Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Warnoise on February 28, 2021, 10:44:01 AM

Title: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Warnoise on February 28, 2021, 10:44:01 AM
Fighters now are the by far the best in terms of cost/performance. They play so many roles that having (a lot) of them in a fleet is a must:
-They bomb targets without worrying about ammunition
-They can block incoming damage. Especially incoming torpedoes and other high damaging projectiles
-They can aggro AI turrets, leaving your actual ships safe from damage
-Fighter spam will melt absolutely anything without having to worry about ship losses

Seriously, every playthrough I found myself changing to fighter spam fleet without realising it. All that because fighters so much better than anything else.

I am aware however that they are in a delicate place currently, but for a start I wish at least they don't stop non pd projectiles (unless they are heavy fighters) because having your torpedo getting stopped by a small spark is kind of frustrating.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Helldiver on February 28, 2021, 11:48:11 AM
Large and medium non-PD guns shouldn't target fighters by default unless no enemy ships are close by. Too much flux and and effective damage wasted by medium and large guns constantly and clumsily trying to hit fighters on AI ships (and on autofire groups on player ships). Part of the reason why AI fleets are so easily baited into high flux and pointing their main guns away by fighters.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Thaago on February 28, 2021, 11:52:46 AM
I think its a bit tricky to come up with concrete suggestions right now because there are some changes we know about (smaller fleet sizes, changes to fighter skills, changes to player combat skills) that are going to drastically change the balance of fighters. My personal thought is to make most fighters have a shorter range in order to make the carriers more vulnerable, combined with AI that much more aggressively engages them, but I don't know if those are good ideas given what else is coming up.

Large and medium non-PD guns shouldn't target fighters by default unless no enemy ships are close by. Too much flux and and effective damage wasted by medium and large guns constantly and clumsily trying to hit fighters on AI ships (and on autofire groups on player ships). Part of the reason why AI fleets are so easily baited into high flux and pointing their main guns away by fighters.

I disagree with this just because some of those guns are really great fighter killing weapons. The current plasma cannon has a tag to stop if from firing at fighters on autofire and perhaps that tag could be shared to a few more guns, but for the most part medium and (sometimes large) weapons are excellent tools for killing fighters.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: SCC on February 28, 2021, 12:13:04 PM
I wonder how would giving all fighters ammo, thus requiring that they periodically return to carriers and give their targets a breather, affect this issue. Has anyone tried it?
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: sector_terror on February 28, 2021, 12:29:35 PM
I wonder how would giving all fighters ammo, thus requiring that they periodically return to carriers and give their targets a breather, affect this issue. Has anyone tried it?

Does this not alreayd exist for bombers?
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Helldiver on February 28, 2021, 12:46:50 PM
I disagree with this just because some of those guns are really great fighter killing weapons. The current plasma cannon has a tag to stop if from firing at fighters on autofire and perhaps that tag could be shared to a few more guns, but for the most part medium and (sometimes large) weapons are excellent tools for killing fighters.

A few are good at killing fighters, but when AI/autofire slowly traverses slow turning guns to waste flux at fighters that they probably won't hit when there's enemy ships nearby it just causes ships to get flux-locked and blasted and in a stupid and frustrating way - both because you lose ships to it and because it's abuseable as all hell against AI. Imagine playing a naval game and battleships randomly turn their main batteries away from enemy surface targets because some fighters are flying by.
There is no justification for this kind of issue to still be in the game after a decade either. Why can't gun groups have target priorities? Why can't ships have target priorities?
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Flying Dice on February 28, 2021, 01:17:24 PM
I don't really see it as being as much of an issue as the OP suggests. Fighter spam is subject to the same limitations as several other things (like torp spam): it doesn't scale infinitely. One carrier is good. Three carriers are great. 30 carriers are going to get blown up by an equivalent-DP fleet from a serious opponent. Higher-end ships are stronger defensively against fighter spam, have better PD, and tend to have more fighter coverage themselves. Fighters will rip through low-tier trash when massed, but against massed good direct-fire ships they can't keep the enemy battle line off of the carriers without a good chunk of the fleet being direct-combat itself.

At most I'd suggest a few more variants with more OP allocated towards PD.

(This is entirely ignoring that carrier spam is the most boring, passive way to play and I can't imagine anyone enjoying it for very long.)

I wonder how would giving all fighters ammo, thus requiring that they periodically return to carriers and give their targets a breather, affect this issue. Has anyone tried it?
This is functionally what fighters themselves are; the "reload" is the time it takes for the ship to produce new ones after they get blown up.

