Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?  (Read 3875 times)

Kanjejou

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile

They are all fairly easy to get but isnt their OP cost a bit too high?

Talon are super cheap so its an exception, for me they are okay.

But Pyranha at 10 OP when the Lux are at 12, lets say its okayish because its the entry bomber with... bombs... but still its kind of struggle at its job of being a brutal but innacurate weapon, because most of they time they dont shot if they don't line perfectly with the target thus they often never shot before getting to PD range that they dont have to reach to be dangerous, and wont be able to empty their paylorad at such a short range

Broadside being the same price as Claw and Spark 8 OP when the high tech have so much speed and shield they will often dodge PD

Kopesh being as costly as Longbow 12OP whent he seocnd have guided sabots ther strongest/costlies/most interesting missile of the game

Perdition vs Dagger 15vs18 OP, Dagger being way more reliable both as a bomber and its payload being guided.


Mid tech are a bit strange because their wings are extremely specialised:
Thunder being extremely fast and effectiv anti-wings
Gladius being super cheap all rounder
Warthog carrying guns instead of ordinance thus bringing bomber power as maintained dps instead of burst.

 i enjoyed using midline wings a lot. High tech too... but low tech always feel lackluster...for their price at least...

Maybe its also because I use low tech on low tech carrier and mid tech on mid carrier, high on high tech carrier for a long time early as some kind of RPing.


Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2021, 11:58:21 AM »

Claws and Sparks contribute very little screening and shield damage in comparison to Broadswords. They aren't good for leading bombers.
Khopesh and Longbow do different things. Khopesh is a reliable cheap bomber, even if it won't hit for as much damage as Piranhas or Daggers. Longbow shoots sabots, but you have to follow it up with something.
Perdition I would agree is not that good currently. It should have its price lowered to 12 OP.

It's also worth noting fighters aren't supposed to work in techs. You are meant to mix them, even more than the ships.

Hadza

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2021, 12:09:07 PM »

All of them.

-This post was brought to you by Tri-Tachyon corporation.
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2021, 12:16:54 PM »

Broadswords might be a competitor for one of THE best fighters in the game for attacking starships, interceptors tend to have better point defence or anti-fighter capability.

Remnant tech stuff is supposed to be a nice treat for fighting or salvaging near the AI stuff so it gets a pass from me. Otherwise I'd say that midline strikecraft tends to be the most underwhelming.

Out of all the lowtech/luddite strikecraft I'd only say that the Pyranha is mostly just underwhelming. The mining pods are also terrible, 0op to use but even then simply awful.

Talons lose crew like it's going out of style so I just don't like them any more.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Bummelei

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2021, 02:45:14 PM »

Piranhas. I personally like them, because they are cheap and carry the heaviest load among all bombers in the game. Yes, they are not the best at survival and targeting fast crafts, but if they hit, they HIT HARD, and damage easily overwhelm weak shields as on Venture or any other pirate crafts. Try to use them more, when they are en masse, they can be exceptionally satisfying to use. And\or try to use their upgraded version - Flash.

Broadswords. Are you even played against fleet full of Broadswords? This is unbearable torture. Everyone except the heavy cruisers and above is suffering like crazy. The frigates just evaporate. Any act of aggression is strictly punishable by suppression of shields, followed by obliteration with harpoons. They are durable, have exceptionally good kinetics, cost only eight, and comes in decent amounts. They are simply one of the best fighters, if not the best.
And yeah, in comparison to Sparks (which is no more than just flying PD), and Claws (disablers, which can only be useful on paper) Broadswords are slow, but not as slow as Warthogs, they able to catch up like 9 out of 10 targets, so that doesn't really matters. They doesn't have shields? It's not really an issue - the amount of HP and armor lets them tank much more damage than aforementioned fighters. And in comparison to these support interceptors Broadsword really packs a lot of punch.

Khopeshes. Boring mediocrity. Their survival rate is slightly better than that of the Piranhas, but they trade firepower for this, which, in my opinion, is unacceptable. And their accuracy is the same as Piranhas (can't hit anything faster than a cruiser), so it's not worth it. And trying to compare them to Longbows is a bit... unfair?

And there goes Perditions... They are complete garbage. Junk, trash, rubbish, any synonyms of that kind. They are useless, cannot hit anything even in point blank, even when they manage to score a hit, it doesn't hurt as much as their OP cost, which is 15! The same as Cobras! Pay 3 more and you get the best bomber - Dagger! Even Talons in their current state is far more useful, than "this".
« Last Edit: October 21, 2021, 02:48:00 PM by Bummelei »
Logged

Amazigh

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2021, 05:11:33 PM »

Claws (disablers, which can only be useful on paper)
In one of my recent playthroughs i made the mistake of selling the Claw BP to pirates, and they proceeded to almost exclusively use them, it was... unpleasant to say the least.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2021, 10:39:40 PM »

I really like disablers on fighters and have found Gladius + Claw to be a reliable interceptor combo, though not quite as good as 2 Thunder wings.

