Buecherwyrm wrote:
On a side-note: Who says that fighters and bombers in "Endless Space" are actually piloted by living beings? Maybe they are all just drones guided from a command center inside the carrrier?



Take a look at recent military history, for a time strategists claimed that only missiles would be used, but they proved to be too expensive for single-shot-weapons and not adaptable enough to the fast-paced battle-fields of today, so they are just one of numerous weapons used by the military. Atm drones are the next big thing and replacing missiles in several standard situations. Will they prevail and possibly even replace piloted air-crafts? We just don't know.



Take care, Buecherwyrm

"adaptable" is irrelevant in space combat -

1.you don't have troops in space to support

2.except well defended planets you don't have static installations in space to bomb

3.you don't need fighters for reconnaissance

4.fighters can fight other fighters - but why build them?



Drones aren't replacing missiles - they are replacing extremely expensive aircrafts that carry missiles.



IMHO - space combat is much like a fight for sea superiority of 18th early 20th century - build bigger ships with more armor and cannons was the answer, the only difference is that in space you don't have air or underwater battle plane = no threats to ships from specialized weapon platforms and all cities are port cities and can be bombed - so you really don't need to invade in order to bring your opponent to his knees or discourage any further resistance/willingness to fight.



P.S. in space even in big debris field space flak-gun only need general direction where to shot because

a)with the power draw of 1 big laser it can fire VERY broad beam of less energetic laser that will be enough to defend weak shields of fighters

b)use space CIWS - n-barreled machine guns in n-sized clusters creating bulletstorms in required directions

c)both can be achieved by alternative fire mods of main weapons



None of this is an argument against some kind of ship carrying destroyer/corvette sized ships(2-4) with higher tonnage(maybe +20-40% of basic tonnage) due to lack of FTL engines and also acting like fleet support vessel - i.e. helping repair,extending sensor range, carrying troops for invasions, but NOT participating in actual space combat. But you need to balance command points on it.

So your referring to a type of mothership?



I agree with an idea like that.

quantum2000 wrote:
"adaptable" is irrelevant in space combat -

1.you don't have troops in space to support

2.except well defended planets you don't have static installations in space to bomb

3.you don't need fighters for reconnaissance

4.fighters can fight other fighters - but why build them?



Drones aren't replacing missiles - they are replacing extremely expensive aircrafts that carry missiles.



IMHO - space combat is much like a fight for sea superiority of 18th early 20th century - build bigger ships with more armor and cannons was the answer, the only difference is that in space you don't have air or underwater battle plane = no threats to ships from specialized weapon platforms and all cities are port cities and can be bombed - so you really don't need to invade in order to bring your opponent to his knees or discourage any further resistance/willingness to fight.



P.S. in space even in big debris field space flak-gun only need general direction where to shot because

a)with the power draw of 1 big laser it can fire VERY broad beam of less energetic laser that will be enough to defend weak shields of fighters

b)use space CIWS - n-barreled machine guns in n-sized clusters creating bulletstorms in required directions

c)both can be achieved by alternative fire mods of main weapons



None of this is an argument against some kind of ship carrying destroyer/corvette sized ships(2-4) with higher tonnage(maybe +20-40% of basic tonnage) due to lack of FTL engines and also acting like fleet support vessel - i.e. helping repair,extending sensor range, carrying troops for invasions, but NOT participating in actual space combat. But you need to balance command points on it.

But if you go the step to introduce parasite craft, you cannot possibly avoid the following logic:



"So we went and built these parasite ships that have traded their ftl for more available tonnage so why the heck arent we putting guns on em and send em out?!"



And the question would be a good one. (see emprie from the ashes here, the planetoid class ships carried several smaller non ftl batlteships around....).

to LordReynolds



Yes, the parasite ships will carry guns and be in fight, that what i meant in my post.

But with current mechanics it will result in destroyer spam issue getting much bigger.It also should be careful balanced with by production and command cost.

Kind of surprised nobody tossed out how Star Wars, Babylon 5, Space: Above and Beyond and Battlestar Galactica all heavily had fighters/bombers in them.