I disagree with this just because some of those guns are really great fighter killing weapons. The current plasma cannon has a tag to stop if from firing at fighters on autofire and perhaps that tag could be shared to a few more guns, but for the most part medium and (sometimes large) weapons are excellent tools for killing fighters.

A few are good at killing fighters, but when AI/autofire slowly traverses slow turning guns to waste flux at fighters that they probably won't hit when there's enemy ships nearby it just causes ships to get flux-locked and blasted and in a stupid and frustrating way - both because you lose ships to it and because it's abuseable as all hell against AI. Imagine playing a naval game and battleships randomly turn their main batteries away from enemy surface targets because some fighters are flying by.
There is no justification for this kind of issue to still be in the game after a decade either. Why can't gun groups have target priorities? Why can't ships have target priorities?
Use your targeting key. All non-PD weapons on autofire will prioritize the targeted enemy ship over all other targets so long as its inside their firing arc. Don't leave your important high-flux weapons on autofire. Focused fire is vastly more efficient than letting every weapon fire at will anyways, the only time I wouldn't do it is when there's such a substantial disparity that it doesn't matter, like flying a fully kitted-out Paragon into a cloud of pirate frigates.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: intrinsic_parity on February 28, 2021, 01:34:18 PM
30 carriers are going to get blown up by an equivalent-DP fleet from a serious opponent.
This is how it should be, but it is not true in practice.

I remember someone managed to beat a full remnant fleet (multiple radiants etc) with pure drover spark spam, there is a video of it in the comments in this thread https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16371.15. En mass, fighters can concentrate fire to an arbitrary extent while warships cannot. If the fighters can kill things quickly, then they don't die and snowball through everything making all the fighter replacement mechanics mostly irrelevant.

I do not do this because it is boring, but it is definitely the most effective strategy from an objective standpoint.


Forcing fighters to reload occasionally even if they don't die might help that a lot, I'd like to see the results. I'm also interested to see how the gaurdian PD performs against fighters after the buff. It would also be cool to see the devestator changed to be more anti-fighter oriented. I feel like it could fit that role if the AI tags were changed. Making warships better against fighters is an equally valid mechanaism for balancing them.

Use your targeting key. All non-PD weapons on autofire will prioritize the targeted enemy ship over all other targets so long as its inside their firing arc. Don't leave your important high-flux weapons on autofire.
The AI autofires everything and turns off auto fire to hold fire. The player cannot control that behavior in their fleet.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Thaago on February 28, 2021, 01:49:53 PM
Quote
...
I do not do this because it is boring, but it is definitely the most effective strategy from an objective standpoint.
...

I don't really agree with this. Its certainly an effective strategy, but lots of fleets can kill multi-ordo remnants. There are a few downsides as well: it takes a while to grind enough spark chips and, if I remember the video correctly, its a very slow battle that sometimes requires retreating and re-engaging.

The biggest issue with fighters IMO (and was pointed out in the thread linked) is that the AI just doesn't deal with carriers or fighters all that well. When playing against them the player can work around it with orders, but we'll just have to wait and see if enemy fleets will effectively engage player carriers in .95.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: SCC on February 28, 2021, 01:53:52 PM
This is functionally what fighters themselves are; the "reload" is the time it takes for the ship to produce new ones after they get blown up.
Forcing fighters to reload occasionally even if they don't die might help that a lot, I'd like to see the results.
The idea is that even an invincible fighter has to come back and rearm every so often. Currently, if fighters don't die, they stay on the field and give no respite to their targets, which decreases their losses, which allows them to fight for longer and so on — assuming you achieved the critical mass.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Helldiver on February 28, 2021, 02:47:47 PM
Use your targeting key. All non-PD weapons on autofire will prioritize the targeted enemy ship over all other targets so long as its inside their firing arc. Don't leave your important high-flux weapons on autofire. Focused fire is vastly more efficient than letting every weapon fire at will anyways, the only time I wouldn't do it is when there's such a substantial disparity that it doesn't matter, like flying a fully kitted-out Paragon into a cloud of pirate frigates.

Inside firing arc isn't the issue, which is why I wrote "nearby" and not "in range" - don't assume that people can't play the game. A ship is close but not yet in range or within arcs and all guns controlled by AI or on autofire will shoot at fighters if they can causing much flux, guns pointed in random directions and even backwards and so on, regardless of you targeting/locking on the ship or the AI being aware of it.

"Don't leave your important high-flux weapons on autofire" doesn't fix the issue. It does nothing for AI ships. And why shouldn't we be able to use high flux weapons on autofire? Because the targeting logic is dumb and uses all but one gun as an anti-fighter gun at all times the moment fighters enter range before a ship does? The player should never be stopped from using a feature as a work around to bad AI or targeting logic.

