Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on January 08, 2019, 01:30:46 AM
-
Does anyone feel like the player as a fleet commander and carrier captain has far too little control over your own fighter wings?
Ever since they were changed, players lost the ability to control individual fighter wings, instead we give general orders to the carrier, which frankly sucks.
If I have a carrier with 4 wings of interceptors and I want to split those wings to escort/defend 4 different ships...I can't. The palyer has no fine control at all. It is infuriating.
-
Currently my problem is that the support fighters cannot be manually ordered to escort someone unless you're piloting the ship yourself. If you "escort" with a carrier, it will actually go there physically because these fighters need a ship to escort constantly, and the carrier seems to decide that it's the best candidate. It does send them to allies, sometimes, but it's automatic, you have no control over it. This only affects one type but it's pretty annoying.
-
As much as I would like the tactical battles to have more tactical/strategic control (setting default behaviours for ships/officers manually, no CP limit, more order variety/granularity than just "Assault", "Escort", "Avoid", and "Eliminate", better control of individual ship movement and fighter/ordnance use, setting task forces that stick together and fight as a unit, etc) I doubt it will happen. Pretty sure Alex has mentioned in other threads relating to giving the player more RTS-like control over battles that he doesn't want to pull the focus away from the player ship with an RPG feel, where your fleet is just there for AI-controlled support.
-
Games are made of limitations, not capabilities. There's only 2 vanilla ships with more than 3 fighter wings anyways(Astral and Legion), both of which are very powerful already. Big carriers aren't very good at providing spread out fighter coverage, and ultimately using an Astral or Legion for mass fighter coverage wastes the ship's capabilities so it shouldn't be encouraged.
-
just like you can't assign individual target for each weapon, especially infuriating when you can't fire squals in 4 different targets from your capital with 4 heavy missile mounts.
-
As much as I would like the tactical battles to have more tactical/strategic control (setting default behaviours for ships/officers manually, no CP limit, more order variety/granularity than just "Assault", "Escort", "Avoid", and "Eliminate", better control of individual ship movement and fighter/ordnance use, setting task forces that stick together and fight as a unit, etc) I doubt it will happen. Pretty sure Alex has mentioned in other threads relating to giving the player more RTS-like control over battles that he doesn't want to pull the focus away from the player ship with an RPG feel, where your fleet is just there for AI-controlled support.
But the problem is that when you're commanding a carrier you dont' have proper control over your fighter wings.
So you don't even have good control over the player ship in this instance.
-
As far as missile use is concerned, in my opinion there should be some options. Right now if you use ships with missiles and a steady officer, they will sometimes fire 4-5 harpoons at a frigate right at the start of the fight, and that's without giving any specific order. At the very least "use missiles against ships of X size or bigger".
-
I'd like more role-specific fighter orders. For example. there could be an interceptor-only fighter escort order where your talons and wasps loiter around friendly ships while acting as point defense and sortie out proactively to intercept incoming bombers. Non-interceptors from the same carrier would ignore that order and retain vanilla behaviors.
-
yes, there needs to be some player control of missile use too.
i would really like a "salvo this target with weapons of X types"
-
Games are made of limitations, not capabilities.
But we had the capability for great fighter control before and now we don't. They are now basically smart missiles. Fighters in 0.6.5 were great fun to use. I'm not saying the new system needs to go, but it should be at least as good as the old one.
Don't see the harm in adding a few dedicated fighter orders to the overlay.
-
Having been playing since 0.6, I do really like the new system of fighter squadrons being equipped on carriers because it adds in a new layer of interactions involving carrier pilot skills, ordnance point costs, hullmods, carrier ship systems, limited squadron roaming range, etc. The biggest benefit in my opinion is the ability to have very cool cooperative tactics between squadrons from the same carrier. I would hate to see that go.
However, losing the ability to assign escort orders removes the ability to have cooperative tactics between small craft squadrons and ships. Having a few wings of wasps dedicated to my Medusa-led Wolf pack allowed the entire pack to forgo PD in favor of harder hitting weapons. A couple wings of Tridents attached to an Eagle standoff line would lend extra firepower to enemies that the Eagles were able to get high on flux.