Games that had cool fighter combat: Nexus:The Jupiter Incident, Homeworld, Conquest: Frontier Wars.



As for implementation. I would hope that:



A) Flak would be a defense against enemy ships.

B) You could design bombers/fighters to be armed with kinetics, missiles and lasers, as well as different defenses.

C) Adding in new cards strategic cards for gameplay, like suicide run, tactical maneuvers, defense formations, etc.

D) Adding another tactical trait to heroes, the ability to develop heroes into true admirals with flight combat experience.

C) The chance for bombers to get in close quickly and launch their torpedo/missile load. The chance for fighters to shoot down bombers or missiles before they make contact.

D) Watching the evolution of fights/bombers. Early on in the game units that can fly and shoot and not much else. By end game, sophisticated ships with shields and advanced weaponry, maybe multi-purpose fighters that attack and launch bombs.

E) Making the fighters/bombers unique to factions.

1.UE has traditional fighters,

2.Sowers have robotic drone ships,

3.Cravers have a large number of strikecraft marauders

4. Hissho have graceful bird like ships

5. Sophon have UFO like spaceships



etc....

We didn't forget them, i just gave up because people wouldn't stop arguing real life facts in a frigging 4X Space game.

Its because the ratio of Science versus Fiction in space fighers is about 10% science and 90% fiction.



If you include space fighters you may also include space tech dragons, gods in bottles and cannons that fire bears.



Because a wizard, albeit a techno one, will have done it.









And as 4x games go: Gameplay.





Are they just a different type of weapon to be used in the line battle the carrier participates in? Isn't that counter to anything a carrier should do?



Or are they off battle bombardment tools that attack other fleets that cannot shoot back directly? Will they not quickly push aside conventional fleets? If at first you don't succeed, spam more fighters?











How come anyone thinks that building a spacecraft that basically is a missile already (space missiles need thrusters and a main drive, the same way fighhters do, but unlike a fighter their tonnage is dedicated to pen aids and stuff that does murder instead of "oh thing thing has to come back or something") is improved by dedicating tonnage towards the ability to transport smaller weapons into battle which are not more effective than leaving the whole thing a missile instead of making it a fighter.





Rule of cool does not critical wall of stupid for massive damage. Rule of cool faints after knocking itself out.









Just stop trying to implement this "fighter/bomber" stuff just because you got used to that bad habit.





Think more like "man would it not be nice to have intricate missile battles where my selection of control drone missiles (which guide and direct the missiles with the actual warheads) and selection of both sides battleactions (cards) decides who come out ahead?" and "i just hope i brought enough ammo for this" and "lol busted his ammo supply, now hes fcked!"





















As it stands now, ES does not support carriers anyway since we got line battles here. Ships line up and shoot each other till one side keels over. Carriers have no place in that.

A lot of line-breaks do not make you right, actually they only make you appear a little silly.



As Igncom rightfully pointed out, 4X-games are not about realism. How realistic is it that a crazy billionaire with a cloning habit can compete on a galactic scale with races of avian samurai or evolved amoeba? How realistic is it btw. that there are THREE factions based on humans? Realism therefore does not seem to be the goal of 4X-games in general or "Endless Space" in particular. Instead people and players will be judging this game based on their expectations - expectations that are based on books, movies and other games. And the vast majority of these feature huge capital ships on the one hand (we have these) and small fighter crafts most often piloted by living beings. Is this realistic? Probably not. But most people are not aware of all the pros and cons, they are not aware of the physics and they don't really care about either. But they know Star Wars and the other series Patricckae has mentioned (and other people hinted at). That people expect fighters and carriers is demonstrated quite well by the numerous suggestions on this matter. Can one little game change this? I seriously doubt it. SHOULD one little game change this? I doubt that either, games are not about education, they are about entertainment - and people want to see little fighters fighting massive capital ships. It's "David vs. Goliath" in space, and it is very cool indeed.

Buecherwyrm wrote:
A lot of line-breaks do not make you right, actually they only make you appear a little silly.



