Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hyperspace Topography (10/12/22)

Author Topic: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?  (Read 895 times)

Morgan Rue

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« on: January 27, 2020, 08:31:43 PM »

Normal Warships can have their weapons disabled, but Carriers don't seem to have any issue with being shot at. I guess you're supposed to kill the fighters... but that doesn't seem to be very reasonable to do, especially against large numbers of Carriers.

What if carriers lost replacement rate when taking fire on bare hull or something similar? I suppose this might hurt Warship/Carrier hybrid ships a bit much... Perhaps it could be based on the number of decks or something similar? Or maybe decks could be 'disabled' for a time, preventing fighter launches?
Logged
Dauntless.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2667
    • View Profile
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2020, 08:59:02 PM »

I like the idea, it makes sense.
Mora and Legion might need a compensation for it (un-nerf Damper field for Mora?).
Odyssey doesn't armor tank anything but superficial kinetics anyway. Also, if damage needs to actually hit the hangar (which is imo good way to go about it), on Odyssey it's located on safe off-side.

But this wouldn't change much in terms of fighter dominance in player fleets, AI doesn't get to approach Spark Drovers anyway (whether through sheer fighter mass or because they are screened by warships).
Logged

Morgan Rue

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2020, 09:13:26 PM »

I like the idea, it makes sense.
Mora and Legion might need a compensation for it (un-nerf Damper field for Mora?).
Odyssey doesn't armor tank anything but superficial kinetics anyway. Also, if damage needs to actually hit the hangar (which is imo good way to go about it), on Odyssey it's located on safe off-side.

But this wouldn't change much in terms of fighter dominance in player fleets, AI doesn't get to approach Spark Drovers anyway (whether through sheer fighter mass or because they are screened by warships).
I think fighters are too durable in general. Though it could be a lack of dedicated 'anti-fighter' options, especially in the Autofit lodouts the AI uses. Something like IPDAI but for killing fighters would be nice. The only real dedicated anti-fighter gun is the Devastator, and it's not very good against shielded fighters.
Logged
Dauntless.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2667
    • View Profile
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2020, 09:42:13 PM »

Main anti-fighter feature is a level 20 officer with AC3 among other skills (which gives the +50% anti fighter damage you ask for). Obviously AI side doesn't get many of these.

Killing fighters is more matter raw dps and it's proper use than accuracy. You need to concentrate fire on approaching swarm and backpedal to increase approach time. Accuracy doesn't matter much - if there are enough fighters to make a capital worry, you will hit by just firing in their general direction.

But trying to counter a swarm after it got on top of you is too late unless you are a flak Onslaught. I mean if it's more than a few stragglers after most of the swarm was cleared on approach.

Devastator has 2 critical flaws:
- it is countered by flares. Even if you have IPDAI, flares trigger by proximity anyway.
- autofire AI fires  against targets not quite within weapon arc, wasting tons of flux (Onslaught side slots).
(and it takes valuable large slot that could be used better)
« Last Edit: January 27, 2020, 09:54:32 PM by TaLaR »
Logged

Morrokain

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Megalith Dreadnought - Archean Order
    • View Profile
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2020, 11:03:12 PM »

I like this idea too. I think combat-oriented carriers can get other adjustments to compensate if that proves necessary.

Also, if damage needs to actually hit the hangar (which is imo good way to go about it), on Odyssey it's located on safe off-side.

This is a neat idea. It gives frigates who can dart in and disable bays more of a role as well. Their agility means they can get a better angle than larger ships. It might make combat-oriented carriers a bit vulnerable to saturation weapons, but that isn't anything that cannot be balanced by increased combat viability.

Quote
But this wouldn't change much in terms of fighter dominance in player fleets, AI doesn't get to approach Spark Drovers anyway (whether through sheer fighter mass or because they are screened by warships).

Also true in my experience. There are ways to promote that, however.

Main anti-fighter feature is a level 20 officer with AC3 among other skills (which gives the +50% anti fighter damage you ask for). Obviously AI side doesn't get many of these.

