hound off into the black it's pretty unlikely I'll ever see it again...By far the most important reason to recce is to find their carriers as well as a safe path to them so I can dispatch them as efficiently and as quickly as possible. Every second their carriers or LRM boats are up I'll take fire from fighters/missiles that shouldn't even exist.
Replace flanking with envelopment, if you like. Especially important against factions that rely on directional shielding as it's infinitely more flux efficient to just not shoot the bloody shield. For factions with very large arcs on their shield I'm much less concerned with that sort of positioning and it's mostly just about (again) attaining local superiority over.
Double down on everything if (as I often am) I'm attacking a larger fleet and I need to be very careful which points I attempt to capture to try to get enough points to bring in more ships.
-
Local Superiority can be already be accomplished by flying straight up with your entire force. 99% of the time the enemy fleet AI does just that. Reconnaissance is against pretty pointless, as seems to be your main point about directing fighters. Guderian's quote of "strike with a closed fist, not an open hand" applies well to pretty much everything. Don't bother spreading out your forces when you can just deck them right there - that's worked very well for me in-game, even when outnumbered fairly heavily.
Also, as to your "find carriers with Hound" thing (in any game), just look where fighters go after they dropped their payload. Follow the breadcrumb trail, don't waste resources scouting, as I said above scouting is pretty much pointless because you will more or less know exactly where enemy forces will be going.
-
Bad Ai is when computer does random crap when playing and when I cannot guide him to do what I want. If i can play fleet level tactical sim with other ships, I expect to have same control and AI of carriers, and not for them to be *** because of some balance thing. As said bad AI should be never considered as a balance thing in games like this. And no , AI of carriers is not good in any way or form. Or better said AI of fighters
You *do* have the same level of control over carriers as other ships. You can issue them the exact same commands, and they will obey them. Probably not a good idea to order a ship with weaker weapons/armor to directly attack a more powerful one on its own.
What you *dont* have is micro control over their fighters, because Alex apparently wants them to be more of a Damage over Time Aura now to offset their power, more than discrete craft of their own to command separately. Why should you get 4 separate craft to control for the price of one?
As for Carriers being an offensive term for someone with a developmental disability, my experience and yours differs wildly. I just played an all carrier game with "cautious" or "steady" officers in my carriers, escorted when necessary, and they never did what you describe. They were mostly hassle free hanging back out of trouble, and they kicked all kinds of ass. Fighters no longer *need* micromanagement to be effective, and I rather think thats a step up in the design, rather than a dumbing down. I dont want to have to manage my fighter wings while Im concentrating on the action.
If you had problems with your carriers, you may need to examine your strategy for using them.
As said by alex the thing that happened is a bug that hopefully will get fixed that so often happens when playing with carriers all the time. You should get 4 seperate crafts to control the same way you can control the fire arcs of your weapons. In fact that there is really no good reason for removing the micro of fighters as a option. It can be tied to skill or some other way. Just a note i play only carriers fleets (only fighters and nothing else) this version. Removing features form the game like control of your fighters is dumbing down of that part of the game and forcing it on all players. Fighters need micro to be as effective as before the patch as their AI is not close to what is needed. Removing additional option from the game is never a step in a design. And having micro options will not force you to micro it in any way or form, if the Ai is good for you, but for people that its not, that option will always be helpful. But this additional options is a must for people like me.
No I dont need to examine strategy, i just need to see what is removed from the game to understand where the problem is.
-
You should get 4 seperate crafts to control the same way you can control the fire arcs of your weapons.
Wut?
-
Wut?
Think he means weapon groups, but in this case Fighter groups.
-
Removing additional option from the game is never a step in a design.
As a generalized statement, this is unequivocally false. Options impose costs on both developer to add and keep around, and are subject to cost-benefit considerations like everything else.
Concrete examples from previous SS versions:
- Old boarding: hard dock vs. launch from distance (and pretty sliders to decide how many marines/crew to send in)
- Old skill system (you have the option of stopping before you reach a perk/hullmod level; especially great for officers)
- Attack/defend/retreat stances during fleet encounters
Now specific fighter commands has a better "business case" than any of the aforementioned things, but the point is demonstrated: "more options" is not an automatic "more better".
-
Wut?
Think he means weapon groups, but in this case Fighter groups.
Ah. Well, that's not analogous, then. Fighters are autonomous weapons like missiles. Should we have to micromanage missles too? They dont always go exactly where we want, after all. Beam turrets dont always aim at exactly the ship we want. It's important to stop thinking of fighters as separate craft. They're sold in the weapons menu, not the ship menu.