As Igncom rightfully pointed out, 4X-games are not about realism. How realistic is it that a crazy billionaire with a cloning habit can compete on a galactic scale with races of avian samurai or evolved amoeba? How realistic is it btw. that there are THREE factions based on humans? Realism therefore does not seem to be the goal of 4X-games in general or "Endless Space" in particular. Instead people and players will be judging this game based on their expectations - expectations that are based on books, movies and other games. And the vast majority of these feature huge capital ships on the one hand (we have these) and small fighter crafts most often piloted by living beings. Is this realistic? Probably not. But most people are not aware of all the pros and cons, they are not aware of the physics and they don't really care about either. But they know Star Wars and the other series Patricckae has mentioned (and other people hinted at). That people expect fighters and carriers is demonstrated quite well by the numerous suggestions on this matter. Can one little game change this? I seriously doubt it. SHOULD one little game change this? I doubt that either, games are not about education, they are about entertainment - and people want to see little fighters fighting massive capital ships. It's "David vs. Goliath" in space, and it is very cool indeed.

You have a point. However, Amplitude gave the community here an opportunity to give input on the game. We've already seen a few times where enough people wanted a feature, or some kind of change, and it happened. Like the Retreat Card, in battle. If enough of the community argues that it wants/doesn't want fighters or carriers, well, there you go.



As it is, this discussion no longer matters:

Steph'nie wrote:
Here's how we will answer to your ideas:



DONE in game already, or will soon be implemented

**** Master must have

*** Master nice to have

** Post release must have

* Post release nice to have

X Never - either not possible or simply not in our vision

U Undecided



....



Larger Ship Classes - Tech to develope Dreadnaughts, Carrriers, Titons, mobile platforms and etc **

Fighter / Bomber Squadrons - Tech to create Fighter / Bomber Squadrons for carriers and orbital structures **

While I, personally, will still argue against carriers and fighters up until they come out and I can do no more, there you go.

Strigon,

I quoted that on page 3 of this discussion - didn't stop any of the participants though ;-) I can understand and empathize with your arguments against fighters (and all the others that have spoken out against them), but I just don't agree ^^

Take care, Buecherwyrm

Buecherwyrm wrote:
Strigon,

I quoted that on page 3 of this discussion - didn't stop any of the participants though ;-) I can understand and empathize with your arguments against fighters (and all the others that have spoken out against them), but I just don't agree ^^

Take care, Buecherwyrm

Ack, I'm sorry, I must have missed your post. Sorry!



And I understand. That's why there's debates, so people with different opinions can, well, discuss those different opinions. I don't agree that carriers/fighters make sense, you don't agree that they should be excluded, everything done in a more-or-less nice and friendly manner...It's so nice seeing this on a forum, instead of the slang-filled hate posts I'm used to seeing on the internet.

Missiles would be rendered useless by by numerous type of defenses EMW/Chaff/PD etc, then there is debris and micro asteroids to deal with. Essentially they would only be useful at point blank range. Therefore ES should only include particle and beam weapons.



Honestly I'm for missiles, just like I'm for carriers/fighters. They add another layer of strategy to the game which increases the fun factor, which in the end is the purpose of the game.

well tracking weapons would be as effective as a normal ship, and micro asteroids rarely exist in gravity wells.

While this is all very interesting, if you were to send me back to the 1930's, in Naval circles, I would be a member of the so-called "Gun Club". I think that the current method is great,and there is no need for strike craft, or carriers in the game.

In this game I don't see Carriers or Fighter/Bomber units in the combat screen. I agree that they make sense to put as a support module for invasions. As units...idk. Maybe make a "mothership" support module that allows you to have so many figher/bombers units in a fleet. Each fighter/bomber could be half a cp? Give a localized -accuracy check whenever shooting at them, giving an advantage to the flak like kinetic. At the end of the battle if the "mothership" is destroyed and not enough fighter/bombers were destroyed to equal however many the "mothership" was responsible for, that fleet automatically loses enough of each to be balanced.



