Feedback after couple of games

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.
Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4609
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Feedback after couple of games

#16 Post by Vezzra » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:28 pm

One thing all of you need to keep in mind is that the current carrier/fighter setup should be considered just a very rough first draft. The current numbers and tech tree layout should enable players to try out the new mechanic, but aren't even close to how the final setup is going to look like (IMO). Hence all the imbalances and shortcomings.

Anyway, we should continue this discussion about fighters in a separate thread on the design subforums, not here in a feedback thread. I've opened a thread with suggestions for a carrier/fighter revision, please continue the discussion there (feel free to copy/repeat your posts about carriers/fighters to that new thread).

ovarwa
Space Squid
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:22 am

Re: Feedback after couple of games

#17 Post by ovarwa » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:53 pm

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.
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

User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Feedback after couple of games

#18 Post by Oberlus » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:37 am

the gains in strategic options outweigh the losses, as fleet composition starts to matter
Fleet composition already matters.
Note that bombers do not interact with each other
Why not? If bomber can shoot down fighters then they can shoot bombers.
Phase 3: Ships and planetary batteries
I assume ships have longer range weapons than fighter so I would let ships shoot in the first phase.

Also, I don't like the fixed order scheme for targeting. For example, a fighter my be closer to an enemy bomber than to an enemy fighter. So I would use probabilities (higher probabilities for the targets that are upper in your suggested lists).

AndrewW
Juggernaut
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Feedback after couple of games

#19 Post by AndrewW » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:25 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Phase 3: Ships and planetary batteries
I assume ships have longer range weapons than fighter so I would let ships shoot in the first phase.
I could see planet based weapons, not being as restricted size/power wise as ships are could have a longer range, though there is also getting through the planetary atmosphere to consider.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4609
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Feedback after couple of games

#20 Post by Vezzra » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:44 pm

AndrewW wrote:though there is also getting through the planetary atmosphere to consider.
Well, if we start considering details like that, then there is also the problem where on the planet ground based weaponry is located. Assuming planetary defences are spread evenly across a planets surface, those which are on the opposite side of the planet from where a space battle takes place would have the entire planet in between... it's easier to just ignore all that stuff ;)

User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Feedback after couple of games

#21 Post by Oberlus » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:56 pm

Planets could also shoot sooner or at the same time than ships.

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Feedback after couple of games

#22 Post by Jaumito » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:13 pm

Oberlus wrote:Planets could also shoot sooner or at the same time than ships.
Unless it's the Millennium Falcon. Han always shoot first.

Post Reply