Killing fighters is more matter raw dps and it's proper use than accuracy. You need to concentrate fire on approaching swarm and backpedal to increase approach time. Accuracy doesn't matter much - if there are enough fighters to make a capital worry, you will hit by just firing in their general direction.

Even if that is possibly the ideal strategy in small numbers (I'm not necessarily convinced, myself, that it is- because that is only really beneficial to faster ships which make up a small percentage of the overall pool of options) it doesn't make it good for swarming strategies that have even a couple of assault-oriented ships to provide a screen. Assault ships must be able to reach the carriers, therefore backpedaling increases the amount of available strikes the carrier effectively has at its disposal- sometimes infinitely if the assault ships can tank the flux pressure between backpedals.
---

TLDR: What I like about the idea, overall, is the increased tactical considerations that make flying a carrier- personally as a player- more fun.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2667
    • View Profile
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2020, 11:24:32 PM »

Killing fighters is more matter raw dps and it's proper use than accuracy. You need to concentrate fire on approaching swarm and backpedal to increase approach time. Accuracy doesn't matter much - if there are enough fighters to make a capital worry, you will hit by just firing in their general direction.

Even if that is possibly the ideal strategy in small numbers (I'm not necessarily convinced, myself, that it is- because that is only really beneficial to faster ships which make up a small percentage of the overall pool of options) it doesn't make it good for swarming strategies that have even a couple of assault-oriented ships to provide a screen. Assault ships must be able to reach the carriers, therefore backpedaling increases the amount of available strikes the carrier effectively has at its disposal- sometimes infinitely if the assault ships can tank the flux pressure between backpedals.

As player I never have to counter truly dedicated fighter spam. For limited amount of carriers that AI actually uses and given that I typically pilot faster than average ships (frigates, Medusa, Falcon(P), Odyssey...), backing off is good idea - either I shoot fighters myself or retreat to allied coverage for their help.

Rushing right through fighter swarms in fleet action makes sense when your whole fleet doesn't have enough dps to handle enemy fighters. Properly outfitted player fleet is pretty much never in this situation. But rushing makes sense as strategy for enemies.
Logged

Morrokain

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Megalith Dreadnought - Archean Order
    • View Profile
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2020, 11:51:50 PM »

But rushing makes sense as strategy for enemies.

Theoretically, at least, I'd think it would be simpler to tie that behavior to the eliminate and full assault commands and then have the enemy AI more willing to do both of those when presented with a large amount of carriers. Then players can also opt in to that strategy when they want to eliminate key ships as quickly as possible without worrying about fighters impeding the timing of their assault. That can be important for faster ships that want to hit and run but need an optimal damage amount- at a key moment- to get any real damage done at all (I think this would help smaller ships using swarm tactics to fight larger ships)

This also increases the viability of lower deployment cost and easily salvageable ships as a play style.
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 786
    • View Profile
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2020, 05:41:07 AM »

Repeating my opinion that fighters need to have their replacement time increased instead of anything being done to carriers or weapons.
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1463
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2020, 05:49:20 AM »

Arguably the astral does suffer from having an ability that requires flux to use. But at such a range it also doesn't need to really rely on it.

It's a pain against space stations however if they drift too close.

It could be interesting if releasing or rebuilding fighters took flux.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Morrokain

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Megalith Dreadnought - Archean Order
    • View Profile
Re: What if carriers performed worse when under fire?
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2020, 01:46:19 PM »

Repeating my opinion that fighters need to have their replacement time increased instead of anything being done to carriers or weapons.

I may make a little mini-mod of this for test purposes.

Arguably the astral does suffer from having an ability that requires flux to use. But at such a range it also doesn't need to really rely on it.

It's a pain against space stations however if they drift too close.

It could be interesting if releasing or rebuilding fighters took flux.

Only thing about this is then you wouldn't want to have any weapons on the carrier. A resource like that would probably have to be its own pool- separate from weapons.

If there was a limit to total replacements (please keep that value moddable  ;) ) and then a ship system (or even a new mechanic unique to carriers) used a large amount of flux to replace them, sort of like the missile nano forge on the Gryphon- that would probably be a different story.
Logged