Author Topic: [Answered] Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)  (Read 19021 times)

SnowDragon

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • First to use a Sigpic!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #45 on: January 09, 2014, 06:52:05 pm »
Gotta say, I don't understand the desire of some people to stack the game mechanics such that fighters become useless. The trend as weapons technology evolves has always been towards smaller, more mobile weapon platforms. Line infantry broke up into individual squads, heavy tanks were made obsolete by medium tanks, battleships and cruisers gave way to aircraft carriers and frigates.

Now, I love battleships. I think they're the greatest thing ever. I have no desire to fly a carrier or a fighter, I want to slug it out on a destroyer, or a cruiser, or a battleship. So what I'd ask is how can we make capital ships viable, when history has taught us that they're just a big waste of money? You can approach this issue from either angle. For a certain set of game mechanics, fighters would be the only viable unit. For another set of rules, the biggest possible capital ship would always be the best option. Making assumptions that it's definitely going to be one way or the other are absurd. I have a little more faith than that. We can find a middle ground.

If you want a good example of how different ship classes using the same weapons can be balanced, you should really check out Battlestations Pacific. Ignoring aircraft and submarines and focusing on surface ships, the game shakes out something like this for surface ships: Destroyers beat PT boats, Cruisers beat destroyers, Battleships beat Cruisers. PT boats beat unescorted Battleships, PT boats are evenly matched vs Cruisers, Destroyers are evenly matched against Battleships. This is all relative to costs, so for example you'd have 6 PT boats vs one Battleship, and 2 Cruisers vs one Battleship. (Even though these costs are still grossly skewed in favor of the larger ships)

All this comes about due to the nature of the gun/torpedo combat. A cruiser's guns won't be very effective against Battleship armor. A Destroyer's guns won't leave a scratch. Three Destroyers will usually have a better chance against a battleship than 2 cruisers though, because their small size and high turn speed allows them to get within effective torpedo range.

That's just one example. They made it work in BSP. There's no reason that it can't be made to work here.


History taught us battleships were immortal gods of killing, everything. Look at history before the cruise missile, before the one hit kill weapon (Before the carrier age of WWII).


No one uses battleships anymore because of the cruise missile, fighters and frigates gained the ability to sink BBs and cruisers from such range with a single shot from almost any range. One hit to the sidehull and she would sink to the bottom, even though most of the ship was okay. In space this doesn't work because A) It's a game and we can't/will not have instant kill weapons, meaning no matter what, you have to slug it out and B) Because of the lack of instant kill weapons, the bigger ship will always win. You know the arguement I'm going to use, it's the same one I've always used because it's right :P Need armour, then need more engines, then need more power, then need more guns because you're bigger, then need more armour, etc etc. As the timeline of the arms race accelerates, ships get bigger. A fleet engagement revolves around the two biggest ships and everything else is a meatshield. The loss of the flagship is the end of the engagement, because nothing else has enough firepower to harm the BB/Dreadnought/titan/aaaarghship.

I have played BSP and while fun, sadly not all that relevant to space combat. It's all about the waterline in naval. Without that "sink" in space, any ship can continue to operate until it's physically no longer able to. Until it's literally exploded debris with no functioning anything. Destroyers could sink BBs with torpedoes, which filled them with water. Sure you can pop some small holes in the hull of the BB in space, but that small zone of no oxygen isn't going to make the ship explode. Yes it might make it more difficult to move around, but during battlestations, everyone should be at their stations, not dicking around around in the cooridors.

EDIT: THis is basically my primary point. Fighters are useful in reallife because they carry ASMs, which *sink* ships. You cannot sink me in space. The only reason these weapons work in the planet is because they fill the ships with water. (And modern naval vessels are small) There is No way 'several' (Which I assume means ten/twenty) fighters will be, or should be, able to take on a fully loaded cruiser. At all. I might be able to accept destroyers if it's shittily designed but a well made capital just won't care. It'll swat them. It may suffer a few nicks in the hull and lose some air, but that's just not enough damage for it to even give a shit. It's not damaged in anyway enough for it to worry about leaping right into another engagement with another capital ship. The fighters won't even slow it down.

