So, I actually haven't been playing Endless Space all that long. I played quite a few games of the classic version before Disharmony came out, and I then got the game for myself and have been playing Disharmony since. First, I love the changes to the combat system, but I was very disappointed by how fighters and bombers turned out. At the start of the game, they can be kinda interesting, but by even mid-game, they're just objects flying around on the screen firing BB guns at each other, much less to any effect against capital ships. I've seen through a google search that most people come to the same conclusion, that they're just not worth really building, in part because of the sheer tonnage cost of their construction.



So I asked myself: What would make them work? And although it's my first post here, I came up with this:



Bombers



No longer do fixed, flat damage. Instead, bombers do a % of current health to their target each phase, dealing damage once per the 2nd and 3rd phases. Researching better bombers offers bomber mods that have a higher % damage, and/or higher health.



Fighters



Greatly increased damage to fighters and bombers. Like now, fighters will first attack any enemy fighter squadrons until those squadrons are destroyed, then attack bombers, then attack capital ships. Damage vs capitals is unchanged, making them rather useless for it. A fighter wing will only attack enemy fighters if another wing is not engaged (IE, if they kill their target wing and more enemy fighters exist, but those wings are engaged against your own fighters already, they'll go for bombers).



Carriers



Possibly reduce the tonnage cost of fighters and bomber modules. Each such module decreases the strength of both attack and defense mods.



Why It Works



As it is right now, bombers do such insignificant damage vs 3-4 weapon mods you could stack instead that there's no reason to use them. Doing a % of current health makes them a threat to the targets that conventional capital ships have the most trouble with: Turtles. You know, the 15k health, 1200+ of all defenses with barely any attack flagship that sits at the front of the formation? At the same time, they're both pathetic against lighter ships (A 450 health escort takes 158 damage from a 35% bomb hit) and less effective as damage is inflicted against the stronger ships, REQUIRING a mixed fleet to finish them off. In addition, because you can't stack bombers the way you stack weapon mods on a ship, a % damage makes them stay effective against even small tech changes that the enemy gets (Such as just a bit more tonnage on their ship, leading to higher defenses). Perhaps even more interesting bombers, such as one that does reduced % damage but reduces the enemy's effective defense by a % so that the rest of the fleet can actually inflict damage on it.



Bombers are then only effective if they can reach the target, and instead of being chased around by fighters for half the battle, they become reliant on a fighter screen to intercept the enemy interceptors so they can get through. This has the effect of trying to swarm with bombers crappy: A lot are wasted in the first wave, though some get through, and then those ones are finished off quickly thereafter, when the fighters have killed their first targets. It also makes fighters useless against capital ships, so that a mix of both is necessary. Thus, you end up trying to balance between having more bombers to inflict tremendous damage, but enough fighters to adequately cover them so they can get through and so that enemy bombers DON'T. Remember, your interceptors are engaged 1:1 with theirs, so if your squadrons are inadequate, then the enemy is not only killing your bombers, but getting damage off with theirs. And since bombers only deal damage in the 2nd and 3rd phases, the fighter-vs-fighter fights in the first phase greatly affect how devastating the bombers are in the 2nd and 3rd.



Generally speaking, a bomber under attack should die in the phase it's attacked in (So bombers attacked in phase 1 never deal damage. Attacked in phase 2 get their shot off, but still die. Attacked in phase 3, same as phase 2, but since that's the end of the battle it didn't matter that they got intercepted anyway).



Finally, carriers are weak and rely on warships to inflict the killing blows. But because of their weakness, spread fire can wipe them out if you try to massively stack carriers with a few tank flagships at the front of your formation (Which can be worn down easily by none other than bombers!). This encourages a better mix of heavier ships to take blows, lighter ships to deal damage and spread the enemy's fire thing to protect the carriers, and the carriers themselves. Reducing the defense amount prevents carriers from being turtle ships themselves, but they could still be stacked with health to protect from spread fire while not being placed in the front of the formation using Defensive Formation.



