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.

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.
2
25%
Yes, I'd like to remove the fighters and leave just interceptors and bombers with diferentiated roles.
5
63%
Yes, I'd like to have just one multipurpose fighter type (the fighter).
1
13%
 
Total votes: 8

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

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

#1 Post by Oberlus » Mon May 28, 2018 10:46 am

Stemming from a discussion on flak canons and fighters, but also mentioned on older suggestion threads.

Current balance makes fighters (the mid class of "fighters") the preferred choice for almost every situation. Bomber can have some role in early-to-mid game but interceptors are clearly underpowered compared to figthers.
Some say that even if we find a proper balance to make each type of "fighter" interesting, fighters are not different enough to the interceptors (cannon-fodder, anti-fighter) or the bombers (anti-battleship) and bring no extra fun or real diversity of strategies to the game.
Interceptors are defensive, an alternative to shields (as cannon fodder) that also works against fighters (both killing them and taking their shots).
Bombers are great battleship killers with considerable damage per shot that ignore shields. Also work as interceptors, but costing more and with only half its defensive strength.
This two seems enough to cover all roles, keep decisions interesting and keep the game simple.

What do you think?
Last edited by Oberlus on Mon May 28, 2018 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EricF
Space Dragon
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:12 am

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

#2 Post by EricF » Mon May 28, 2018 6:03 pm

How about another option.
Remove Interceptors and Bombers and have only Fighters.
Seems even simpler to me.

That's been the modern trend in aircraft.
Move away from specialized aircraft to more multi-role aircraft.
Makes many things easier also, from training to logistics to manufacturing.

User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

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

#3 Post by Oberlus » Mon May 28, 2018 6:39 pm

True.

I'm editing the poll to add the options.

User avatar
EricF
Space Dragon
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:12 am

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

#4 Post by EricF » Tue May 29, 2018 5:03 am

Or if you want to make things really complicated...
You research 'Small Craft' technology that lets you build Bombers; Good against Ships, useless against other small craft.
Then you research another tech to build Interceptors; Good against Bombers, limited against Ships.
Then you research a further tech to get Fighters; Great against Bombers and great against Ships.

And make the launch rates and bay capacities all the same.

Ophiuchus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am

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

#5 Post by Ophiuchus » Tue May 29, 2018 10:04 am

EricF wrote:You research 'Small Craft' technology that lets you build Bombers; Good against Ships, useless against other small craft.
Then you research another tech to build Interceptors; Good against Bombers, limited against Ships.
Then you research a further tech to get Fighters; Great against Bombers and great against Ships.
A small remix of your expansion on your small crafts (uses targetting preferences which do not exist yet):
  • Antiship boat: good against Ships (targets only ships)
  • Interceptor boat: good against Antiship boats (targets only antiship)
  • Antiboat: good against other boats (targets other boats only)
  • Multipurpose Refit: upgrades the all the previous techs (removes the targetting constraints; still shoots preferred target until none such exists, then shoots everything else)
Having the boats available as a linear techs cascade would clearly communicate the roles, which i like.

If targetting is not planned for the next cycle, I am okay with having only Interceptors and Bombers; else i prefer a revamp. Is targetting already decided?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

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

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

#6 Post by Vezzra » Tue May 29, 2018 11:04 am

Ophiuchus wrote:Is targetting already decided?
Depends what you mean. I think it's fairly certain that we will have something like targetting priorities in one form or another. However, there hasn't been a focused design discussion about it yet, so how exactly that mechanic is going to work in the end is undecided. That said, Geoff has already been working on an implementation, so that work is most likely going to be the foundation of a future design discussion.

There is no decision so far as to when that mechnic is going to be added, but the fact that there is already an implementation worked on means chances aren't too bad that it might go in next release cycle.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12248
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

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

#7 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue May 29, 2018 1:39 pm

Vezzra wrote:I think it's fairly certain that we will have something like targetting priorities in one form or another. However, there hasn't been a focused design discussion about it yet, so how exactly that mechanic is going to work in the end is undecided. That said, Geoff has already been working on an implementation, so that work is most likely going to be the foundation of a future design discussion.
I have not. I have worked on Battle Detection / Part Noisiness, but this does not (directly or primarily) include making in-combat targeting priorities work differently.