Double EDIT: Thought I'd clear it up as well, I've got nothing against bombers killing frigates. That's kinda their job.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 09:49:33 pm by SnowDragon »

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #46 on: January 09, 2014, 11:55:47 pm »
Regarding this, there was a video linked earlier in another thread regarding non-specific damage in which the commentator in the video mentioned that while the weapon he was using was considered overpowered by Space Engineers fans, it was difficult to actually do more than poke holes in the ship's sections when he was intending to shear her drive compartment off with successive attack runs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxZib5u-RDE

Further, if we look at the still-gorgeous uberbeam video by ZANMgt we're looking at a single-deck, almost nacelle-like, corridor being struck by, as far as I can tell, a very snazzy-looking "damage effects" cosmetic brush-work (i.e. eraser/burn tool).  Applying the same effect to a fully-decked, armored, and potentially shielded capital-class vessel would involved a much slower swipe in order to properly core the ship, or in the case that the ship evades or the beam's pass is either too fast or limited in duration because of energy concerns, we would only see deep gouging or a clean "coring" effect.

Now if we have a proper bunker buster, that is, a warhead that collides, pierces a deck or two, and then explodes inside the hull, well, yeah, it's gonna be nasty.  However, the relies on collision mechanics allowing piercing projectiles that aren't specifically coded to pierce and can be built to perform such a function as well as connecting with limited guidance, probably even dumb-fire, fighter-"dropped" ordnance.
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."

Holy Thunder

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 655
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2014, 07:45:05 am »
This is clearly a hot-button topic. In 8 days we've posted more than 19,000 words, including quotes but disregarding signatures. That's larger than the Gospel of Matthew in the Christian Bible. Me2005 had one post clocking in at over 3,000 words by itself.  :o


A bunker-buster or "anti-capital" kind of weapon will definitely be interesting. It doesn't have to be one-hit to be effective, but even at "visual range" such a weapon will be difficult to employ.
--Trespassers will be promptly riddled with bullets and other unpleasant projectiles.

--Survivors will treated with apologies, steak dinner, and a VIP tour of our facilities.

Aaron

  • BR Developer
  • Creative Director, ZanMgt
  • *****
  • Posts: 2024
  • Available on the IRC from 9:00am to 5:00pm (EST)
    • http://www.zanmgt.com
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2014, 09:53:41 am »
Quote
Now if we have a proper bunker buster, that is, a warhead that collides, pierces a deck or two, and then explodes inside the hull, well, yeah, it's gonna be nasty.  However, the relies on collision mechanics allowing piercing projectiles that aren't specifically coded to pierce and can be built to perform such a function as well as connecting with limited guidance, probably even dumb-fire, fighter-"dropped" ordnance.

Piercing mechanics aren't much of a problem.

For the sake of fun we're probably going to want to make sure capital ship weapons are gimped enough to allow fighters to approach.  I'd consider fighters more as a sort of 'smart missile' being deployed by another capital ship rather than being considered direct equals that could take on a defended cruiser one-on-one.  In the end we're just setting up the environment at the moment; its the real solid play sessions that are going to help determine fighter feasibility and whether or not they're even worth using to attack a larger ship.

It's basically schoolyard rules on lego combat all over again. =P
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 03:50:56 pm by Aaron »
Stop by the IRC and say Hi! -- Online Dev Chat

SnowDragon

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • First to use a Sigpic!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2014, 09:14:50 pm »
Despite my bias, I did make the conversation to generate discussion . I also did it so someone would force me to write sprawlingparagraphs again to help me with my authoring. I'm glad we're posting g so feverily back and forth, it's great to read. I don't mean to sound hostile in my posts if I do come off that way! X.x

I won't be contributing to this thread until I return to mission control on Sunday though, so keep that in mind if there are questions directly aimed cor me to answer. As you can see, this tablet sucks for writing long replies.