The soon to be fixed behavioral bug aside, the elimination for the *necessity* of specific tactical commands in a non tactical focused game should not be seen as a "dumbing down" of the game. Quite the opposite. Each of those tactical commands represents a weakness in decision making ability of the AI that the human has to manually compensate for. If they can be eliminated because the AI makes good enough decisions *most of the time* to be successful without the crutch of micromanagement, it represents an increase in intelligence of the AI and design. If the fighters can be made to reliably target the the target of the cruiser, without the cruiser subjecting itself to unreasonable danger, that should be good enough to eliminate the need for specific fighter commands.
The necessity for babysitting fighters beyond that would frankly be unwelcome, and some of the uses for micromanagement I've heard described here--for instance using direct micro control to bypass flak weapons--sounds like an exploit.
-
Now specific fighter commands has a better "business case" than any of the aforementioned things, but the point is demonstrated: "more options" is not an automatic "more better".
This.
-
Wut?
Think he means weapon groups, but in this case Fighter groups.
Ah. Well, that's not analogous, then. Fighters are autonomous weapons like missiles. Should we have to micromanage missles too? They dont always go exactly where we want, after all. Beam turrets dont always aim at exactly the ship we want. It's important to stop thinking of fighters as separate craft. They're sold in the weapons menu, not the ship menu.
The soon to be fixed behavioral bug aside, the elimination for the *necessity* of specific tactical commands in a non tactical focused game should not be seen as a "dumbing down" of the game. Quite the opposite. Each of those tactical commands represents a weakness in decision making ability of the AI that the human has to manually compensate for. If they can be eliminated because the AI makes good enough decisions *most of the time* to be successful without the crutch of micromanagement, it represents an increase in intelligence of the AI and design. If the fighters can be made to reliably target the the target of the cruiser, without the cruiser subjecting itself to unreasonable danger, that should be good enough to eliminate the need for specific fighter commands.
The necessity for babysitting fighters beyond that would frankly be unwelcome, and some of the uses for micromanagement I've heard described here--for instance using direct micro control to bypass flak weapons--sounds like an exploit.
The thing is we cant even control fighters like missles or other weapons. You cant aim individual fighters where and when to fight.
Removing this control as a option from the game is the most simple example of dumbing down the game as it removes one additional option and play style from the game and doesnt put anything in its place that was not already there. It can never be "Quite the opposite" because the alternative of leaving AI play it for you was always there, no matter is controlling fighter in the game or not. If you do not like micromanagement of your fighters no one is forcing you to play it and you can just ignore those options that always where there, but if I want, and if I have fun playing it that way its not a option anymore as it was removed from the game and nothing was made to replace it.
Also using tactics and maneuvers to bypass flak can never be a exploit but smart use of fighters and tactics, the same way flanking with a ship can not be consider a exploit, because, i mean.. the whole game is a exploit than :D.
-
The thing is we cant even control fighters like missles or other weapons. You cant aim individual fighters where and when to fight.
Cant aim turrets or guided missles either, except in the most general sense. These weapons make their own decisions based on your relative positioning to the enemy and which targets are closer, same as fighters. There's room to fine tune this with fighters, but they shouldn't be considered separate craft.
I ask again, which storefront are fighters sold in? They aren't ships and shouldn't be treated as such.
If you do not like micromanagement of your fighters no one is forcing you to play it and you can just ignore those options that always where there, but if I want, and if I have fun playing it that way its not a option anymore as it was removed from the game and nothing was made to replace it.
Ah, to a certain extent they're mutually exclusive, though. I don't want to speak for Alex, but in terms of observing the game it seems clear the game wants to keep the necessity of that layer to a minimum. If carriers and fighters can perform well enough most of the time without it, then theres no need for micro controls. If micro controls are still *needed* enough to justify a tactical layer function for them to correct a meaningful weakness in fighter behavior, then babysitting fighters will still be necessary, and Ill have to keep pausing my game to keep track of what they're doing.
Also using tactics and maneuvers to bypass flak can never be a exploit but smart use of fighters and tactics, the same way flanking with a ship can not be consider a exploit, because, i mean.. the whole game is a exploit than :D.
Sure it is. How "smart" do you have to be to use a cheat against the AI, that the AI isnt capable of using itself?
The opposing ship has paid its loadout points for strong PD capability. It *should* be resistant to fighters. You either make a similar investment in anti-PD fighters (broadswords, etc), or a decision on the deployment screen to deploy other ships capable of taking that target down, then use those ships to attack that target during battle. Using Micro controls that the* AI cant use*, in order to allow a ship that shouldn't be able to overcome another to bypass the decision making on the loadout and deployment screens, is bypassing the design.
