FreeOrion

A huge weapon for core slots (like the spinal cannon) specialised against fighters, with 50 shots per turn of 1 damage point.

If you like the idea I can think better about details (mostly tech required) and make a pull request.

Edit: maybe it is not a bunch of little cannons but some other kind of device, like a shock wave emitter.

Works for me. Not modified by species traits though, that could get a bit thorny.

We also need a core slot hanger bay and to do some work with launch tubes I think

How about a core slot part that unlocks with stargates and enables to teleport all the fighters outside in the first round (has inifinite/maximum ejecting capacity)?

How about a "Tactical Drone System" core slot with 32 interceptors which also doubles the launch rate (drones are smaller and easier to field than manned fighters).

Idea was that it would make Xentronium hull a nice interceptor design (4 external, 1 core).
With filled launch bays:
16 interceptors start in turn 1.
16 interceptors start in turn 2.

em3 wrote:How about a core slot part that unlocks with stargates and enables to teleport all the fighters outside in the first round (has inifinite/maximum ejecting capacity)?

I would be happier with two tech upgrades that allow launch bays to launch 3 and 4 figthers. I don't see teleporting fighters... but if we do it, I also want to teleport assault troops into enemy ships (like in Star Trek and MoO2).

Ophiuchus wrote:How about a "Tactical Drone System" core slot with 32 interceptors which also doubles the launch rate (drones are smaller and easier to field than manned fighters).

Idea was that it would make Xentronium hull a nice interceptor design (4 external, 1 core).
With filled launch bays:
16 interceptors start in turn 1.
16 interceptors start in turn 2.

I'm not sure about that name, but I love the idea. It would make possible the concept of carrier for capital ships (which still have snough internal slots to get high stealth/speed/shield if that's what they were getting from the core slot). Add in two more core slot parts for 16-bomber and 24-figther counterparts.
However, can you get 16 interceptors in the air with 4 launch bays? I thought that each launch bay allows you to launch only 2 "planes" per combat turn, or is this changed now/soon?

Oberlus wrote:However, can you get 16 interceptors in the air with 4 launch bays? I thought that each launch bay allows you to launch only 2 "planes" per combat turn, or is this changed now/soon?

There are some general discussions; e.g.
Suggestions for a Carrier/Fighter revision.
I think consensus is that right now interceptors are too lame to use. One suggestion was to make the Bomber/Fighter/Interceptor launchbays instead of 2/2/2 a 2/2/4 or a 2/3/4.
But there are many ideas in that thread.

I was thinking about drone hangars as a way for bad pilots species to overcome their weakness. The drones would have no species (or a drone-specific species like Drone AI Mk I, Drone AI Mk II etc).

I guess this will be the design discussion for PR 2129

It looks to me like no one has yet addressed the HUGE defensive value that drones like this would have, this would make a carrier practically immune to SR weapon damage on rounds 2 & 3.

Dilvish wrote:It looks to me like no one has yet addressed the HUGE defensive value that drones like this would have, this would make a carrier practically immune to SR weapon damage on rounds 2 & 3.

Could give the part an effect that reduces ship structure by ~80% and another that makes it much less stealthy.

Geoff the Medio wrote:

Dilvish wrote:It looks to me like no one has yet addressed the HUGE defensive value that drones like this would have, this would make a carrier practically immune to SR weapon damage on rounds 2 & 3.

Could give the part an effect that reduces ship structure by ~80% and another that makes it much less stealthy.

Or finally have a reason to use flak cannons. And give the Flak Cannon a few upgrades.

That said, I'm not really convinced about introducing yet another type of fighters, when the three we already have seem too much. The only variation that seems interesting to me would be to have some kind of "defensive drones", fighters that don't have any firepower at all (can't do damage, so no offensive capability), but high numbers, so you get a considerable cannon fodder effect. That would be sufficiently distinct to warrant another fighter type.

Vezzra wrote:Or finally have a reason to use flak cannons. And give the Flak Cannon a few upgrades.

That said, I'm not really convinced about introducing yet another type of fighters, when the three we already have seem too much. The only variation that seems interesting to me would be to have some kind of "defensive drones", fighters that don't have any firepower at all (can't do damage, so no offensive capability), but high numbers, so you get a considerable cannon fodder effect. That would be sufficiently distinct to warrant another fighter type.

Megaflak cannon FTW. Go go!
Also making flak cannons to add up shots with new refinement techs seems a great idea. Alternatives:
- +1 per refinement of mass drivers. Pros: makes sense? Cons: too easy to max it out, so may be overpowered against fighters if 6 per flak cannon is good enough against fighters, and if it is not good enough then it will be underpowered, and increasing the bonus per refinement would make it overpowered early and mid game.
- +2 with laser weapons, +4 with plasma weapons and +6 with death rays (DRs with ultimate weapons is 12 shots per flak cannon). Pros: tech costs scales well with game progression, so max power flak cannons are achieved only on mid to late game, and adjusting the bonuses to balance it against fighters seems possible. Cons: some (like me) may find it a bit lackluster to have both kind of weapons (anti-ship and anti-fighter) tied to the same tech tree.
- New antiair tech tree. Like previous option, with the extra pro that it is not tied to the same tech tree of the main weapons, but with the new con that it decouples both tech trees! Because some people (maybe AI developers) won't like the idea.

@vezzra i think the alternative of making the drones with 0 damage is possible, but maybe not. i think they are already quite different from interceptors because the ship designs are very different (core instead of internal, no damage upgrades whatsoever, you need only 2/3 of the launch bays). lets try out...

I also think that the "normal" counter to the drone system is a regular ship with flak.
@dilvish So a cheap drone killer would have no shields, some hitpoints and a lot of flak. Even two low tech robos with 3 flak, average pilots and an armor would overcome a xentronium with drone system and 4 lauch bays (and cost about the same PP).

I like oberlus ideas about flak upgrades, so here another variant:

Introduce half the pacing of the normal weapons (and give a award to researching the skippable L2/P2 and the "expensive" layer 4):

• MD1 damage 3
• MD3 damage +1 (or instead do the unlock of flak at MD2 with damage 4 for consistency)
• Having MD4 or LC2 +1 damage
• Having LC4 or PG2 +1 damage
• Having PG4 or DR2 +1 damage

So a "flak and fighters empire" would research MD3, LC2, PG2, DR2 for the maximum base damage 7.

Or introduce a special tech branch for autonomous weapons which influence flak (automated point defense turrets?) and as well as drones.

Ceterum censio: If we gonna keep the "Fighter" fighters, wo should rename at least one of "Fighter" (-> ??) or "fighters" (->spaceboats).

Ophiuchus wrote:Ceterum censio: If we gonna keep the "Fighter" fighters

The sensible thing to do would be for us to have a public vote on whether we keep them or not first. Brainstorming for an adequate name replacement can come later depending on the result.

Jaumito wrote:The sensible thing to do would be for us to have a public vote on whether we keep them or not first.

Done.