But, again guys, I'd like to thank everyone involved for joining in. Lets keep it going until it reaches the natural end.

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2014, 09:02:25 am »
If by "gimping" you mean that the AI gunnery, both NPC-crewed and computer "automated", won't be scoring above normal levels of human-machine accuracy (I mean geez, look at a CWIS' terrible performance on a rolling ocean and then disregard that because you only have to worry about relative vectors and constant combat displacement to avoid being hit by targeting solutions and then continue to regard that because it's the same problem) without overcosted investment into the systems, then I don't think there's going to be much of a problem from the simulationist side of the fence.
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2105
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2014, 02:57:39 pm »
Had an epiphany while watching a commercial for AC: Black Flag this weekend. What seems to be the design goal for this game is to head toward Age-of-Sail style combat: Ships that aren't always totally destroyed/sunk, weapons don't really damage ships that much, propulsion systems are weak points, and boarding is the best way to disable an opponent. Also, large sailing ships aren't necessarily slower than small ones, another issue we're discussing here.

Some thoughts on how this might work:
*Make space disproportionately small (compared to reality) and fill it with intervening objects (planets, moons, asteroids) to provide cover and make it so traveling between stuff/closing the gap doesn't take forever
*Make ships disproportionately strong compared to damage output. Really, it'd be in the "you're doing loads of damage if you do more than put a small hole in the hull" range.
*Make damage easy to repair (I was thinking blocks remain in place as some kind of  "broken" blocks unless massive damage is done)
*Make propulsion systems easy to damage and easy to repair (ed: possibly using radiator setups, which resemble sails anyway)
*Make crew the most vulnerable part of any ship, and make it easy to board other ships
*Keep the heaviest guns from being turreted, and give them a very limited firing arc
*Make projectiles slow and reasonable for small craft to dodge (which they'd have a chance to do, being that all engagements would be forced into close ranges)
*Fix thruster output such that large ships could be just as fast in one direction as small ones, but could not be as maneuverable. Might be a trick with RCS blocks being separate from regular 'thruster' blocks.
*Keep shields distinct, so that you can penetrate them even though a ship has loads of shield strength. Perhaps allow fighters to fly through them freely. Perhaps also allow overloading of one block to shut down connected shield blocks.
*Keep guided projectiles to a minimum
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 05:26:37 pm by Me2005 »
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

SnowDragon

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • First to use a Sigpic!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2014, 07:29:10 pm »
Do not even get me started on boarding as a legitimate, functioning tactic. here, I drew up some pictures.






Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2105
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2014, 07:36:37 pm »
Do not even get me started on boarding as a legitimate, functioning tactic.

Yeah, you'd basically need to make it so that boarding can be done at reasonable weapons range through armor; possibly through shields (transporters).
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

SnowDragon

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • First to use a Sigpic!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2014, 07:52:05 pm »
There's a reason boarding isn't done today... :P But that's not the role of the topic.

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2014, 02:00:14 am »
Had an epiphany while watching a commercial for AC: Black Flag this weekend. What seems to be the design goal for this game is to head toward Age-of-Sail style combat: Ships that aren't always totally destroyed/sunk, weapons don't really damage ships that much, propulsion systems are weak points, and boarding is the best way to disable an opponent. Also, large sailing ships aren't necessarily slower than small ones, another issue we're discussing here.