For the main topic... I find Talons to be ok because they are so cheap and readily available for early game interceptor duty, but they are not very strong so I phase them out when I can. Broadswords and Kopesh I find to be strong for their price points and useful all game. I think Kopesh are the second strongest bombers behind Daggers due to their combination of speed and saturation, being able to reliably hit most destroyers when at 85% CR, and at only 12 OP they are easier to fit in. Perditions are undertuned. They got hit with the nerf bat a little too hard when they went from 3 craft to 2 - they are about worth 10 OP by my estimation.

Piranhas are actively harmful to use in your own fleet and ineffective vs all targets including stations. Leaving a bay empty or using mining pods is a better use of a bay than mounting piranhas because then they can't bomb your own ships and the OP could go into something else. Their hit rate is so low and their cycle time so high (because of their terrible speed) that their actual damage done in a battle is less than a Pilum launcher.
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2021, 10:54:48 PM »

Yeah 3 wing Perditions were the best bombers in the game due to packing the most reliable bang per wing.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2021, 01:05:21 AM »

Pirahnas used to have swarmers and then a LMG at some point. They should get one of them back, it's a slow sitting duck bomber relying on momentum-driven ordnance, it needs something more to protect itself.

Perdition should be much cheaper, especially if it's meant to be used on Luddic Church ships with converted hangars.
Logged

Sandor057

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2021, 01:08:56 AM »

During my first playthrough I avoided carriers due to them not being shooty enough. Obviously I was following the logic of big ships and big guns. Then I met a League bounty fleet using mostly carriers...

Oh boy...

Thunders quickly mopped up the few frigates I had and kept harassing my destroyers throughout the battle. Broadswords were annoying to all ships, raising hard flux levels bit by bit and taking some amount of concentrated firepower to bring down. Did I forget to mention, that I had only the bare minimum in PD weaponry as well? That did not really help against the fighter swarms. Integrated Point Defense AI was a hullmod I thought of as completely unnecessary and as such, decoy flares can be a b*tch, let me tell you that.

And now about two bombers: the Khopesh and the venerable Piranha. Them not being able to hit anything is valid critique, inasmuch you are trying to hit frigates and destroyers with them. Their combo simply wrecks cruisers and capitals! I just gasped when my Onslaught's armor evaporated after the Kopeshes' rockets, leaving its poor hulking mass an easy prey for the Piranhas' bombs.

In the end, the fight was won, however I've had 8 ships remaining from about 25 I had before the fight. Point is, since then I employ a few carriers as soon as I am financially able in my fleet.

But to be more on topic, my experiences with low lech fightercraft are:
- Broadsword: a decent fighter for any scenario, can't go wrong with it, really. There are better fighters for specific roles, but if you want a good generalist with solid staying power, get this one.
- Khopesh: hit big ships with it, those rockets shred them to pieces.
- Piranha: see Khopesh.
- Perdition: unfortunately, they are vastly outshined by slightly more expensive, or even cheaper bombers. I'd take a Khopesh instead of Perditions any day.
- Talon: Talons are a category in and of themselves. Do you like to see a lot of fighters massing around? Do you want to have cheap fighters in your Converted Hangars? Are you indifferent towards heavy losses? Then slap some Expanded Deck Crew to your carriers, convert the hangars of all the ships you can find and see the absolute massacre of dozens of talons as they are doing their best WWII kamikaze impressions! If you have the crew count, you can drown your enemies in inefficient fighters. It is total madness, but hey, so long it works?
Logged

Bummelei

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2021, 03:12:50 AM »

In one of my recent playthroughs i made the mistake of selling the Claw BP to pirates, and they proceeded to almost exclusively use them, it was... unpleasant to say the least.
Claw spam is nasty indeed, but in my opinion Thunders are far worse, at least they were in 0.91

Piranhas are actively harmful to use in your own fleet and ineffective vs all targets including stations. Leaving a bay empty or using mining pods is a better use of a bay than mounting piranhas because then they can't bomb your own ships and the OP could go into something else. Their hit rate is so low and their cycle time so high (because of their terrible speed) that their actual damage done in a battle is less than a Pilum launcher.
Worse than Pilums? Better to use mining pods instead? I think you are too overcritical. Yes they can accidentally hit you with bombs once in a while, but that rarely happens in my experience. They are not very accurate, but their main purpose is carpet bombing, so their precision doesn't matter that much.
Logged

FenMuir

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
    • Fen Muir Youtube channel
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2021, 10:47:57 AM »

Remember that tech levels are not indicative of power.