Fighters causing many ships on the receiving side to constantly misuse their guns and flux is one of the reasons why they are so effective against AI and frustrating to watch for the player. Next update will reduce overall fighter power but targeting logic will still be an issue.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: hydremajor on February 28, 2021, 03:06:10 PM
so the way things are worded you make it sound like fighters can respawn however many times they need to in combat after being shot down...

if that is the case I suggest a loss of armor everytime they do respawn OR an increase in respawn time everytime with the first respawn being the only exception

If I'm wrong about how this works, sorry but absolutely despise CR so much I basically swore off the game since it that got thrown in ....
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Megas on February 28, 2021, 03:54:49 PM
if that is the case I suggest a loss of armor everytime they do respawn OR an increase in respawn time everytime with the first respawn being the only exception
That is the point of declining replacement rate.  The problem is it is not too hard to keep it at max at all times, with carrier skills and Expanded Deck Crew.  The Expanded Deck Crew hullmod is so good that it is an ITU-equivalent for carriers, and it will be heavily weakened next release.  (I do not like Deck Crew because it discourages pre-0.8a gunship loadouts; better to overspecialize on fighter power on carriers and leave them mostly unarmed.)  Also, carrier skill bonus will degrade if there are too many fighters.  (Although it could be like 0.65a Logistics where more was usually better despite the penalties.)
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Daimon on March 01, 2021, 12:59:47 AM
If we step a step back and consider what this actually means in a lore sense, it's nothing to be afraid of.
Fighters might simply be the best weapon system available. If you consider that battleships on earth got bigger and bigger until they became so expensive and easy to counter that smaller vessels took over as the backbone of fleets (notably carriers and small destroyers). Massive tanks got replaced by drones, too.
Under this premise, I have no issue in having superior fighters.
On the other side, bigger space ships have other advantages, like more efficient drives (technically bigger ships are quicker than smaller ones, but I can deal with this error since small=agile is so often repeated) and being able to handle super sized weapons (which are a bit pointless against smaller enemies though)
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Chikanuk on March 01, 2021, 02:41:18 AM
We dont need to fix it.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: SonnaBanana on March 01, 2021, 04:21:20 AM
Half the fix is already in-dev: Paladin got buffed
Now for the Devestator to not suck.......
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Serenitis on March 01, 2021, 05:45:17 AM
If you want fighters to return to thier carriers periodically, give them a PPT and have them return when they run out the timer.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: hydremajor on March 01, 2021, 06:48:55 AM
@Megas

So wait you make yourself a specialised carrier character build (or whatever that is) and you are now in the process of complaining that:

the character build MADE TO MAKE CARRIERS VIABLE is ACTUALLY VIABLE ?

Am I the ONLY ONE thinking this sounds immensely *** ?
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: SonnaBanana on March 01, 2021, 07:09:17 AM
If you want fighters to return to thier carriers periodically, give them a PPT and have them return when they run out the timer.
PPT/CR mechanics are a mess. Just give them limited ammo on everything, not like they miss much in the first place.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Megas on March 01, 2021, 01:11:01 PM
@ hydremajor:  I was pointing out that fighters (aside from maybe the Drover and Spark combo) are not that overpowering unless player specializes in them.  With Expanded Deck Crew and skills being the biggest culprit.  (Fleet with nothing but carriers is another way, too.)  However, fighters are better than Pilum spam, and one reason why I call fighters better missiles than missiles.

As for specializing in fighters, I do not like the way player can specialize in fighters.

Expanded Deck Crew is a significant OP tax for all dedicated carriers and Legion.  Legion needs both ITU and Expanded Deck Crew.  Combined with good fighters costing 8 OP or more, there is usually not enough OP left to properly support guns, so it is a good idea to leave carriers mostly or wholly unarmed.  Sure, carrier could eschew Deck Crew, but it hurts like other ships not taking ITU to support their guns.  Carriers have mounts, and they should use them, but the current gameplay discourages that.

Most carrier skills are piloted-only.  This may be fine for officers, but for the player who cannot re-spec skills, this really hurts because it locks the flagship to Drover, Mora, Heron, or Astral for the rest of the game.  (On the other hand, player can grab generalist skills and be good with warships or phase ships, and there are many more of them than carriers.)  Carrier specialist gimps conventional combat power much the same way a colony industrialist would by spending skill points in highly specialized skills (that he may not use once he is not in a carrier) instead of more general combat skills that should be given to a combat character, and the game is mostly about combat.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Retry on March 01, 2021, 02:07:28 PM
Half the fix is already in-dev: Paladin got buffed
Now for the Devestator to not suck.......
Devastator is also getting buffed.  Or fixed, depending on your perspective.  Devastator's explosion radius (maximum range explosion shot can deal damage at) & core explosion radius (range where Devastator shot deals full damage) is being increased, and the proximity fuse radius (range which tells the shot when to explode) is being reduced .