Some thoughts on how this might work:
*Make space disproportionately small (compared to reality) and fill it with intervening objects (planets, moons, asteroids) to provide cover and make it so traveling between stuff/closing the gap doesn't take forever
No way, that was the worst part of the game, no room to maneuver my ship in sprawling combats where I had to focus not only on maneuvering my ship around another ship that might be trying to ram me, but also keep a detailed map in my head because there was little time to look around to make sure the scenery wasn't getting in the way in my strafing.  If newtonian movement is going to be optional, people WILL need that open space in a dire fashion.
Quote
*Make ships disproportionately strong compared to damage output. Really, it'd be in the "you're doing loads of damage if you do more than put a small hole in the hull" range.
*Make damage easy to repair (I was thinking blocks remain in place as some kind of  "broken" blocks unless massive damage is done)
*Make propulsion systems easy to damage and easy to repair (ed: possibly using radiator setups, which resemble sails anyway)
while it might sound good in theory you're making the gameplay completely schizophrenic and isolating "tunnelvision" style players from enjoying themselves, and not only that, you're dragging the schizo-play out over a long duration- I'd predict that'll be exhausting to anyone who doesn't enjoy hour-long sessions of warioware minigames.
Quote
*Make crew the most vulnerable part of any ship, and make it easy to board other ships
You're making the least replacable resource on a ship the easiest to deplete, in addition to the above factors, it's going to be frustrating when you have one guy repairing a bunch of fragile systems on a large ship he can't pilot by himself because everyone else died.
Quote
*Keep the heaviest guns from being turreted, and give them a very limited firing arc
LAME, If I can build a large enough gunhouse, I should be able to put anything in a turret, even if the barrel is the same volume as a small destroyer, I should be able to construct it if not necessarily have a feasible build.
Quote
*Make projectiles slow and reasonable for small craft to dodge (which they'd have a chance to do, being that all engagements would be forced into close ranges)
Also LAME as hell, you remember how many people complained about the plasma cannons being too slow to travel?
Quote
*Fix thruster output such that large ships could be just as fast in one direction as small ones, but could not be as maneuverable. Might be a trick with RCS blocks being separate from regular 'thruster' blocks.
Completely unnecessary, ships already scale 1:1 in everything but turn rates being survivable without artificial gravity support; so you will, by nature of basic physics, have larger ships that can match smaller ships for acceleration but will be limited in attitude adjustment, either by G-forces or extra mass allocated to inertial damping systems; it does not need to be "fixed" and "tricked".
Quote
*Keep shields distinct, so that you can penetrate them even though a ship has loads of shield strength. Perhaps allow fighters to fly through them freely. Perhaps also allow overloading of one block to shut down connected shield blocks.
Shields seem to be like they'll be skin-tight and the L^3 engine will make this proposition possible; you will most likely be able to use shields as "hangar screens" as well as using the engine to apply braking forces on small craft entering the hangar bay.
Quote
*Keep guided projectiles to a minimum
Dunno about this one, fighters are basically piloted missile buses, and anything a pilot can do, a hardwired AI should be able to emulate; I'll reject this one on personal opinion rather than principle as the game may enforce this aspect without having to hard-cap anything intentionally.

Let me save you the trouble, play AC:BF for the story, the shipping will disappoint severely one quarter to halfway through the game.  Chain shot is only mildly useful when targeting sails and doesn't alter maneuverability at all, regular shot is basically the opposite of chain as does full damage against hull rather than sails, them there's fire barrels, close-range heavy shot, and long-range mortars.  To board you need to drop a ship's HP to zero and then maneuver into a one-on-one minimap event where the rest of the ships can't touch you; alternatively you can just sink the hulk and get half the rewards and no repair option, something that's essential when you take on a whole fleet at high levels.  Ships you capture are put into a shipping fleet that's managed completely separate from the in-game resource and travel system, basically it's a minigame that helps you get more money and some cosmetic features for you own vessel but nothing else.

Overall, the gameplay is fun but extremely shallow.
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2105
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2014, 12:53:10 pm »
Let me save you the trouble, play AC:BF for the story, the shipping will disappoint severely one quarter to halfway through the game.  ...
Overall, the gameplay is fun but extremely shallow.

Thanks for saving me that one. The point wasn't to suggest that this game should directly emulate AC:BF, but to emulate age-of-sail combat, with the goal of making fighters somewhat viable (IF that's what everyone wants. If not, bring on the pixel sniping/age of the grand-battlecruiser/whatever). With blocks, some of those issues (dropping health to 0 to board, chain shot not harming the ship's ability  to manuver, etc.) wouldn't be issues (maybe drop shields to board; but if you take out an engine/reactor/radiator, that ship will now feel the tremendous hurt).