I don't think that going back to controlling fighters individually is necessarily a good idea. Having all the fighter and bomber squadrons for your entire fleet participate in a coordinated attack run would be a little too powerful (just look at how deadly a six squadron strike from an Astral is!). I also think that being able to split a single carrier's squadrons into different escort and strike duties would make the tactical map be a bit more complicated and "RTS-like" than Alex is really intending to (imagine all the arrows). In addition, where would the carrier itself physically go given the limited fighter roaming range if it was split between two different missions?
I would like to see an escort command where a carrier dedicates all of its squadrons to screening the selected ally. This would also allow us to subspecialize carriers for specific escort or strike roles as opposed to the current system where all carriers are effectively strike carriers. It may even be possible to add in more complex escort wing behavior in a similar vein to the upgraded "coordinated fighter strike" behavior.
-
...
I would like to see an escort command where a carrier dedicates all of its squadrons to screening the selected ally. This would also allow us to subspecialize carriers for specific escort or strike roles as opposed to the current system where all carriers are effectively strike carriers. It may even be possible to add in more complex escort wing behavior in a similar vein to the upgraded "coordinated fighter strike" behavior.
Welcome to the forum! I believe this is actually the intended use of the escort command for carriers, but it just doesn't work at present.
I do think there is a bit of UI problem though: I would like to be able to set my carriers to rally to a certain spot, but also give them strike and/or escort orders. I don't know if multiple commands like that are possible.
-
I do think there is a bit of UI problem though: I would like to be able to set my carriers to rally to a certain spot, but also give them strike and/or escort orders. I don't know if multiple commands like that are possible.
Not currently. It would go a long way towards helping the issues of squishy carriers with escort or engage orders throwing themselves into enemy fire as well rather than staying safely away from combat themselves while their strike craft escort/engage the target. I think the strike order means only their wings engage the target, but the carrier follows its default AI otherwise which may or may not still lead it into combat.
I think the current method of getting around this is to assign cautious or timid officers to carriers that you want to stay mostly out of combat (other than using their equipped wings). Using officers (of which the player can only have a limited number) as a means to set default engagement preferences other than the standard/basic behaviour, essentially.
-
Welcome to the forum! I believe this is actually the intended use of the escort command for carriers, but it just doesn't work at present.
I do think there is a bit of UI problem though: I would like to be able to set my carriers to rally to a certain spot, but also give them strike and/or escort orders. I don't know if multiple commands like that are possible.
Thanks for the welcome, much appreciated! And yeah it would be nice to be able to "park" your carriers somewhere safe although it would need an exception for when then the target of their order moves out of their fighter roam range. Maybe have it stay in range of the roaming target while trying to keep as close to the rally point as possible?
I think the current method of getting around this is to assign cautious or timid officers to carriers that you want to stay mostly out of combat (other than using their equipped wings). Using officers (of which the player can only have a limited number) as a means to set default engagement preferences other than the standard/basic behaviour, essentially.
I do find it slightly odd that we can't dictate the "aggressiveness" of ships without finding the right personality officers. I think another part of the problem is many of the carriers getting denoted as "combat carriers" for the purposes of which AI behavior to use. For something like the Legion and the Odyssey? Yeah, I want them on the front lines. For something like a Heron with only a single medium sized mount? Not so much.
-
Yeah, I really don't have a clue why the Heron is considered a combat carrier, because it doesn't have the armour, or weapons, to warrant this. A Mora? Yes please. Two turreted missile launchers are always great to have, especially since they almost have Dominator grade of armour, on top of having a ship system that allows them to tank Reapers.
-
Yeah, I really don't have a clue why the Heron is considered a combat carrier, because it doesn't have the armour, or weapons, to warrant this. A Mora? Yes please. Two turreted missile launchers are always great to have, especially since they almost have Dominator grade of armour, on top of having a ship system that allows them to tank Reapers.