Current Devastator's proximity fuse radius appears to be less than the core explosion radius, so the shots detonate prematurely and the Devastator cannot physically reach its stated damage in the stat card.  From the in-dev patch notes, this issue appears to be rectified.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: sector_terror on March 02, 2021, 12:29:16 AM
I haven't had a lot of success(or fun) from carrier spam so I can only add so much to this conversation without spending quite a while playing just to test, but I can add this much. I find -fighters- to be perfectly balanced and fair when they are harassing enemies with minor but constant attacks. When I cant protect my back because fighters keep digging into it then I'm quite happy with them. A bother yes but hardly horrifying. I also have no issues with some bombers or support requiring me to pop shields or taking advantage of high flux to cut through said shields. As far as that's concerned I'm perfectly fine.

The issue I have is with some bombers like daggers having high damage homing torpedos with no limit or punishment for spam while I can barely hold a handful of them. A good mid-teir ship might have 4-6 atraphose class torpedoes, but a hero effectively has 6 of them for repeated use. In terms of damage it's fine but it nearly invalidates missiles since a single sufficient bomber wing might as well be a repeat firing reloadable but less controllable missile of the same time. Either the torpedos they get need to be toned down but harder to hit(matching with small arms fighters would use) or some other change needs to occur so I don't watch my own hero units fly down on the ship I'M fighting and ram 6 yellow murder missiles right up it's face for the 3rd time.

Perhaps it's emotional but I even when it's from my side I take issue with it.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: hydremajor on March 02, 2021, 03:58:02 AM
Ultimately Fighters are tied to Carriers

so one can't be changed without considering the other

Only game I played that had satisfying carrier gameplay was warship gunner 2 and that not exactly a good referrence since carriers in that game are:

A: the naval kind

and

B: good due to the sheer missile spam they can bring to assist their aircraft in combat

and considering missiles in this game is a GADGET and not a WEAPON, that option simply ain't possible, the other option would be to turn Carriers into dakka boats that can delete entire hordes of fighters at wich point the game devolves the problem into
"fighters are worthless unless you have a carrier"

You're gonna have to compromise on SOMETHING...
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Morbo513 on March 02, 2021, 09:51:49 AM
Reiterating my suggestions on the fighter issue:

Give fighters an evasion rate - meaning projectiles fired from non-fighters will pass through more often. Anything targeting fighter specifically would be guaranteed hits (as long as the projectile connects), ditto with splash-damage. This means you won't get fighters constantly blocking high-power single-shots.
In turn, reduce fighters' health/armour/shields

Reduce non-bomber damage vs normal ships to 25%, meaning fighter fighters are just that and not very useful for much else except as fodder.

Allow PD (and maybe small) weapons to pass through friendly ships and wreckage to hit targeted fighters, since the fighters can fire from behind an enemy ship to hit another, or hover above a ship/wreck to become essentially invulnerable for a time.

Make fighter wings have to dock to replenish their wing, instead of being constantly reinforced.

Tie replacement rate and the carriers' CR together; each fighter replaced costs CR - making attrition much more dangerous for carrier-based fleets, and enabling the neutralisation of fighters/their carriers by simply destroying a lot of them.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Goumindong on March 02, 2021, 11:21:07 AM
One thing that would reduce the power of fighters is better shield management from battleships.

So if you recall the old thread about how the “Onslaught wasn’t a real battleship” one of the things that I had to deal with in designing my Broadslaughts was what to do with fighters. The solution was largely just “well more Vulcans plus IPDAI” but this doesn’t work on all ships.

However what does work is the same principle with different weapons. Short range high burst weapons. You need to trade flux immediately now in order to kill the fighters. Killing fighters faster is almost always better than killing them slower and eating their attacks.

A problem that AI ships have is that they reduce the amount of flux they have available to them to do this by putting their shields up even when the majority of incoming damage is very low armor damage. A broadsword wing comes in and... dumps it’s LMG right into the front shield of every ship, doing thousands of damage on shields instead of letting the damage hit armor. (The shields may be reacting to the swarmers though). And then the ship keeps trying to put its shields up.