You can tell where the game wants the most decision making to be done, by how developed those portions are. Tons of decisions on the refit page. Lots of strategy derived from player skill in the real time combat phase. Very few, and only the most necessary options on the tactical layer. It's not where the game wants you making most of your decisions.
-
The opposing ship has paid its loadout points for strong PD capability. It *should* be resistant to fighters. You either make a similar investment in anti-PD fighters (broadswords, etc), or a decision on the deployment screen to deploy other ships capable of taking that target down, then use those ships to attack that target during battle. Using Micro controls that the* AI cant use*, in order to allow a ship that shouldn't be able to overcome another to bypass the decision making on the loadout and deployment screens, is bypassing the design.
I disagree wholeheartedly. If the loadout screen is the be-all end-all why do we even have tactical combat? Everything should be auto resolved in that world. I think you're clearly wrong on this point; the purpose of the tactical combat is so you can use skill to overcome deficiencies in the matchups.
-
I disagree wholeheartedly. If the loadout screen is the be-all end-all why do we even have tactical combat? Everything should be auto resolved in that world. I think you're clearly wrong on this point; the purpose of the tactical combat is so you can use skill to overcome deficiencies in the matchups.
You're cherry-picking:
You can tell where the game wants the most decision making to be done, by how developed those portions are. Tons of decisions on the refit page. Lots of strategy derived from player skill in the real time combat phase. Very few, and only the most necessary options on the tactical layer. It's not where the game wants you making most of your decisions.
And we dont have tactical combat. We have thrilling real time combat with a light tactical layer to address the most necessary commands. Speaking as a fan of tactical combat games, it's not remotely a tactical combat game, and wouldnt be if you even doubled the complexity of the current tactical layer.
-
You realize that the game is still in development and that we had all of these tactical options before, right? The argument about level of development absolutely doesn't hold water in this case. The entire squadron system was changed in this patch with the express purpose of making carrier flagships viable, just because a feature hasn't made it into a complete refactoring doesn't necessarily mean it's not desired; just that it was not the absolute highest priority.
-
just because a feature hasn't made it into a complete refactoring doesn't necessarily mean it's not desired; just that it was not the absolute highest priority.
That's actually exactly my reading on the situation from observing the game and things Alex has said. I could be wrong. I'm sure it will sort itself out.
-
The thing is we cant even control fighters like missles or other weapons. You cant aim individual fighters where and when to fight.
Cant aim turrets or guided missles either, except in the most general sense. These weapons make their own decisions based on your relative positioning to the enemy and which targets are closer, same as fighters. There's room to fine tune this with fighters, but they shouldn't be considered separate craft.
I ask again, which storefront are fighters sold in? They aren't ships and shouldn't be treated as such.
Yes, you can aim turets and guided missles manually. They can be consider seperated crarft as they where before with some fine tuning, nothing wrong with that. What storefront its sold on doesnt matter at all.
If you do not like micromanagement of your fighters no one is forcing you to play it and you can just ignore those options that always where there, but if I want, and if I have fun playing it that way its not a option anymore as it was removed from the game and nothing was made to replace it.
Ah, to a certain extent they're mutually exclusive, though. I don't want to speak for Alex, but in terms of observing the game it seems clear the game wants to keep the necessity of that layer to a minimum. If carriers and fighters can perform well enough most of the time without it, then theres no need for micro controls. If micro controls are still *needed* enough to justify a tactical layer function for them to correct a meaningful weakness in fighter behavior, then babysitting fighters will still be necessary, and Ill have to keep pausing my game to keep track of what they're doing.
They are not mutually exclusive. In fact putting tactice control behind new skills fix this suoperficual problem that you have, making a play style of mroe micro intensvie battles wiht your fighters possible and not removing it totaly.
Also using tactics and maneuvers to bypass flak can never be a exploit but smart use of fighters and tactics, the same way flanking with a ship can not be consider a exploit, because, i mean.. the whole game is a exploit than :D.
Sure it is. How "smart" do you have to be to use a cheat against the AI, that the AI isnt capable of using itself?
The opposing ship has paid its loadout points for strong PD capability. It *should* be resistant to fighters. You either make a similar investment in anti-PD fighters (broadswords, etc), or a decision on the deployment screen to deploy other ships capable of taking that target down, then use those ships to attack that target during battle. Using Micro controls that the* AI cant use*, in order to allow a ship that shouldn't be able to overcome another to bypass the decision making on the loadout and deployment screens, is bypassing the design.