It can decently support from afar (~1000-ish range, HAC + Tac lasers + ITU), almost no risk involved considering it's speed. Which is also more or less optimal distance to safely reduce bomber return trip.
But sadly AI tends to go Leeroy Jenkins instead.
-
But sadly AI tends to go Leeroy Jenkins instead.
Unfortunately apart from the Astral it seems to do just that with just about every carrier. It's actually starting to make me think there's a bug and it behaves like aggressive or even reckless at times, because it really goes right in the thick of things, even more so than a Dominator for example. It's like they're using the ship as a shield whenever you give escort orders.
-
It's like they're using the ship as a shield whenever you give escort orders.
Ding ding ding. This is exactly what escort does, and it's exactly what I almost never want escort to do. The proper escort behavior is what you get if you just let a (non-combat) carrier do its own thing with no orders at all - it'll pick a same-size-or-larger ship and just follow it around, trying to keep itself mostly out of line of fire and help out where it can.
-
That's very counter intuitive then. If I give an escort order to a destroyer I want it to defend the sides and rear of the capital, not blindly place itself in front of it to catch incoming missiles. Maybe this should be changed, or a new order should be created "protect" or "bodyguard".
-
...
I do find it slightly odd that we can't dictate the "aggressiveness" of ships without finding the right personality officers. I think another part of the problem is many of the carriers getting denoted as "combat carriers" for the purposes of which AI behavior to use. For something like the Legion and the Odyssey? Yeah, I want them on the front lines. For something like a Heron with only a single medium sized mount? Not so much.
We can a little bit, but its a global setting rather than on a per ship basis. On the 'doctrine' tab you can set the aggression level of AI fleets. In addition to influencing the officers for sale on your own colonies, it sets the default behavior of non-officered ships.
Unfortunately, most of the time I want all of my 'combat' ships to be aggressive or even higher, while I want my carriers to be cautious. So it doesn't help the carrier situation too much. :)
-
Unfortunately apart from the Astral it seems to do just that with just about every carrier. It's actually starting to make me think there's a bug and it behaves like aggressive or even reckless at times, because it really goes right in the thick of things, even more so than a Dominator for example. It's like they're using the ship as a shield whenever you give escort orders.
(It is indeed a bug, fixed for the next release. The issue comes up when too many ships try to auto-escort at the same time - and also nearby ships take up "escort slots" around a ship - which can push some of the carriers out to less-desirable slots forward of the ship being escorted. Also, the Mora and the Legion will no longer use the auto-escort behavior, i.e. they'll behave like regular combat ships that just happen to have fighters.)
-
I have a different set of gripes with the existing orders.
Clicking 'Eliminate' on a target, and then clicking Strike, unsets Eliminate and leaves the Strike. Clicking Eliminate again on the Strike targets sets both Strike and Eliminate. And secondly, how many carriers get assigned to a Strike is completely random as far as i've seen. You can have anywhere from 1 to 3 getting assigned to anything, frigate to a capital. I don't know if it's a matter of range, or agression, or danger of enemy ship or.. i don't know.
-
consider lack of control to be a balancing factor against how affective fighters as-is could be if put under direct player control.
-
consider lack of control to be a balancing factor against how affective fighters as-is could be if put under direct player control.
Fair, but that's still the worst of both worlds. You have a system where, when fighters happen to coalesce into an efficient attack or an efficient formation 'by accident', they're overwhelmingly effective. And when they don't, all you can do is watch.
I'd rather see fighters weakened and commanders and AI given tighter control. In fact, I would expect them to be weakened if that were to happen.
-
The main problem would be the bomber type fighters. They have the same problem as missile spam. That they can achieve a critical mass. As it is now, a pair of Drovers, if they can Strike/Eliminate if they happen to be working together will destroy cruisers in a couple of passes and move on to the next cruiser. I don't really like the "new" system as the player feels helpless and out of control and sometimes the amount of fighters assigned feels completely random. Then again, the lack of control in a battle is as designed and is not unique to carriers in particular.
