Missiles VS Fighters

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Missiles VS Fighters

#1 Post by Oberlus » Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:50 pm

I was thinking about how would it be to add missiles to FO. There are several comments and suggestions in the forum. I was thinking with targeting in mind (so that some weapons only aim at some kind of targets) and found that missiles' roles kinda overlap with fighter roles. For starters, both are implementations of Long Range weapons (those that can outrange the current Short Range weapons, from MD to DR).

My initial thoughts:
- Missiles, "explosive" drones driven by an AI, with a lot of thrust and propellant to reach its target from long range and inflict great damage (if not taken down by point defence during approximation). They can target other drones (missiles or fighters) for a one-hit kill or help wear off capital ships defences (average damage, ignores shields). They would be the suicidal equivalent of the heavy fighter.
- Torpedoes, huge missiles that only target capital ships (huge damage > DR, ignores shields). They may include extra armour against flaks or chaff against missiles. They would be the suicidal equivalent of the bomber (fighter).
- Bombs, huge missiles that only target planetary defences. Much like the torpedoes but better suited to reach its target through the planetary atmosphere. No counterpart in fighters right now.

Fighters and missiles can have different statistics for each role but I don't know if that is enough to justify having both in the game.

If FO shall have only one of those, I would vote for Missiles (instead of Fighters) hands down. They both would be roughly the same in terms of mechanics and fun but one of them makes sense.

I found some interesting readings. I wanna quote some stellar parts that made me laugh a while:
SPACE FIGHTERS

Small, fast, highly maneuverable COMBAT SPACECRAFT. They have very limited range (never FTL), and no crew habitability to speak of; they can only operate for at most a few hours at a time. The crew is limited to one person, or occasionally two. At least among EARTH HUMANS and ALIENS WITH FOREHEAD RIDGES, these are usually males in their early twenties, known for their swagger, coolness, and fast moves on any attractive female of an INTERBREEDABLE species.

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

Re: Missiles VS Fighters

#2 Post by EricF » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:57 am

Mostly agree with all of this. The whole Fighters in space thing is something I never
really bought. Earth ships move in water. Fighters travel in the air. In space they all
travel in the same medium. There wouldn't be a hundred fold magnitude of difference
in speeds like there is on Earth. That's why I always viewed FO Fighters as more like
Torpedo Boats than as aircraft. And with such advanced technology why would you
put crews on such expendable craft? So for all intents and purposes they become
missiles. A vehicle that delivers a payload.

This all reminds me of playing Star Fleet Battles and thinking, "Who would be insane
enough to pilot a SFB Fighter? Have you ever seen a battle in which any fighters
EVER survived?". SFB fighters were way too easy to kill and way to deadly to ignore.
Bad combination for any pilot.

EDIT: Oh man, thanks for the link. I hadn't known about any of that before I wrote my post. :lol:

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Missiles VS Fighters

#3 Post by Jaumito » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:04 am

If we want to introduce missiles in the game, I suggest changing fighters to purely defensive decoys:
  • They absorb one hit and are gone for the current battle.
  • They refill between battles regardless of supply lines.
  • Tech upgrades would increase the number of decoys you get per ship part, and maybe grant small defensive bonuses (e.g., 10% chance / tech level to negate hits rather than absorbing them.)
Would be more interesting than having two different weapon types filling the same role.

User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missiles VS Fighters

#4 Post by Oberlus » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:55 am

Jaumito wrote:If we want to introduce missiles in the game, I suggest changing fighters to purely defensive decoys:
  • They absorb one hit and are gone for the current battle.
  • They refill between battles regardless of supply lines.
  • Tech upgrades would increase the number of decoys you get per ship part, and maybe grant small defensive bonuses (e.g., 10% chance / tech level to negate hits rather than absorbing them.)
Would be more interesting than having two different weapon types filling the same role.
That sounds like chaff or anti-aircraft missiles, and has a very similar role to PD weapons (flaks).

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Missiles VS Fighters

#5 Post by Jaumito » Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:52 pm

Oberlus wrote:That sounds like chaff or anti-aircraft missiles, and has a very similar role to PD weapons (flaks).
I missed or misread the part where you wrote missiles could be taken down by point defences, and I sort of assumed missiles were instant-hit weapons. In that case, without fighters there would have been no reason to keep flak.

User avatar
Oberlus
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Missiles VS Fighters

#6 Post by Oberlus » Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:19 pm

Jaumito wrote:I missed or misread the part where you wrote missiles could be taken down by point defences, and I sort of assumed missiles were instant-hit weapons. In that case, without fighters there would have been no reason to keep flak.
I'm working on that, figuring out if flaks and missiles can have differences within their role (target incoming drones) the same way that torpedoes and (non-PD) energy weapons have the same target but face different countermeasures (shields and flak/missiles) and are supposed to have different ranges.
I'm thinking on starting flaks being cheaper parts than starting missiles, missiles more effective against some early improvements of the torpedoes (speed, armour) and in general more cost-effective, but missiles being subject to reload after battle (not possible outside of supply) so energy flaks more reliable behind enemy lines or in long combats.

But hey, maybe just PD against incoming torpedoes and no missiles at all would be enough. Shields against energy guns, flaks against torpedoes (the only missile), and that's it. Looks maybe too simple? I think I'd like some more (marginal) choices.

Post Reply