You can tell where the game wants the most decision making to be done, by how developed those portions are. Tons of decisions on the refit page. Lots of strategy derived from player skill in the real time combat phase. Very few, and only the most necessary options on the tactical layer. It's not where the game wants you making most of your decisions.
[/quote]
Ai is not cable of a lot o things. Blaming bad Ai and comparing it to cheating because we play better than him is I dont know how to say it, just wrong. In fact Ai should be programed to do the same things we do as best as possible.
The game is not telling you anything, it had a very detail tactical control of fighters before and it was dumbed down, and whole playstyle was almost removed, and I will not sit and pretend its something positive and defend bad decisions from the developer of the game. He can want to make maybe a text adventure and remove all the features of fighting, its his game and in the end he will do what he wants but be sure I will not be sitting here and defending things that I dont like. Removing/dumbing down one play style is a bad thing for the game and for the diversity of options it offers and in the end for his customers like me that dont like it.
-
Yes, you can aim turets and guided missles manually.
Ok, buddy.
It's clear we cant engage on this because we have differing interpretations of reality, but the core issue of why its bad to let the player use tactical fighter control to gain an advantage on the AI, is because the AI can't use it against the player. And before you start, I don't mean in the same way that the player will always be a better pilot than the AI, or be able to make better decisions. The AI can be made to perform *well enough* in those cases to provide a reasonable challenge for the player, when coupled with force strength adjustments. I mean the AI has no chance of exploiting the micromanagement to intelligently bypass your flak cannons, even if Alex could get them to use it. The road to that place is longer by far than the road to fine tuning where we are now.
It's the same problem currently with sustained burn...a wonderful feature from a player perspective, but it breaks the game because the AI can't use it, and so the AI is no longer playing the same game as the player on the campaign map. I find it interesting that the couple people here arguing for a more "tactical" game, are in fact arguing for a less tactical game overall by the inclusion of features your opponent cant be expected to effectively use against them. By limiting both sides to a game which both can play to a reasonable degree, you have a much better game overall. I'm sorry if it isn't exactly the game you want it to be, but that will be true for us all in some aspect or another.
-
The game doesn't have solid mechanics for AI-assisted action combat - wingmen, quick orders and stances. Instead it has a very good tactical UI. Please don't gut the latter before bringing in some shape of the former.
I think I can sometimes see the intent behind the combat. A few times I managed to lead an assault, my fleet following on its own and overwhelming the enemy. Usually they barely care. Sometimes AI controlled fighters just swarm a ship and utterly destroy it, at other times they repeatedly get shot wing after wing and don't accomplish anything.
The combat is spectacular when working right and infuriating when not.
It doesn't help that the enemy would be happy to kite you for the entirety of every battle, then go "Uhh...getting loww on CR...bye!" The AI has abundance of patience and it seems to be learning to use it. :( And they don't care about supplies after all, do they?
-
For the most part the AI handles fighters fairly well, but there have been several instances where I have wanted to tell my fighters "don't do this, do that instead" but I have been unable to do so. In previous versions I could tell a group of fighters to do what I wanted them to do.
What I would like to see re: fighter controls in lieu of ordering them like ships (which I believe won't be reappearing).
Three command buttons on the <tab> interface to dictate fleet wide behaviour of fighters. All mutually exclusive.
Free Assignment
Let the AI decide how to use fighters as it does now. This would be the default setting.
Prioritise Defence
All fighters will be assigned to provide point defence cover to as many ships as they can, and will stay with thier assigned ship until it is either disabled or moves far enough away from the enemy to be considered out of immediate danger.
Bombers would still be free to attack ships, but would do so much less aggressively and prefer to loiter inside the front line fighter screen and strike at nearby targets of opportunity.
Prioritise Attack
All fighters will be assigned to attack nearby targets, prefering to concentrate on one target at a time.
This could have a command point cost and/or a cooldown period if required.
-
I'd still much rather have the option to command fighters manually, simply because it gives a better sense of agency. I haven't played the most recent version, yet, but in older ones, I'd often divide my fighters up for objectives (putting a good portion of them on defense of my most important ships, while having a wing or two of fighters escort my bombers, for example). This was one of the really nice parts of the combat for me, the micro-management of fighters to a specific degree.
-
Blech! Keep overt micromanagement out of Starsector.
Plenty of pure RTS games out there for that.
-
>keep overt micromanagement out of my fleet combat game
???
