Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Do you agree to remove some of the fighter types?

No, I like to have bombers, fighters and interceptors, even if thet have overlapped roles.
Yes, I'd like to remove the fighters and leave just interceptors and bombers with diferentiated roles.
Yes, I'd like to have just one multipurpose fighter type (the fighter).
Total votes: 10

Space Floater
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 9:28 am

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#31 Post by phocas » Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:16 pm

Ophiuchus wrote: If you cant use regular weapons against fighters and your enemy comes at you with fighters you have to research anti-fighter measures. So no real decision in that situation.
not exactly
not all the enemies use fighters, some AI have few or none
so a design with flak will be useless against most of the enemies if they are not many fighters

i can choose to have no flak and no carrier if i rather want more heavy guns on my ships
(maybe i could choose to have some futur dual purpose enhanced tech to fire laser guns against fighter)

so the enemy will have some or many fighters and i could do nothing against them
yes the enemy fighters will have a happy time until turn 3 but it is not necessary bad

if the heavy guns can't aim at the fighters
all my heavy shots (laser, plasma, death ...) will not be lost against tiny 1 damage fighter
my shots will do their full damage work
i will kill enemy battleships with a full effect
the enemy fighters will have less fun when they will found they have no carrier left... :twisted:

it's the same matter of choice as using shields or other upgrades
or using many armor or many guns in you external slots

for a reverse example with the actual random targeting system
in my last games i used many robots hull with 1 fighter port, 1 laser (later plasma gun) and 2 armor external slots
without shield, having the fighter hangar
=> cheap hull, low Damage maker but very resilient
fighters do damages but are very useful for shielding, taking shots from the enemy heavy guns
(10 carriers launching 20 fighters so the fighters will take 2/3 from the enemy shots on turn 2)

in combat on 1:1 hull point ratio i often win loosing few ships or none (but heavy wounded)

that's too much and a way out the normal fighter purpose
you can't tell you elite fighter pilots that their main purpose is to be killed by the enemy like expandable drones :roll:

this design is enough to save some times while conquering you first enemy capitals without missing the gravits and titan
with this time saved, my research will ignore the hull/shield tech (only mid armor and later plasma to upgrade the fighters)
focusing on upgrading production and other research tech

Space Kraken
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#32 Post by Jaumito » Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:48 pm

phocas wrote:you can't tell you elite fighter pilots that their main purpose is to be killed by the enemy like expandable drones :roll:
That's assuming fighters aren't unmanned drones, which isn't necessarily true. Even today, many defense specialists believe human fighter pilots are going the way of the dodo.

User avatar
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2694
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Do you agree to remove the fighter type? [POLL!]

#33 Post by Oberlus » Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:04 pm

I guess everything commented here could work just fine with the proper balancing. For example, I believe (need to test it thoroughly once I finish a proper combat simulator) that going full carriers against full gunboats with deterministic targeting will imply total annihilation of the gunboats and let some carriers survive, when both fleets have similar PP cost, but I also believe that balancing fighter/guns damage could make both strategies equally viable.

Post Reply