Even through those issues a high volume of fire will absolutely defeat swarms of fighters. But the AI doesn’t have a lot of ships that are set up to buzzsaw fighters like that. (Especially the harder AI factions)

So maybe the change to the Paladin will help? Or maybe a fitting evaluation for energy based ships (more IRPulse lasers or regular PD lasers) would reduce the impact of fighters against high tech fleets?
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: hydremajor on March 02, 2021, 11:33:03 AM
@Goumindong

the whole point of battleships not having great AA cover is to emulate WW2 battleships that can do great against large vehicles but struggle immensely against smaller faster targets, in that sense strikecraft spam is MEANT to be a hard-counter to battleships....

FURTHER

I'd like to add that this whole "weapon triangle" situation is supposed to be closed with quick strike ships like frigates and destroyers being the hard-counter to carriers by closing in quick and shredding the carrier before the strike crafts can react and muster enough firepower forcng them on a wild goose chase everytime such ships close in for engagement

in fact a very good parallel to this would be boxing's triangle theory shown here:

(https://i.imgur.com/i7YsOEml.jpg)

not QUITE the right ressource to examplify it but you get my point and parallels to combat in starsector can be easily drawn
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Goumindong on March 02, 2021, 02:32:19 PM
@Goumindong

the whole point of battleships not having great AA cover is to emulate WW2 battleships that can do great against large vehicles but struggle immensely against smaller faster targets, in that sense strikecraft spam is MEANT to be a hard-counter to battleships....


Battleships are exceptional at killing fighters. The problem is not that they're bad at it but that they're not always fit well to consider the threat.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Thaago on March 02, 2021, 03:11:46 PM
(WWII battleships were also great at killing/surviving fighters, at least compared to other units. Its just that the fighters tended to concentrate force and spam. WWII capital units were however very vulnerable to submarines.)
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Goumindong on March 02, 2021, 05:49:36 PM
They weren’t that vulnerable to submarines either. Battleships went out of favor because the purpose of a battleship is either force projection or the prevention of enemy force projection. And carriers project force further, and therefore better. And battleships aren’t fast enough to catch a carrier... 

None of these issues exist in Starsector though. Warships are “just fine” to maybe even too strong (well, the big ones) (I don’t really feel like fighters are that OP in general. But I can understand how people feel that way for various reasons)
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: sector_terror on March 03, 2021, 12:21:19 AM
I'd also like to add in letting the thematic image of something decide your gameplay beyond concept phase and into the details of implementation is a mistake. Even if it is true that the ships were emulations of WW2 battleships, it wouldn't change they arent WW2 battleship, they are spaceships competing with other naval designs in the universe of starsector. At this stage, the inspiration has to take a secondary to balancing for both world-building and gameplay reasons
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: SonnaBanana on March 03, 2021, 06:54:11 AM
Aldready posted this in suggestions

Reduce fighter replacement speed by 25% if moving.
Another 25% reduction if over 30% flux.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Hatter on March 03, 2021, 09:08:36 AM
That seems like it would impact battle-carriers (legion) more then dedicated carriers. Getting into combat is already a lose condition for dedicated carriers.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Daynen on March 03, 2021, 10:09:10 AM
Until the changes hit, may I suggest a mine strike?  Drop a mine right in the middle of a fighter swarm and enjoy your popcorn.  Bonus if they're hovering near their carrier and damage it too.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Umbra on March 03, 2021, 06:16:02 PM
Could a silly and somewhat considerable workaround be have a new resource you have lug around aka Fighter hulls (or metals get consumed on fighter replacement in battle and refunded post battle) or fighter pilots dedicated crew which aren't your run off the mill shmuck are well trained and willing to get into those beautifully dangerous fighters, have them be a somewhat rarer resource found on military stations mostly and thus creating this new issue of balancing the economy of running the carrier spam rather than nerfing it out right.

Mainly because by the end of the game most fleets you fight shouldn't feel like a chore to fight or a build is too overpowered in fact the simple reasoning that you're overpowered isn't bad per say, you successfully breaking ahead in a galactic arms race by taking advantage of a lack of anti fighter munitions in the core worlds is simply that you succeeding. Of course another option is give any weapon with point defence primary role a 1.25 dmg increase vs fighters or nerf fighter armour and hull integrity to make them slightly more glass cannony. But honestly as fighters stand you can mass a bunch of bombers and let them go ham or just spam some dumb 50 wings of broadsides build but it's for most of the play time in the game not a significant issue (purely from my experience)

Issue is no matter what gets changed you're going to upset either group A or group B, or god forbid you upset group C which didn't have a stance before because prior to the patch they didn't give it thought.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Warnoise on March 04, 2021, 01:10:46 AM
I forgot to mention that fighters tend to flank you from your unshielded side which adds more to their cancer xD

But personally the thing that needs to be addressed the most is small fighters which are barely visible which could block big projectiles.