The net result of all of this is that an effective fleet (Or rather, the most effective fleet) uses a mix of all ship types. You could still get away with just warships if there was an anti-bomber defense so you could build escorts to protect against them without needing carriers, but perhaps that would just prevent X bombers from dealing damage, rather than shooting anything down (So you could still be swarmed and die, rather than fighters thinning the numbers out to reduce the threat over time). As it is right now, the best fleet is 2-3 well-protected ships at the front of the formation with higher health, and then as much firepower as you can manage without sacrificing too much defense for whatever level of firepower your current enemy has. In other words, right now fleet battles are still a DPS race with battle cards, rather than actual, mixed-fleet mechanics.



It might even encourage an enemy to try to trip you up by not using a formation that stacks all the strongest ships at the front just because 2 of the 3 targeting tactics hit the front.



Comment Away



This is just my idea of how bombers and fighters can become relevant to the success of a fleet as a critical component of it, rather than a tool taken advantage of by only the races that have bonuses for them (And only for the early part of the game). They were a great addition, but they're in no way effective in space combat as they are right now. I've read a number of discussions around the web about people talking about what they'd like to change about fighters and bombers, so feel free to add your input!

My idea is to scrap the Tonnage Module entirely. Replace it with a Cargo Module. The Cargo Module could be retrofitted with more Modules. Say 1 Cargo Modules allows 1 Fighter and 1 Bomber Module. Maybe 2 Cargo Modules allows 1 Engine Module. IMO, that's the way it should be done. Paying twice the cost of a ship for a Tonnage Module that doesn't even give you Engines is a waste.



Fighters and Bombers need a lot work to be viable in this game too.

Interesting idea, I d love to see how such changes would play out



To be honest I only use fighters at the moment in order to get kills for Slapping the Mosquito achievement.

The point is also quick invade, omit entirely the point doesn't match the current game.

Bombers are really powerful vs AI. They don't seem to ever build anything to fight them off at all.



Anyhow, the ultimate problem with fighters is that they seem to be high risk, low reward, low versatility. In real life, they are low risk, high reward, high versatility. It's a lot easier to replace a fighter wing than it is to replace an aircraft carrier. Furthermore, fighters can be adapted for many roles, including interception, bombing, scouting, etc.



If anything, I would just scrap this rock-paper-scissor and lizard-Spock nonsense we have going on and simply make it a matter of ranges and actual ship-to-ship combat interaction, with each type of weapon playing a certain role in each phase and defenses reduced to shields (because hulls don't do very well against weapons that can theoretically destroy planets) and stealth/evasion (all accuracy should be theoretically 100% because if they have spaceships, they sure as hell have targeting computers; it's up to enemy stealth to foil them).



Here is an example:



I. Skirmish

-Fighters and Bombers engage one another. Surviving Bombers deliver their payloads.

II. Long Range I

-Missiles are fired.

-Missiles fired may be destroyed by Beams.

III. Medium Range I

-Missiles are fired.

-Missiles fired may be destroyed by Kinetics.

-Beams are fired.

IV. Close Range

-Kinetics are fired.

V. Medium Range II

-Beams are fired.

VI. Long Range II

-Missiles are fired.

-Missiles fired may be destroyed by Fighters.



In essence, Bombers engage first. Then we have a closing pass with Missiles firing in two phases (which are purely offensive, but can be countered by Beams and then Kinetics), then Beams fire. At closing, Kinetics fire twice in a row. Then we have an egress pass where Beams then Missiles fire, with the latter intercepted by Fighters.



And the coolest thing is that you can create weapon variants that optimize defense or offense. (I mean, there is little to no difference between a flak gun and a anti-armor gun.)

In current beta they sort of work in late game because you can stack ship defense to ridiculous level where your ships literally become invulnerable to all regular weapons, and fighter/bombers bypass the defense module (or hull weakness) completely so they become guaranteed way of doing damage.



This is really late game stuff of course.

Gaizokubanou wrote:
In current beta they sort of work in late game because you can stack ship defense to ridiculous level where your ships literally become invulnerable to all regular weapons, and fighter/bombers bypass the defense module (or hull weakness) completely so they become guaranteed way of doing damage.



This is really late game stuff of course.

This. I play Amoeba, and late game, all I do is mass Cruiser-class carriers (which I find to be the most space efficient, since special modules eat a % of your capacity).