I have mentioned a few times the idea of having parts that control targeting priorities, or having species matter. Eg. If a species hates another, then they might target ships crewed by the hated other first. Parts would be added to a design to say things like "target ships first", "direct weapons target ships first", "target unarmed ships first", "flak targets fighters first", "spread shots to different targets", "focus fire on single target", etc.

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

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

#8 Post by Vezzra » Tue May 29, 2018 2:01 pm

Oops, sorry, guess I got a bit confused about what you were working on in these branches... :oops:

Well, in this case "target priorities" is (like many other things) just in the "ideas have been thrown around" stage, so who knows when we will get around to that.

Ophiuchus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am

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

#9 Post by Ophiuchus » Tue May 29, 2018 4:42 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:Parts would be added to a design to say things like "target ships first", "direct weapons target ships first", "target unarmed ships first", "flak targets fighters first", "spread shots to different targets", "focus fire on single target", etc.
So reremixing this with a single "mission slot":
  • Space boats - allows hangars and launch bays; targets Ships if no other targeting part is there
  • Interceptor Boat tech: unlocks Intercept Mission part; all weapons and space boats target space boats
Only two types of space boats left.

Or there could be parts like "Interceptor Mission - targets all space boats with Ship Destroy Mission"
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

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

#10 Post by Oberlus » Tue May 29, 2018 6:12 pm

With policy cards (something like an engineering slot), an empire could get access to more specific-role fighter designs, being the default state having access only to figthers (or to interceptors and bombers).
Or the policy card could let yo choose between having one general-purpose design or two role-specific designs.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12248
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

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

#11 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue May 29, 2018 7:37 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:So reremixing this with a single "mission slot":
  • Space boats - allows hangars and launch bays; targets Ships if no other targeting part is there
  • Interceptor Boat tech: unlocks Intercept Mission part; all weapons and space boats target space boats
Only two types of space boats left.

Or there could be parts like "Interceptor Mission - targets all space boats with Ship Destroy Mission"
I don't understand what is being suggested here, but I don't want to add more slot types. Rather, I'd add some parts that have to compete with other parts for the existing limited number of slots in a hull.
Oberlus wrote:With policy cards (something like an engineering slot), an empire could get access to more specific-role fighter designs, being the default state having access only to figthers (or to interceptors and bombers).
Policy cards being required to produce certain parts of hulls is plausible.

User avatar
EricF
Space Dragon
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:12 am

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

#12 Post by EricF » Wed May 30, 2018 8:21 pm

I have to admit my idea for a progression of fighter techs is dependent on target selection for it to be desirable.
Bomber(/gun boat/torpedo boat)->Interceptor->Multi-role Fighter(or just Fighter)
This presupposes that the Bomber is immune to normal Ship weapons for whatever fluff reason you want.
(Except for FlaK, which ONLY targets small craft. Not a separate ship part. The FlaK part contains the targeting sensors)
This makes the Bomber a very dangerous anti-ship weapon necessitating the deployment of FlaK and the development
of the even more effective Interceptor.

I bring this up because the way things are now fighters aren't really all that impressive.
And since FlaK shoots at everything I'm even beginning to question using it all anymore.
FlaK gives you what? Two extra shots that might hit an actual Ship and do nothing?
Or would I rather have an extra Laser or Plasma cannon so if there are no fighters around I can do real damage.
Of course it's your game and I'm not going to program any of this so feel free to ignore me. :)

P.S. I still think a separate Fire Control ship part for a Ship's main guns is a good idea, but for targeting fighters? No.
BTW, this Fire Control ship part better be REALLY useful as both external and internal space is already at a premium.
(Maybe larger ships could have a psuedo slot that can only hold Sensors/Fire Control.)

