Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

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

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

What should ship weapons usually target?

Planets, ships and fighters equally
0
No votes
First target ships and planets. If no planet or ships: target fighters
2
25%
Target only ships and planets. (Also remove fallbacks for other weapon types)
3
38%
Something different (please explain)
3
38%
 
Total votes: 8

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1941
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#46 Post by Oberlus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:31 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:25 pm
It would also help if you guys state your preference if the pilot skill should affect interceptors (my gut feeling was no).
They might become too powerful if both techs and pilot skills add +1 to capacity, maximum of 9. No one would build flaks ever.
So remove damage upgrades from pilots trait from interceptors (i.e. unnafected by pilots trait) and let interceptors be the PD of choice for bad pilots species, flaks for good pilot species.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1941
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#47 Post by Oberlus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:32 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:01 pm
if it says 4 + 1 (laser) +1 (plasma) +1 (DR), why do we get 6 launch capacity end game instead of 7?
And what about this?

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#48 Post by Ophiuchus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:32 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:32 pm
Oberlus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:01 pm
if it says 4 + 1 (laser) +1 (plasma) +1 (DR), why do we get 6 launch capacity end game instead of 7?
And what about this?
Shouldnt. Impossible. Most illogical. Means somebody should look into this bug report (i cant now), start a local game and see if it upgrades correctly to 7 or not. (was your carrier in-supply and was it a full turn after the tech was researched).
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1941
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#49 Post by Oberlus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:40 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:32 pm
Shouldnt. Impossible. Means somebody should look into this bug report (i cant now), start a local game and see if it upgrades correctly to 7 or not. (was your carrier in-supply and was it a full turn after the tech was researched).
This is from ship design window with full research.
Attachments
6launchcap.png
6launchcap.png (22.21 KiB) Viewed 109 times

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#50 Post by Ophiuchus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:05 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:32 pm
Oberlus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:32 pm
Oberlus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:01 pm
if it says 4 + 1 (laser) +1 (plasma) +1 (DR), why do we get 6 launch capacity end game instead of 7?
And what about this?
Shouldnt. Impossible. Most illogical. Means somebody should look into this bug report (i cant now), start a local game and see if it upgrades correctly to 7 or not. (was your carrier in-supply and was it a full turn after the tech was researched).
git grep sais it is 3+1+1+1 , not 4+1+1+1 - the question is where did you get your FOCS file from?

Code: Select all

PR2756_KISSTargetsHard:default/scripting/ship_parts/FighterHangar/FT_HANGAR_1.focs.txt:                SetMaxCapacity partname = "FT_BAY_1" value = (PartsInShipDesign name = "FT_BAY_1" design = Target.DesignID) * (
PR2756_KISSTargetsHard:default/scripting/ship_parts/FighterHangar/FT_HANGAR_1.focs.txt-                    3 +
PR2756_KISSTargetsHard:default/scripting/ship_parts/FighterHangar/FT_HANGAR_1.focs.txt-                    Statistic If Condition = OwnerHasTech Name = "SHP_FIGHTERS_2" +
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1941
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#51 Post by Oberlus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:19 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:05 pm
the question is where did you get your FOCS file from?
Ouch, sorry, I was dumb: I was looking at a commit on your PR that is further modified by a later commit (changes the 4 by a 3). Sorry!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#52 Post by Ophiuchus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:18 pm

The expectations from the PR:

Mass drivers, Lasers, Plasmas, Death Rays, and Spinal antimatter cannon attack ships and planets (no fighters)
Flak cannon only attacks fighters
Interceptors attack enemy fighters only. Fighter tech increases capacity and launch rate of interceptor fighters instead of damage
Fighters attack ships and fighters.
Bombers attack ships only.

