Hi,
Oberlus wrote:
I'd like this so much. Bombers that preferably target ships, interceptors that preferably target other fighters.
But then main ships could also have targeting preferences, aim at the other main ships and make the fighter cannon fodder strategy inviable. Hmmm... I don't know what would be better.
I talked about this idea before, and I think the gains in strategic options outweigh the losses, as fleet composition starts to matter.
Leaving aside what damage values, squadron sizes and components costs should be, something like the following:
* 3 'fighter' types become two: Interceptors and bombers.
* Ships do not fire at the same time, but in phases. Casualties are removed at the end of each phase. An entity that has already taken enough damage to destroy it (or, for a planet, neutralize its defenses) is never a valid target.
Phase 1: Interceptors
All interceptors of both sides fire. An interceptor must choose one the following targets, in order:
An enemy interceptor
An enemy bomber
An enemy ship
(An enemy planet if permitted)
Phase 2: Bombers
All remaining bombers of both sides fire. A bomber must choose one of the following targets, in order:
An enemy ship
(An enemy planet if permitted; I recommend allowing this because that's what bombers do)
An enemy interceptor (represents shooting down attackers)
Note that bombers do not interact with each other
Phase 3: Ships and planetary batteries
If flak gun:
An enemy target
Otherwise:
An enemy ship
An enemy planet
An enemy bomber
An enemy interceptor
----
At this point, interceptors serve a very different purpose from bombers; choosing which to build is about more than simple damage output. The order of phases can be moved around, depending on cost and damage values, and aesthetics (it's realistic for fighters to go first, because they are mobile and manueverable, able to project power far away; it's realistic for them to go last, since bullets and blasters are much faster).
One can take this even further, separating kinds of ship into target classes, such as pure carriers being a lower priority target because they can affect a battle from a great distance. Or maybe weapons can have a range class, the shortest of which is conferred upon a ship....
Fleet composition becomes more than getting the biggest ships with your biggest weapon.
or something.
Quote:
ovarwa wrote:
A player can go the entire game without building a single hangar, and conquer everything. Not one fighter. Totally ignore those techs. A player cannot go the entire game without building a single direct fire weapon, and conquer everything (or even a single planet with troops.)
Yeah, if you have a good start.
But I'm so sure that against a powerful non-fighter enemy (specially if it is AI) you have way better chances of victory if you do use fighters. Exchanging two or three direct shot weapons by fighters you divide the chances of your capital ships being targeted in combat turns 2 and 3 while only loss a minimal percentage of the total damage your ship can deal.
Hmm. This strategy suggests interceptors, so you have more fighters to use as chaff. So you have, say, a Robocruiser with 4 interceptors and 1 or 2 guns. The enemy builds the same, but with 1-2 zortrium, 2-3 lasers and shields instead of the interceptors. I don't have numbers, but it's an interesting matchup.
Maybe I'm wrong? And maybe interceptors are the best fighter? (Use 3 slots to create 4 chaff, and then use direct fire for offense.)
Anyway,
Ken