Again I'm back to "spamming" though. Instead of destroyer spam you would see fighter/drone spam (much like Sins of a Solar Empire until corvettes came out). I feel that some weapons and armor shouldn't be able to be put on ships of certain sizes. Makes the weapon and defense modules tiered for the ships that want to use them could encourage moving towards bigger ships and less smaller unit spam. We can't put the railgun on a PT boat yet because the size and energy consumption just won't work yet.

I honestly think fighters/bomber additions shouldn't be focused on space battles, but rather being a major boost to planetary invasions. Basically, you're carrying a few air squadrons around to help the ground troops quickly secure whatever world you're conquering. In space, they can still be used, but they won't be half as effective as proper weapon systems on actual combat ships.



For example, a bomber unit on a carrier (which I'd say carries torpedoes/missiles) will launch their missiles at long range, but one bomber unit carries half the missiles a designated missile weapon system would have/launch from a non-carrier ship. Fighters (maybe starts with kinetics, but ups to lasers with research) annoy your ships and make waste laser/kinetic shots on them over your actual fleet, but in planetary invasions, they're almost as effective as bomber support, but do barely any damage in space other than possibly saving your main ships from killing blows.

I could only think of a few reasons for building space fighters:

[LIST=1]

Super light speed drives are very costly. So you try to limit the number of ships having such drives and keep them out of harms way. Instead you use cheap sub light speed fighters for combat.

Inertia: Smaller ships have less weight and can therefore change directions faster, since they have to convince less mass to change impulse. This can lead to them getting good at attacking weak spots, e.g. if drive technologies make large portions of the larger ships, e.g. the backsides, relatively defenseless, since there's simply no space for defense turrets, there.

Surface = Weaponpower: If the weapon technology is relatively small and energy efficient, it could be the case that smaller vessels with a few weaponslots, but started in masses from ships, are more effective than trying to cluster a whole shiphull full of weapons.

[/LIST]

I still think fighters make little sense in outer space. I suspect they were/are prevalent in sci-fi as it would have been cheaper to do fighter dogfights rather than capital ships fights pre-CGI. As someone else mentioned, in space fighters hold no advantage as there is no higher plane from which they can attack like in atmospheric-based combat.



Honestly I think the card-based combat system really lends itself toward the concept of high-relativistic speed combat (ie. going 20,0000 k/s). As things happen too quickly in a space fight, you have to choose your options before-hand and hope that you play your cards right, so to speak . A human piloted fighter would become a stain on a capital ship's shields in a fight like this.

Igncom1 wrote:
Again, i am not personally here to discuss the logical problems of fighters, but the game play implications.



Seeing as we already hand-wave so much in science fiction, how exactly would adding space fighters push this over the line.

You're right, sorry, I apologize. Ignoring the second part of your post as I'll goo off topic again... ^^;;



In terms of game play, I'm thinking fighters would be a fourth module, and a heavy one at that. Carriers would, naturally, have a great tonnage bonus for them, however. They'd be effective at all ranges, as even long-range in the game looks "close" enough relatively for fighters to be deployed (note: they aren't as effective as the actual weapons at the ranges though...missile are still better at long range, for example, the fighters are just a jack-of-all-trades esque mod). To counter them you would need either A) a carrier and fighters of your own and/or B) a fourth defensive module that basically provides "Space AA."



The fighters mods would be expendable, though, I would imagine. You can loose fighters during the course of battles, and eventually you would have to retrofit the carrier and give them more. This is just to help balance them a bit more, I think. Or perhaps the number of fighters the carrier can launch is dependent on it's health.



I'm still against them, but game-play wise, if they were to be put in this is how I would think it would be done.

I think that carriers will do food if the battle system will chang cause ships aren't manuvaring they in line in side of each other like it 19th century they need to understand that it is 3d space ships can menuver and becaust theat fatcor doesn't count small ships can go against well armed and defendble (the last ship don't remeber her name)



ALSO THE CARRIES THING IS HERE A LOT OF TIME A LOT OF PEPOLE SUGGESTED THAT INCLUDING ME AND I DIDN'T CATH HOPE IT WILL CATH THIS TIME