Also the speed at which fighters respawn is pretty fast. Chasing a Heron feels like a huge chore from the sheer speed+wave after wave of fighters.

PS:Thunder is the most ridiculous of the bunch. That thing was especially designed to reduce the lifespan of players from sheer frustration
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: shoi on March 04, 2021, 05:48:25 PM
i will say it until im blue in the face but fighters dont need a nerf, only stacking skills and hullmods which make replacement time a non issue and the fighter death ball easier to achieve do.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: bobucles on March 06, 2021, 04:12:25 AM
Fun things are fun.

Fighters do benefit from snowball syndrome. Once you have enough to overwhelm point defense, the best thing to do is stack on more fighters. The same is true of missile(pilum) spam. But there are other ways to "break" combat as well. It's more enjoyable to have a multitude of strategies that get out of control, rather than guiding players down the balanced fleet composition every time.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Megas on March 06, 2021, 04:44:50 AM
It's more enjoyable to have a multitude of strategies that get out of control, rather than guiding players down the balanced fleet composition every time.
Balanced fleets stink when ships have different PPTs all over the place, and I have limited CP to retreat ships in big long endgame fights.  I do not want to retreat a steady trickle of ships because one ship runs out of PPT, then another, then another, then... oops, out of CP.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: DatonKallandor on March 06, 2021, 05:26:39 AM
If you're dead set on that playstyle, a simple automatic retreat mod will make the game more fun for you (it's a mod I'd recommend to everyone anyway). But there's really no reason to align the entire game around that one playstyle.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: devurandom on March 06, 2021, 06:56:16 AM
If you're dead set on that playstyle, a simple automatic retreat mod will make the game more fun for you (it's a mod I'd recommend to everyone anyway). But there's really no reason to align the entire game around that one playstyle.
I think that "using more than one type of ship" is a pretty reasonable playstyle to support. PPT is just ridiculously low. I play with double PPT, and I still have cruisers and capitals running out in large brawls. (Megas' double speed idea is good, but it makes the short PPT even more obvious, so I double PPT to maintain the same "real time" duration.)
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Megas on March 06, 2021, 07:32:55 AM
PPT was okay in earlier releases.  Today, AI is generally more cowardly, fights are bigger, and skills are weaker (less speed and offense), while PPT has not changed since then.  Endgame fights are multi-round affairs if player's fleet is not at (or close to) peak power.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Thaago on March 06, 2021, 10:10:16 AM
I don't have trouble with PPT, though I do put hardened subsystems on frigates and SO ships for midgame+ fights.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: TaLaR on March 07, 2021, 09:12:20 AM
Yeah, fights are just too big for frigate PPT. And you have only 10 officers that can't be swapped between ships, so you can neither get a sizeable deployment with just/mostly frigates or keep them in a fight for long time.

Frankly, if not for Afflictor being the player-piloting powerhouse it is, frigates would be almost completely irrelevant in late game.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Helldiver on March 07, 2021, 05:32:47 PM
Besides fighters already getting nerfed next patch, I feel that part of the issue is that "fighter" fighters (not bombers) can be so problematic to ships, for example dealing high shield damage with certain guns. I think that only dedicated bombers should be a real threat to bigger ships and "fighter" fighters should be reserved to intercepting/defending against other fighters or escorting their own bombers to distract PD or fight interception attempts.

(WWII battleships were also great at killing/surviving fighters, at least compared to other units. Its just that the fighters tended to concentrate force and spam. WWII capital units were however very vulnerable to submarines.)

WWII battleships were very vulnerable to torpedo bombers and more so than certain other ship classes, despite the use of torpedo belts and heavier total AA armament. No realistic amount of AA on a ship at the time prevented carrier-launched torpedo bombers from getting within dropping distance against said ship. Protecting a BB was done by disrupting bombers before reaching dropping distance, either with air cover or layering AA with smaller ships like DDs spread around the BB.
Agree to capitals being vulnerable to subs. I wish phase ships took on more of the characteristics of subs to create more of the gameplay dynamics usually seen in sub/ASW warfare in other games.

Frankly, if not for Afflictor being the player-piloting powerhouse it is, frigates would be almost completely irrelevant in late game.

