Vezzra wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:22 pm
[*]Introduce shipyard extensions required for "fighter production". Ships with fighter parts could only be build at shipyards with that extension, and carriers would only by able to replenish/upgrade their fighters if supply connected to such a shipyard. That means it becomes a bit harder to supply your fleets with fighters. It's not sufficient to just be in supply, which means you can't resupply your fighters at the colony you just conquered, you need a supply connection all the way back to your shipyards. If your enemy manages to cut that supply route, they can effectively cripple your carrier force.
This I like.
As I wrote on another topic, right now fighters are no-brainers, which is something we want to avoid.
Maybe making them cost more Production Points ? Especially make Launch Bays cost much more, so having more hangars than Launch Bays would be a viable strategy ?
Also, make the hangars unlocked by different techs, not all at once ?
The "fighter and launch bay" would unlock only the Interceptor Hangar, other fighter hangars would have to be unlocked one by one ?
Vezzra wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:22 pmAfter having played around with carriers/fighters in a few games, here are my suggestions for a revision:
[*]Decouple direct fire and carrier/fighter techs in the tech tree. You should be able to research carriers/fighters without having to research direct fire weapons, if you want to try a carrier/fighter only strategy.
Not sure about that, right now one can start a "carrier-only strategy" and save on research, but to improve damage one has to go up the direct fire ladder, it seems to me more balanced than your suggestion.
Vezzra wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:37 pmAnother two things that just came to my mind:
[*]Get rid of that fighters-need-a-combat-round-to-launch-before-they-can-attack thing. I don't really see the point. It just makes everything so much more complicated, particularly when it comes to assessing actual combat strength. Fighters should just attack on the same round they launched, which will make them more directly comparable to direct fire weapons (and consequently easier to balance).
A big no from me, it that matters to anyone.
Right now the first turn is the ability to blow out the carriers with canons before the fighters engage, and that's a good thing.
It also makes the difference more visible between canons and fighters.
Everybody agrees on that I think.
Good ideas.MatGB wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:52 pmOn the fire on launch turn thing, a different option occurred: Combat Air Patrols
If a fleet hasn't moved that turn, a proportion of its fighters are in the air ready to defend, with more on standby: yes, this gives the defended an advantage but that's a balance concern.
I also want fighters available to planets to be able to launch.
That is a very interesting idea, but it needs more work imho, especially as it would completely change the system we have now.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:03 amAnother idea: add a long range combat turn (in order to upgrade interceptors)
Instead of delaying fighters add a "fighter-only" combat turn.
* In this "turn zero" the fighters advanced and meet the oppenents fighters before the war ships meet.
So the larger fighter force will decimate the smaller one before the "real" combat starts.
This would greatly upgrade the interceptors as they are on equal terms with the other fighters.
Good idea, I think it's included in the Defense diversification topic.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:03 amAnother idea: have planets have by default some interceptors (in order to upgrade interceptors and flak)
* If planet defenses include fighters - people have to bring countermeasures (interceptors and flak)
** lets say half the defense value is the usual big gun
** lets say half the defense value consists of interceptors
** so instead 5-damage defense - one 3-damage defense and two 1-damage interceptors
** so instead 10-damage defense - one 5-damage defense and five 1-damage interceptor
Interesting, don't know if it's doable.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:03 amAnother idea: differentiate the fighters to be able to take more than one hit ("~2HP")
Basically switch names of fighters vs bombers.
So 4 interceptors, 3 bombers, 2 fighters in the hangars.
Let fighters be only destroyed if at least 2 damage is taken.
This would result in a rock-paper-scissors situation:
* interceptors ("anti-bomber") cannon fodder, good against bombers, probably wont kill fighters in a single shot
* fighters ("anti-interceptor") ok against war ships; resilient against interceptors and flak
* bombers ("anti-warship") best damage ratio against war ships, can destroy bombers in a single shot
Not sure if fighters are tracked individually in combat at the moment, but this is not so important (works with and without individual tracking). If not tracked individually, just destroy on every second 1-damage hit (or simply roll a 50% dice for destroy/live after an 1-damage hit)
Interceptors would need to be upgraded in some way (e.g. 6 interceptors per hangar, or the long range turn mentioned above)
against the war ships)
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:03 am* (very optional: we could add a "rocket" or "missile" fighter type here which only shoots in turn 1 - in turn 0 it doesnt do any damage, but you have a chance to shoot it down; in turn 1 it is automatically destroyed and does multishot damage without shield protection (e.g. basic rocket 5 shots with 2 damage; basic missile 1 shot with 10 damage) - this should probably take up at least a single external slot)
There's been a lot of discussion about these missiles, but though I understand that they'd be cool for immersion reasons, I don't really understand what tactical role they'll play ? Especially if they get automatically refilled next turn, they're just an expensive and high-damage fighter...
After my last game I thought of a tactical role that could be useful and to which missiles would be adapted : generating attrition.
Right now and except for Spinal Antimatter Canons, if a fleet has a real
numerical advantage over another and enough armor to withstand two shots, it usually wins without any (or with negligible) losses. Combine that with the late-game too powerful repair mechanisms, and there's no real way to stop an invading force except multi-planets systems with good defenses.
Yes, combination of force is a staple of military strategy, and it is a good thing that a superior force would wipe out a really inferior one with few losses - but not with zero.
So missiles could (I don't know how though) fill this role : guarantee a minimum attrition to enemy ships.
I don't know if a concept of "critical hit" can be introduced ? The chance of it would depend on the type of missile, the defender's technology, the type of ship¹, its health and armor (in that order) and a successful critical hit would destroy the ship ? A missile hitting a ship but failing to do a critical hit would just deal damage as other weapons do.
¹ That could be an interesting twist to the Self-Gravitating Hull (or maybe the whole Robotic line) to make them more prone to destruction by missiles' critical hits.