A lot of hangar units that are typically under-appreciated (e.g. Warthogs) are incredibly powerful at what they specifically do (warthogs kill non-phase frigates and destroyers when the carrier isn't maneuverable enough to do so).

It is best to think of hangar units as being an purpose-specific weapon that is vulnerable to normal weapons instead of just EMP.

Broadsword fighters (low) are probably the best anti-shield fighters in the game. Think of them as both anti-shield, but also anti-flux since they deal hard-flux damage. They survive for a while against PD and can shoot down missiles and fighters. They're also fast enough to catch up with bombers, which is great.

Claw fighters (high) are amazing at disabling weapons on larger ships and engines of smaller ships. They are the best non-bomber to bring against larger enemy ships. The best part is that they disable enemy ships "over there," which delays when you have to deal with that big ship, but it also means your bombers can pound them more easily.

Piranha bombers (low) may be the most damaging bomber in the game. Each bomber has a single bomb bay that has 10 bombs. Each bomb deals 400 HE damage (200 to shields, 800 to armor, 400 to hull). There are 3 bombers in a wing, meaning they can deal 12,000 damage per volley. The problem? The bombs are easily dodged by frigates and destroyers. They are absolutely insane damage potential against capitals and stations, which is why those vessels are usually covered in PD. The main penalty is that the bombs are slow.

Talon interceptors (Low) are fantastic at being anti-missile and anti-fighter on the enemy's side while occupying enemy ships' PD such that your missiles avoid being shot down. Since they're dirt cheap on OP, they can be massed on a carrier while allowing the carrier to mount higher OP weapons.

Trident bombers (High) are reliable damage against any ship, but they take a while to come back online. They're slow, cost a ton of OP, and are easily shot down by enemy interceptors. On the bright side, they'll be killing things the entire battle by reliably dumping ~4k damage into a target.

Xyphos fighters (high) are essentially mediocre PD mixed with decent EMP damage to enemy ships. They're great at what they do, and they can disable enemy ships such that the carrier can catch them, but Xyphos fighters are not going to have the same impact that other fighters have. They are very support oriented, and they tend to die against enemy fighters unless the mothership has a lot of PD, which begs the question of why the ship is running Xyphos in the first place. Their real strength is that they can be sent to escort other ships, which, in theory at least, means the ship acting as the vanguard can have a fleet (say 5-10 wings) of xyphos escorting it.

Warthog fighters (low) are the best anti-armor fighters in the game atm. For hangar units, they're slow, but heavily armored; they're limited in range, but very damaging in that range; they're limited in killing fighters and missiles, but they're ship killers. They're faster than frigates, so they'll catch whoever they're chasing.

Wasps (high) are the best standard interceptors. They kill missiles and other hangar units with ease. The problem is that they're made of paper and die en masse against PD. As a result, they're fantastic units to keep on escort, but terrible units to send out to fight enemy ships unless you need to clear enemy hangar units.

Remember, think of the hangar units as a means to complete an objective.

Edit: "Remember that tech levels are not indicative of power."
This applies to the real world.
Most contemporary weapons would be Low Tech since they are based on early 1900's tech.

Most military vehicles and more sophisticated weaponry would be Mid-Line since they're newer, but not new, technologies.

Most experimental or problem-solving military vehicles and weapons would be high-tech. The Stealth Bomber was high tech back in its day. The U.S. fighter that can out-burn a conventional missile and shoot its missiles at enemy planes from beyond visual range would be an example. So would be railguns. All high tech, but not widely used.

Anyway, figured that might be an interesting addendum for some people.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2021, 11:11:11 AM by FenMuir »
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3786
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2021, 10:58:41 AM »

I find that a lot of bombers are very specialized - a combination of different bomber wings will generally outperform any single type.

Perditions and Cobras: Anti-heavy-armor specialists. Rarely good on their own, but including one wing of these types on a carrier with 3+ fighter slots can make an enormous difference in how effective that carrier is against heavy targets. A poor choice early game, though; frigates and destroyers will just dodge.

Dagger: Your anti-frigate / anti-destroyer specialist bomber type. The fastest bombers that carry homing weaponry. A good early-game choice, and including a wing or two of these even late game helps, since even large enemy fleets still have some lighter ships.

Trident: Overspecialized and overpriced; carries more firepower than a dagger wing, but is too slow to deliver that firepower against the sorts of targets that actually require homing weaponry. Might be an okay choice for a player flagship that's primarily a warship - keep the Tridents close and use their torpedos to supplement your guns?  ...But even there you're probably better off using the cheaper Dagger wing.