*Make space disproportionately small ...
No way, that was the worst part of the game, no room to maneuver my ship in sprawling combats where I had to focus not only on maneuvering my ship around another ship that might be trying to ram me, but also keep a detailed map in my head because there was little time to look around to make sure the scenery wasn't getting in the way in my strafing.  If newtonian movement is going to be optional, people WILL need that open space in a dire fashion.[/quote]

That's one of the better ways to make there some interesting terrain to provide cover and allow smaller/weaker ships a chance to close. By itself, even with no other changes and near-infinite range, that change could make fighters plausible, as they'd be able to sneak up on larger ships under cover of asteroids/planets/whatever, and larger ships couldn't just manuver willy-nilly without colliding with stuff. It'd also imply a soft upper limit on ship size, since if you built too big and space was very crowded, you'd just crash into stuff all the time.

Quote
*Make ships disproportionately strong compared to damage output. ...
*Make damage easy to repair...
*Make propulsion systems easy to damage ....
while it might sound good in theory you're making the gameplay completely schizophrenic and isolating "tunnelvision" style players from enjoying themselves, and not only that, you're dragging the schizo-play out over a long duration- I'd predict that'll be exhausting to anyone who doesn't enjoy hour-long sessions of warioware minigames.

I'd assume damage would be easy and painless to repair; via some combination of "this block is now rendered differently than it was because it is damaged"  and "this button here fixes every damaged block on the ship by trading (X resource, power, metals, etc) for block-HP over time." It only needs to be difficult to do while under fire. Shoot, in the EV series, while your shields regenerate all the time, your armor only regenerates when you land/dock somewhere. It could be something like that, you ship automagically goes back to 100% repaired when you land/dock.

I agree that it could get painful to have to manually repair any damage, and I'd only want it to be a thing if the damage was very easy and painless to repair.

Quote
*Make crew the most vulnerable part of any ship, and make it easy to board other ships
You're making the least replacable resource on a ship the easiest to deplete, in addition to the above factors, it's going to be frustrating when you have one guy repairing a bunch of fragile systems on a large ship he can't pilot by himself because everyone else died.

The idea wasn't that you'd run out of people while just going around; shoot, it's combined with a plethera of planets/stellar bodies where people should be easily obtained. The idea was that ships could be so strong that destroying them is rare, and the best way to eliminate one is by boarding and going hand-to-hand (or gun-to-gun) against the opponent. And that ships would then pass through players more often than not, so players could hope to recapture their masterpieces. Piloting the ship wouldn't require more than one person, and ships would likely have larger loads of NPC's/NPC bodies ready to thaw than otherwise.

Quote
*Keep the heaviest guns from being turreted, and give them a very limited firing arc
LAME, If I can build a large enough gunhouse, I should be able to put anything in a turret, even if the barrel is the same volume as a small destroyer, I should be able to construct it if not necessarily have a feasible build.

Or make them really, really, horribly, inaccurate. Even then though, if players could pilot the turrets, inaccuracy could be overcome and then players with lots of friends on-board would dominate players without. Frankly, I agree it'd be lame, but it's a only one sacrifice that could be made to make fighters viable. The way it'd probably have to work is by keeping moving blocks away from players, so you couldn't just build a rotating platform and put the guns on it. Or even if you could, you'd have to use it manually to make it work and it wouldn't be easy (using up/down/left/right arrows on two different consoles to get it to point *just* right before a ship moves... good luck with that :P). The goal is, again, to help fighter viability. You could have main turreted guns, but they'd need to be too inaccurate to target small ships, and thus large ships would need to mount the smaller turrets that are conveniently sized to slowly damage fighters.

Quote
*Make projectiles slow and reasonable for small craft to dodge (which they'd have a chance to do, being that all engagements would be forced into close ranges)
Also LAME as hell, you remember how many people complained about the plasma cannons being too slow to travel?

Maybe faster than that; but still slow. Faster than ships move, not so fast that fighters can't move out of the way first.