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 113
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!]

#13 Post by Jaumito » Thu May 31, 2018 11:29 am

EricF wrote:FlaK gives you what? Two extra shots that might hit an actual Ship and do nothing?
Up to six shots/flak depending on pilot ability, that's when it starts to matter. I don't bother using flak with average pilots, but I consider it almost a crime to give great+ pilots ships without at least a flak slot.

phocas
Space Floater
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 12, 2018 9:28 am

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

#14 Post by phocas » Thu May 31, 2018 6:58 pm

the POLL heavily depends on the target priority policy

actually each gun or boat pick a target by random

with the actual random targeting mode, 2 fighters type is enough
4 x interceptor for defense purpose (multi shots and shields)
or
2 x bomber for damages


And flak could be removed as rather useless, most of the shots being lost against shields
unless there are numerous boat swarms

And by added bonus we fired the mismatch name between fighters type an fighter boat :mrgreen:


But i will prefer target priority AND 3 fighter types (boats)
as http://www.freeorion.org/forum/viewtopi ... 736#p90978
* flak priority against all boats before other hulks
* Interceptors: fire at other boats as long as there are any, then at battleships. (same as flak)
* Fighters: no preference. random dual purpose against boats and battleships
* Bombers: target only battleships, can't fire at other boats at all.
* battleships : no boat target with "normal" guns other than flak, boats are too small and fast to be hit by heavy guns, even maser...
can target only slow satellite, battleships and ground
( maybe weapon priority between ground or space for some weapons could be nice but that's another story...)


some more thinking
whatever the choice The launch bay should be linked to the boat type (all out in one round for each type)

a new tech to raise cap patrol before round 1 may be great to

User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

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

#15 Post by Oberlus » Thu May 31, 2018 8:11 pm

phocas wrote:the POLL heavily depends on the target priority policy
Agree.
phocas wrote:But i will prefer target priority AND 3 fighter types (boats)
as http://www.freeorion.org/forum/viewtopi ... 736#p90978
* flak priority against all boats before other hulks
* Interceptors: fire at other boats as long as there are any, then at battleships. (same as flak)
* Fighters: no preference. random dual purpose against boats and battleships
* Bombers: target only battleships, can't fire at other boats at all.
* battleships : no boat target with "normal" guns other than flak, boats are too small and fast to be hit by heavy guns, even maser...
can target only slow satellite, battleships and ground
( maybe weapon priority between ground or space for some weapons could be nice but that's another story...)
I like this suggestion. However, without any randomness on some of the weapon targeting, the effects of flacks, interceptors and bombers become quite deterministic: after round 2 faction1 will kill faction2(bombers+fighters+interceptors)/faction1(flaks*3+interceptors) fighters, and will deal faction1(bombers) shots on faction2(battleships), and viceversa... Not sure if I'm making my point.

Sometimes I jump into a battle that I'm not sure to win, because luck has something to say on it. Sometimes I lose.
With this system most of the fighter-involved battles (that should be all from mid game on) become too predictable, and that takes out some of the thrill in those specific situations when one of the stacks is not OP enough compared to the other.

Plus making regular weapons not able to shot at fighters at all seems to me a bit excesive. I've seen an Imperial Destructor shooting at the Millenium Falcon all they got onboard and seemed credible that they actually got some hits on it (yes, consider the Falcon a boat, there are few things smaller and faster than it in that universe ;))

So I prefer something like this:

* Flak priority against boats: it has 2x chances to hit boats instead of battleships (upgradeable to 3x bombers, 2x other boats).
* Other battleships weapons: 2x battleships, upgradeable to 3x.
* Bombers: 2x against battleships, upgradeable to 3x (same as non-flak ship weapons).
* Interceptors: 2x against other boats (upgradeable to "3x bombers/fighters, 2x other boats").
* Fighters: uniform probability upgradeable to choose (via a toggle in the fleet/ship window) between "3x battleships/bombers" and "2x battleships/bomber/fighters").

Post Reply