Khopesh: Noteworthy as the least specialized bomber type, these are pretty good against just about anything. Against agile targets, the spread of their rockets means there's a decent chance of something still hitting; against less-agile targets, they're solid damage output just due to the number of rockets... and that number of rockets also makes a good screen for higher-damage missiles from other bomber types.

Piranhas: Meh. Overspecialized carpet-bombers. Can be good against stations. Can be amazing at clearing out enemy fighters... if they happen to start dropping their bombs at just the right time to do so; can also be utterly useless against other fighters. Very erratic performance overall. If you're going to use these, go all-in on them, though; Piranhas, unlike other bomber types, synergize best with more Piranhas.

Longbow: The most obviously-specialized bomber type, with kinetic-damage missiles. Works well mixed in with other bomber types, doesn't do much on its own. The inclusion of a light PD weapon means they also work well for a more-direct-combat-focused player flagship, providing support when held in reserve.

So, for example, for a three-wing cruiser-carrier, I'll typically go with one of the following setups:
Longbow-Khopesh-Dagger - Good general performance, effective against most targets. Less than ideal against heavily-armored capital ships or stations, though.
Khopesh-Khopesh-Perdition or Khopesh-Khopesh-Cobra - Specialized heavy hitter for helping to take down cruisers and capital ships.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2021, 11:39:04 AM »

r.e. piranhas
Piranhas are designed for the days when you could order fighters around like ships, so you could coordinate bombing runs and time them to align with the ebb and flow of battle. These days, they are far too random to be useful.

A big downside is that (IMO) longbows are basically required for bombers to have a reasonable chance of success, and piranhas don't work well with them. If you don't have longbows, you are just praying the bombers randomly line up with an overload or flux lock which is completely unreliable. Even with longbows, you still need some help from the fleet to set things up, unless you are using an astral which really doesn't want to use piranhas.

Also most of the capital ships are actually well equipped to deal with piranhas. Paragon has fortress shield and doesn't care. Conquest and odyssey have maneuvering systems and can dodge or run if they take some hits on shields. Onslaught has tons of flak coverage that shoot all the bombs down. Stations are also pretty decent at dealing with bombers. The bombs mostly get shot down by PD because they are so slow. You need to somehow get the bombing run to align with an overload or flux lock, which is unreliable. Plus if you manage to overload a capital or station segment, most bombers will be good enough to crack armor and deal a solid chunk of hull damage, and focus fire from the fleet will get the kill. So to me, the upside isn't even really all that great.

a few other selected comments
Claws: they just die because they don't have shields I think they are a bit too fragile (thunders have more total HP across two fighters between hull and capacity), otherwise they would be good. Still ok, but not very sustainable. Thunders live longer, die less, have much better range and have kinetic damage.

broadswords: high anti-shield dps, tanky, flares to distract PD. One of the better fighters IMO

warthogs: one word - sllloooooooowwww. They are also unshielded and pretty easy to shoot down. Dangerous but not particularly effective in my experience.

trident vs dagger:
I like tridents more on Astrals because you are actually trying to make one big payload that can overload/destroy things without much help from allies and tridents increase the damage density of each bombing run, plus the recall system helps them stay coordinated with longbows. Otherwise I use daggers.

I personally don't think two/three bomber setups are all that great in general: the payload is not big enough to overwhelm things on its own so it's basically pure rng if they line up on a ship that's having it's flux driven up by your fleet. Your carrier might be slamming isolated ships, or it might be running it's bombers into a big PD screen over and over ruining its replacement rate. You can micro manage the carrier targeting to improve the situation, but it costs a ton of CP and is also just annoying to do when you are trying to fly your flagship.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2021, 04:32:25 PM by intrinsic_parity »
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech interceptor/fighter/bombers inferior to mid and high tech?
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2021, 01:34:29 PM »

Claws do have shields! They are fairly fragile even with them but with 5 in a wing they survive ok, especially when paired with a Gladius wing (for kinetics to bring down the shields and flares to pull off PD fire). Broadswords also pair well with them, but they slow the formation down a lot and actually have less sustained anti-shield than Gladii (but better burst kinetic, so are better as bomber leaders and tougher).

Re: Wyvern's point about combining bombers, I agree. I'm also a fan of Khopesh + Cobra because the Khopesh go first and take the fire, and the rockets act as a screen for the reaper. I was using Longbow + Khopesh + Cobra on my Herons for a while and they performed quite well against slower targets.

I'm also considering dropping Longbows and Broadswords entirely in my currently midline game, because my fleet does quite well at pressuring enemy shields with guns and the bigger HE strike gets kills (an officered Heron with 3 Daggers does something like 16k damage on a system boosted strike, not bad). I'd probably want them back for Remnant fighting though.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2