Quote
*Fix thruster output ...
Completely unnecessary, ships already scale 1:1 in everything but turn rates being survivable without artificial gravity support; so you will, by nature of basic physics, have larger ships that can match smaller ships for acceleration but will be limited in attitude adjustment, either by G-forces or extra mass allocated to inertial damping systems; it does not need to be "fixed" and "tricked".

Possibly; if blocks account for efficiency (i.e.: A 27-block cube engine is better than a 1 block engine) or can be stacked (that 27-block cube actually produces 27 blocks of thrust, despite only 9 being exposed anywhere), some fixing might be in order. If super-real physics are not implemented, something would need to be done to limit large ships or they could be just as maneuverable as small ones.

Quote
*Keep shields distinct...
Shields seem to be like they'll be skin-tight and the L^3 engine will make this proposition possible; you will most likely be able to use shields as "hangar screens" as well as using the engine to apply braking forces on small craft entering the hangar bay.

Maybe. They're the easiest system to just make random stuff up for, so I figure that some specific changes designed to aid small ships attacking large ones would be easy to slip in without complaint from physicists.

Quote
*Keep guided projectiles to a minimum
Dunno about this one, fighters are basically piloted missile buses, and anything a pilot can do, a hardwired AI should be able to emulate; I'll reject this one on personal opinion rather than principle as the game may enforce this aspect without having to hard-cap anything intentionally.

Easy to prevent. AI may not be hardwired to commit suicide, and collisions may not be a big damage type, so at best you'd have guided lightly-armed fighters. Even with players piloting the suicide missiles, a respawn timer and physics (even in-game ones; you can only have so many fighter-missiles on any given ship)  can prevent too much of that silliness. And the goal of limiting them is to make it difficult for large ships to use missiles on small ships, which fighter-missiles wouldn't accomplish anyway.


This whole thing is going of:
*The thesis of the OP that Fighters aren't plausible in a space-setting against large warships.
*The apparent consensus that "fighters are fun"
*The desire to keep one-shot weapons out of the hands of players

So it's not really my interpretation of reality, but rather, a look backwards at the question "How can we make fighters and large ships both viable and fun, without allowing either to dominate the other?"
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

SnowDragon

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • First to use a Sigpic!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2014, 06:27:35 pm »
Simple. Make Capital missiles able to be intercepted. Make them stronger than other weapons that capital vessels can equip. But, make them interceptable by fighters and interceptors. Therefore each fleet will likely take a carrier which will deploy a small fighter screen to each major capital ship, be these fighters player controlled or AI controlled. These fighters are to intercept incoming fire, and other fighters are for destroying these fighters so my capital missiles and rockets can hit more effectively.

Capital ships remain as capital ships instead of paper thin large targets and fighters remain useful and fun without being able to punch stupidly above their weight.

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2105
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2014, 06:41:50 pm »
Simple. Make Capital missiles able to be intercepted. Make them stronger than other weapons that capital vessels can equip. But, make them interceptable by fighters and interceptors. Therefore each fleet will likely take a carrier which will deploy a small fighter screen to each major capital ship, be these fighters player controlled or AI controlled. These fighters are to intercept incoming fire, and other fighters are for destroying these fighters so my capital missiles and rockets can hit more effectively.

Capital ships remain as capital ships instead of paper thin large targets and fighters remain useful and fun without being able to punch stupidly above their weight.

This is a good solution, and one that is arguably realistic, but it makes fighters into more of a system rather than actual vessels. You couldn't try to engage a cap in a fighter with that setup; where some of the solutions I'd outlined would let you, though you still couldn't win (you might not die, and could likely engage and disengage safely, but at some point you'd probably get bored). Perhaps combine this with some of the other methods?
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

SnowDragon

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
  • First to use a Sigpic!
Re: Aerospace Craft (Fighters, bombers etc)
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2014, 08:38:30 pm »
We don't want fighters engaging capital ships, it's a waste of resources and completely futile. Giving them armaments to do so diverts them from their only useful role, shooting down enemy fighters so your capital ships can hit harder and shooting down incoming ordnance.