I wish that smaller ships like frigates didn't have such pitiful weapon range due to not having DTC and ITU being so weak on them, as it prevents them from serving in support roles such as escorts in late game/big battles. You put PD on a frigate and tell it to escort a cruiser and it can't even hit any fighter or missile before it reaches the cruiser anyways, unless it's sitting in front and blocking the cruiser's guns which is even worse. That also contributes to fighter strength, as dedicated PD ships below cruiser size are made bad by current hullmod balance.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Thaago on March 07, 2021, 11:03:45 PM
Spoiler because off topic...
Spoiler
...
WWII battleships were very vulnerable to torpedo bombers and more so than certain other ship classes, despite the use of torpedo belts and heavier total AA armament. No realistic amount of AA on a ship at the time prevented carrier-launched torpedo bombers from getting within dropping distance against said ship. Protecting a BB was done by disrupting bombers before reaching dropping distance, either with air cover or layering AA with smaller ships like DDs spread around the BB.
...

This was true at the beginning of the war: the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse was a shocking demonstration of air power, though it was later learned that most of the ships' anti-air capabilities were actually offline during the attack due to problems from condensation shorting out the radar and fire directors. Still, combined bomber and torpedo (and it was important for it to be a combined strike, as the two weapons were evaded in different ways) had been proven to be able to kill battleships.

A brief analysis: the battleships were ambushed without their early warning radar alerting them because of problems. They had no effective anti-air fire control, no proximity fuses, no air cover, and the air wing that attacked them was equivalent of the bombers force of 2 full fleet carriers. In these conditions, 8 of 49 torpedoes hit, with the Repulse dodging the first 19 fired at it. Once the ships lost their maneuverability and the aircraft deployed combined dive bomb/torpedo pincer attacks the hit rate went way up.

However there were two technological advances during the war from the allies that changed things: much better secondary battery fire control radar, and radar proximity fuses. With these, the 5' (125mm) 38cal secondaries were capable of very long range accurate fire that could splash incoming fighter and bombers squadrons. Also, over the course of the war ineffective smaller weapons were swapped out for 20mm oerlikans and 40mm boeffers (spelling on both, sorry), which were miles better than machine guns for AA. It did help that ships traveled in packs and those were the same guns used on destroyers and anti-aircraft cruisers (atlantas), but the preferred anti-air escort for the fleet carriers were battleships for the sheer number of AA guns, toughness, and operational endurance.

Japanese AA was, frankly, awful. It had little to no radar guidance, was undersized (often 25mm), and poorly mounted. But, in the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea (part of the battle of leyte gulf), the japanese battle line without air cover was attacked by 5 full fleet carriers and an escort carrier over 259 sorties. They managed to sink a super battleship and a cruiser, but were ineffective in actually stopping the force. The only reason that its not commonly remembered that mass air strikes were unable to stop a battleship force from powering through and slaughtering tens of thousands of people in transports is because of the ridiculous miracle (from the allied perspective) that was the Battle off Samar. (Where the equivalent of a couple of lashers with some condors with talons fought off an entire hegemony extermination fleet and 'won'.)

(Side note: German ship based anti-air radar was also somewhere between non-existent and awful, so while they had decent guns, they had nothing to point them, and they also didn't have radar proximity shells. Much hay is made of the Swordfish attack that crippled the Bismark, but its important to remember that visibility was bad and the Bismarck was using optical systems, there were no proximity fuses (and the wrong type of fuses to begin with), and the hit that jammed the rudder was very lucky. If the same kind of torpedo attack had been launched against a 1945 american battleship there would have been no attacking planes to survive.)

By the end of WWII, torpedo bombers were considered by the allies to be very high risk against a modern force: while they hadn't been on the receiving end themselves, american and british navies had observed first hand that new AA technologies made low and slow torpedo attacks suicidal. Even if the pilots could drop their torpedoes, they were likely to get hit on the way out. There was a lot of experimentation with high speed high altitude next generation torpedoes that could be dropped from level flight bombers outside of AA height, but that whole branch of technology became obsolete with the advent of jet fighters and guided missiles.

Wow that turned into a long post. For a run down of various wwII AA guns, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZqMqhUnVMU
The channel (Drachinifel) is a fantastic source of knowledge about ships of all periods with at this point several hundred hours of content.

[close]
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Mysterhay on March 08, 2021, 12:41:08 AM
I mean, fighters are extremely effective in large fleet fights as they can focus fire power better than anything else (as they can pass through targets).

One possible fix - allow point defence like LRPD to pass through friendly ships when targeting fighters. Would mean that at least a fleet ball can focus some comparable damage back on them utilising a similiar mechanic. PD boats with ITU equipped also have a place in the fleet - currently they don’t do enough damage to be on front lines, and have no line of sight anywhere else.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: koprus on March 08, 2021, 02:56:51 AM
I find fighters, specially bombers extremely satisfying to watch and play with in their current state. Every time i see a post with the word "balance" in it i just facepalm myself.