"overt micromanagement" as you call it is like 2 optional button presses at the start of a battle FYI
-
So, are fighters supposed to bail on their carrier and run for the hills if a Full Retreat is used? That seems a little crazy.
-
So, are fighters supposed to bail on their carrier and run for the hills if a Full Retreat is used? That seems a little crazy.
Haven't used full retreat in 0.8, to see that myself. But with changes to how fighters function, it seems to be a bug now.
-
The biggest problem is not even lack of controls over fighters but that the logic behind how AI use them or even how they behave is kind of lacking.
If I assign carrier to attack enemy target it should actually attack it using fighters first not a face check it when fighters go attack someone else.
If I assign carrier to escort someone I expect that its fighters will be defending him not that carrier will put itself between escorted and enemy when fighters go fly away.
If I put carrier into support/assist mode(that not exist but should) I expect that carrier will use his fighters to assist supported vessel and attack targets its attack(mainly using its fighters).
To bad now AI use carriers like normal vessels and use its fighters in not coordinated way.
-
I find that the AI uses it's fighters to run around the map, so never defending the carrier and leaving them vulnerable.
Which is particularly bad when the carrier is a battlecarrier, so the carrier AI tells the ship to spin in a useless circle while the fighters check to see if the enemies pd is still working.
But I'm sure I don't need to go onto the teeth pulling AI fencing and tedious battles where the only victory is waiting for the enemies CR to drop to zero.
-
Also, if I want a Carrier Flagship, I can't have my fighters attack anyone. I simmed a few battles today, and I couldn't kill an Eagle with a Carrier-Destroyer and two Frigates because nothing, even my own ship if I told it to attack and put it on autopilot, would actually attack. So, I was in a 1v1 with a smaller ship, rather than a 5v1. Commanding fighters directly just worked so much for smoothly in general. This glitch later stopped happening after a reload, but the fighters were still pointless against larger ships because I had to charge into battle rather than hang back and let my fighters harass.
-
Also, if I want a Carrier Flagship, I can't have my fighters attack anyone. I simmed a few battles today, and I couldn't kill an Eagle with a Carrier-Destroyer and two Frigates because nothing, even my own ship if I told it to attack and put it on autopilot, would actually attack. So, I was in a 1v1 with a smaller ship, rather than a 5v1. Commanding fighters directly just worked so much for smoothly in general. This glitch later stopped happening after a reload, but the fighters were still pointless against larger ships because I had to charge into battle rather than hang back and let my fighters harass.
Use the z key to toggle fighters between regroup and engage.
[Edit] Also, were you telling your ships to attack with right click? Because on cruisers I believe that will default to 'Harass' when using frigates. Eliminate makes all ships suitably aggressive.
-
Also, if I want a Carrier Flagship, I can't have my fighters attack anyone. I simmed a few battles today, and I couldn't kill an Eagle with a Carrier-Destroyer and two Frigates because nothing, even my own ship if I told it to attack and put it on autopilot, would actually attack. So, I was in a 1v1 with a smaller ship, rather than a 5v1. Commanding fighters directly just worked so much for smoothly in general. This glitch later stopped happening after a reload, but the fighters were still pointless against larger ships because I had to charge into battle rather than hang back and let my fighters harass.
Use the z key to toggle fighters between regroup and engage.
To add on to Thaago, use the R key to pick targets for your fighters if you're piloting a carrier.
-
So, are fighters supposed to bail on their carrier and run for the hills if a Full Retreat is used? That seems a little crazy.
Haven't used full retreat in 0.8, to see that myself. But with changes to how fighters function, it seems to be a bug now.
Bug, fixed (just now) for .1 - thanks for mentioning it!
If I assign carrier to attack enemy target it should actually attack it using fighters first not a face check it when fighters go attack someone else.
Also bug, already fixed for .1.
If I assign carrier to escort someone I expect that its fighters will be defending him not that carrier will put itself between escorted and enemy when fighters go fly away.
Not how it works - if you order a carrier to escort something, it will hide behind that something while using its fighters.
-
Well my experience with carriers are different.
If put on escort they will lag behind with fighters flying anywhere but escorted target or if they catch up they behave often like frigates and try to 'protect' escorted target by putting themselves between them and enemy battleships.
Not even mention that I rarely see them assist escorted target with fighters and they rarely recall fighters to protect themselves when attacked.
Heck you can put carrier on eliminating somebody and they will try to chase him down and gun him with PD when fighters flying on the other side on the map.
If you mass enough fighters its little problem because they eat anything and spawn forever as AI can not see that they should charge and blown carriers instead of blowing fighters.