Also balancing for the fighters. Making launch bay and hangars cheaper and slightly less effective (but more cost efficient). Also the structure is now more uniform so it is easier to compare
10 PP: Launch bay (was 20PP)
20 PP: 2 Bombers, 6 damage, get a +3 damage bonus per pilot or tech level. (was 25PP, 5 damage, but had higher damage for death ray fighters)
15 PP: 3 Fighters, 4 damage, get a +2 damage bonus per pilot or tech level. Ignoring launching and targeting Fighters have a comparable power level to Bombers. (was 20PP, 3 damage, but had higher damage for death ray fighters)
10PP: 3 Interceptors only kill fighters. Can launch 50% faster compared to Fighter. Each tech gives one extra Interceptor and launch capacity. (Was 15 PP, 4 interceptors, but had damage increase against ships)
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#53 Post by Ophiuchus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:41 pm

For total damage estimation what do you think - should an interceptor do two damage for statistics?

For three bouts for 180 PP (6B+6L, 6F+9L, 9I+9L), average pilots:

Basic Bombers do total damage 72; with plasma 108

Basic Fighters do total damage 72; with plasma 108

Basic Interceptors with two "damage" each do total "damage" 54; with plasma 90

Basic Interceptors with three "damage" each do total "damage" 81; with plasma 135
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1941
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#54 Post by Oberlus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:40 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:41 pm
For total damage estimation what do you think - should an interceptor do two damage for statistics?
I wouldn't care of measuring damage because they play in a different league now: PD, that doesn't deal damage to ships.
Compare only with other PDs: flak.
Flak fire rate ranges (IIRC) from 2 to 6 depending on pilots trait.
Interceptors "fire rate" ranges between 3 and 6 depending on techs.
So they both are equiparable. If flak is fine at 20 PPs, so should be the interceptors.

IFF species pilot trait would affect interceptors (so up to 9 fire rate), cost should be greater.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#55 Post by Ophiuchus » Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:44 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:40 pm
Ophiuchus wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:41 pm
For total damage estimation what do you think - should an interceptor do two damage for statistics?
I wouldn't care of measuring damage because they play in a different league now: PD, that doesn't deal damage to ships.
Compare only with other PDs: flak.
Flak fire rate ranges (IIRC) from 2 to 6 depending on pilots trait.
Interceptors "fire rate" ranges between 3 and 6 depending on techs.
So they both are equiparable. If flak is fine at 20 PPs, so should be the interceptors.
Thats good evidence that the balancing is fine. Still you get presented a total damage of a fleet in UI (and maybe even AI uses it) and the question is if the interceptor (and flak accordingly) should do zero damage, or if it does something equivalent to damage which would enhance that total damage value (the suggested two damage).
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1941
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#56 Post by Oberlus » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:24 am

Flaks show 1 damage per each shot, and AI uses flak.
If flaks have any special treatment in AI ship design these interceptors could have a similar one (with the difference of internal slot and fighter damage soak).

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#57 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:31 am

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:24 am
Flaks show 1 damage per each shot, and AI uses flak.
If flaks have any special treatment in AI ship design these interceptors could have a similar one (with the difference of internal slot and fighter damage soak).
AI did not get updated for restricted targeting AFAIK. So i treats it flak like a beam weapon doing damage to ships (3x1dam per bout). So its rather the other way round - if we solve it we should do that for all PD.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1941
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Should fighters really act as cannonfodder?

#58 Post by Oberlus » Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:50 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:31 am
AI did not get updated for restricted targeting AFAIK. So i treats it flak like a beam weapon doing damage to ships (3x1dam per bout). So its rather the other way round - if we solve it we should do that for all PD.
If AI treats flaks the same it treats offensive weapons with current changes on flak targetting, I guess AI will only get the right design by mistake.
Flaks and interceptors should be added to an AI fleet (or group of fleets) depending on the number of fighters in the targeted enemy fleets, and not because of their relative damage.
I've been thinking on simple rules that take into account the many factors influencing the performance of each combat ship part and it's not easy.

Post Reply