It'll be difficult to retain the feel of bombers and balance it whilst giving player agency.
-
Fighters are simply better missiles than missiles.
Astral with six Perdition wings and a carrier officer will destroy big things quickly and efficiently.
-
The main problem would be the bomber type fighters. They have the same problem as missile spam. That they can achieve a critical mass. As it is now, a pair of Drovers, if they can Strike/Eliminate if they happen to be working together will destroy cruisers in a couple of passes and move on to the next cruiser. I don't really like the "new" system as the player feels helpless and out of control and sometimes the amount of fighters assigned feels completely random. Then again, the lack of control in a battle is as designed and is not unique to carriers in particular.
It'll be difficult to retain the feel of bombers and balance it whilst giving player agency.
Its true that 2 Drovers can take on a cruiser in a few passes - but is this different from 2 normal high performance destroyers? After all, Drovers are 12 deployment points/supplies, so 2 of them is nearly the same cost as a cruiser (and you can get 3 Hammerheads for 2 Drovers, or 3 Enforcers for just a bit more). And if the cruiser is actually fitted for anti-fighter, or is part of a fleet fitted for anti-fighter, it will be almost completely immune.
Fighters are simply better missiles than missiles.
Astral with six Perdition wings and a carrier officer will destroy big things quickly and efficiently.
The advantage of missiles that they will sit there and be fired on demand by a ship mounting them (and the ship is generating opportunities), while fighters are limited to doing runs and getting shot down. Fighters are certainly powerful, but not completely missile replacements.
Re: Astral. It is indeed a powerful ship, and Perditions are powerful fighters! I would say Astrals are about right for a Capital ship, being no more powerful overall than an Onslaught or a Paragon, but they can be specialized for anti station/capital work quite nicely.
-
Missiles can get shot down too. And fighter runs are basically launched missiles, except they shoot things instead of ramming them like a missile, and they regenerate, unlike missiles that can hurt things.
-
The main problem would be the bomber type fighters. They have the same problem as missile spam. That they can achieve a critical mass. As it is now, a pair of Drovers, if they can Strike/Eliminate if they happen to be working together will destroy cruisers in a couple of passes and move on to the next cruiser. I don't really like the "new" system as the player feels helpless and out of control and sometimes the amount of fighters assigned feels completely random. Then again, the lack of control in a battle is as designed and is not unique to carriers in particular.
It'll be difficult to retain the feel of bombers and balance it whilst giving player agency.
Its true that 2 Drovers can take on a cruiser in a few passes - but is this different from 2 normal high performance destroyers? After all, Drovers are 12 deployment points/supplies, so 2 of them is nearly the same cost as a cruiser (and you can get 3 Hammerheads for 2 Drovers, or 3 Enforcers for just a bit more). And if the cruiser is actually fitted for anti-fighter, or is part of a fleet fitted for anti-fighter, it will be almost completely immune.
Yes it's totally different. Different in range, in time taken, risk taken. A cruiser or 2 destroyers can't kill a cruiser in 20 seconds at range 2000, then roll over to the next cruiser ad infinitum. Of course, it can be hard to get 2 drovers to just work together.
-
Anything can achieve a critical mass.
Get enough guns together and any target melts away.
The reason why fighters/bombers are OP is because of how they are implemented to being with. They are infinite (unlike missiles) but fighters are more tanky than missiles, enabling you to far more easily overwhelm point defenses.
-
That's aboslutely not true. Guns are limited to ships and simply adding another gun with ship does not drastically improve the effects or ability of a combat effect. Guns are limited to the platform that they are on, the ships themselves. Ships get into each others way, naturally try to maintain some distance from each other, blocking each other firing lines and are limited by taking damage when moving to range to fire those guns. Fighters and missiles can concentrate force to create a tipping point that guns simply do not. Fighters and Pilum by their sheer immense range don't have this problem and can create a cascading or tipping point problem. You can already see this when a dominator with 3 pilum mounts can zone away ships in fleet engagements. Mostly its not a problem because most ships don't have that many medium mounts and because pilum was nerfed.