No-one forces anyone how to play balance-wise in a single-player non-competitive game. You do as you like and be satisfied with. If you find fighter spam offensive no one stops you from not playing with fighter spam. And i never have found myself in a position in game vs the AI where enemy so called "fighter spam" caused me ANY problems. EVER. I can easily destroy the game without even bothering to use carriers.As long as modders keep their fighter/bomber stats reasonable this is the best "balance".

Lore and IRL wise stand-off torpedo/missile bomber ordinance should be devastating vs ships. If they are not there is no place for them in any army. Futuristic or not. Fighter/bombers should not be a commodity to be used as "cannon fodder" just for a few enemy pd to have fun with. They should be a serious battle-ending threat.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Amoebka on March 08, 2021, 04:38:09 AM
It's a matter of opinion then. I don't think leaving blatantly broken strategies in the game is fine simply because "you don't have to use them". What happens when you decide to not use the broken strat and lose a close battle? You think "I would have won if I lamed" and you feel bad. There will always be a dominant strategy, but it should at least not be obvious and preferably it shouldn't be a monofleet.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: sector_terror on March 08, 2021, 06:36:48 AM
I agree with Amoebka, saying "you dont have to use them," to excuse pisspoor balancing is a trash argument. I shouldn't have to deny myself an interesting part of the game because I know it breaks another part of it. At that point it might as well be unplayable full of crash bugs for all it's worth. Whether I'm avoiding it because it's broken in the sense it crashes, or it undoes the rest of the game, it's all the same and should be fixed so I can stop avoiding a section of the material. And dont forget, the AI doesnt care to not use it.

And reminder: I'm the guy who says bombers are the main issue. I also do see merit in the argument that's been presented here that the AI aiming at fighters weapons that really have no business doing so, or the AIs inability to trust it's armor at all. Once again I reiterate, "fixing" the problem means nothing right now since a new update is, I would hope at this point, far enough in that too much will change. Instead we should examine the problem and detail what makes people see issues with fighters and use that to find if the new update finds solutions to them or changes the field such they are no longer an issue.

Also Koprus is entirely wrong about the lore. Fighters and bombers were part of the mid-line cruisers school as an offshoot to warships in combined arms fleets. High tech intigrated them together into warships to avoid overdepending on them and leaving a far too vulnerable carrier which has little hope of breaking through an onslaught or the broadside of a conquest. So in lore they weren't strong enough on their own and risked being completely helpless if the front-line warships were ever overwhelmed enough, which left the fleet lacking for a response in that scenario. Thus they became relegated to support and point defense or capitalizing on disabling more powerful ships with ion cannons and the like.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: SonnaBanana on March 08, 2021, 07:37:03 AM
Thus they became relegated to support and point defense or capitalizing on disabling more powerful ships with ion cannons and the like.
Cobra/Trident/Dagger says hi
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: sector_terror on March 08, 2021, 07:57:10 AM
Thus they became relegated to support and point defense or capitalizing on disabling more powerful ships with ion cannons and the like.
Cobra/Trident/Dagger says hi

Yeah I have no idea how I forgot about those, my point about them being intigrated into faster warships to work alongside them rather than as pure carriers remains. I believe the Astral is midline last I checked.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: SCC on March 08, 2021, 09:26:56 AM
I don't think there's an in-game description of tech level doctrines. It's all implied by what ships are classified as.
When it comes to carriers, low-tech has 1 dedicated one, 2 combat carriers, Shepherd and Venture (which I would say is a warship with fighters, not a carrier), midline has 2 dedicated carriers and Gemini, while high-tech has 1 dedicated carrier, 1 warship with fighters and Tempest. While midline has the most dedicated carriers, it has the fewest fighters, so I'd say if any tech level is the fighterest, I'd say it's low-tech, with many carriers and many fighters, ironically enough.
Yeah I have no idea how I forgot about those, my point about them being intigrated into faster warships to work alongside them rather than as pure carriers remains. I believe the Astral is midline last I checked.
It's high-tech. The blue paintjob gives it away.
Title: Re: How do we balance fighter spam?
Post by: Goumindong on March 10, 2021, 12:25:13 AM
It's a matter of opinion then. I don't think leaving blatantly broken strategies in the game is fine simply because "you don't have to use them". What happens when you decide to not use the broken strat and lose a close battle? You think "I would have won if I lamed" and you feel bad. There will always be a dominant strategy, but it should at least not be obvious and preferably it shouldn't be a monofleet.


But fighters aren’t blatantly broken.