FinalStrigon wrote:
I'll spare you my arguments against fighters (I'm sure Nos would kill me if I brought that can of worms back up), so, just this:



I don't see how Bombers would be effective at long range, but Attackers not. After all, a Bomber should have to (theoretically, in all the example of space fighters I can think of), still fly in fairly close to the enemy fleet to deploy its payload. If they're getting that close, Attackers should be within range to to something as well. Also, I just feel iffy about having any kind of fighter launched at long range. It would be a suicide run, I think, for a wave of craft to engage an enemy fleet without their own fleet being able to effectively back them up. The enemy fleet would have their big ships ready to target the fighter craft, as well as their own fighters flying around in defense.

I'll explain further.



Bombers use Missiles, not bombs. That may be where your confusion is coming from, however the "Bombers" Payload are not the huge missiles you see coming from capital ships. They are smaller, and shoot many. Because they are Missiles, they are able to travel the whole distance without the bombers having to get into the "danger" zone. At Medium Range another wave of bombers is released, but these bombers are now susceptible to enemy fighters.



(The reason for this setup is to keep what people are already comfortable with. Missiles stronger at long range, lasers at medium, kinetic at short. etc., this is why the 3 types of planes are setup this way)



Fighters are Fighters, just like irl, "Fighter" planes, are not ground attack, "Fighter" classified planes are strictly Air vs Air, and are short range compared to other jets.



Fighters can only go out to "medium" range because of this.



"Attacker" Style planes, (Such as the F/A-18 Hornet irl The F and A are Fighter/Attacker), Attacker classified planes can be both anti air, and anti ground. This is why the "Attacker" style in my setup has a slight defense boost against enemy Fighters. But also shoots at the capital ships.



I hope I explained that a little better.

At least, that is how I picture long range: the fleets really only being in effective missile range, not effective gun range, so the support they would be able to lend their craft would be minimal. And fighters almost always need support of some kind.

The support is from the ships themselves, the capital ships. Their ANti Missile factor is also "anti fighter" and can damage bombers/attackers/fighters.

I think this would be an awsome idear!

Spacecarrier modules and special ship types to compliment fighters etc would bring a great improvement to the so far rather mundane strategic deps...

I still have a preference to using strikecraft to expanding the battle card system, in order to make them truly distinct from normal weapons.



But its not that the idea is in any way bad of course.

Well, I still think this idea would work, after playing a few more games and imagining it during the battle phases. I think it would bring alot to the fights.

Wow I can only imagine how fun it would be to have fighters and or bombers and I'm sure Endles dev team would make it balanced. Easy to vote yes on this. Carriers would be awsome.

I think the idea is good, yet It would add too much complexity to the space battle game play, and we'd need to have at least a longer wave timer, because of the two choices to make

Now it can be implemented in 2 ways. Either the fighter/bomber/gunship etc its a special mod like the invasion module/engines or add a new ship chassis that acts as carrier only. Personaly i like both ideas. Also fighters/bombers etc in order to have a reason to add them in combat, their are supposed to offer something that worths it and imo could be that they ignore shields or flack guns since they move fast and can approach the bigger ships to avoid their fire. And there comes the role of fighter that are supposed to intercept them before they can apporach and unleash their payload. The battle sequence for that can be like normal guns meaning fighters staying close to the fleet to protect it and move to intercept when the enemy approaches and maybe start shooting the big ships too in melee phase. Techs could also add more tactical use for them.

EvilTactician wrote:
It's a well detailed suggestions but personally I'd much rather see a proper implementation of carriers - complete with fighters/bombers/drones the player can design himself as well as point-defense weaponry and other game enhancements.



If they are brought in, I hope they vastly enhance the game by providing more differences in weaponry and defenses and not just do 'more of the same' so to speak.

This!



As long as we could customize them, I'm in!



If we could even choose what range the carriers have/ the range of the ships, it would be great



But the Flagship-idea is good too

I would make the argument that medium sized gunships (Like aircraft gunships, not boat gunships) able and designed to dodge enemy fire rather then wither it would replace large bombers.



Essentially bombers would be to large and have such poor acceleration that they would be more of a liability then an actual accent.



Large capital missiles need to be like they are because of flak, but smaller ones fired in volleys from gunships would be equivalent to the same size of kinetics or energy weapons.



And it is much more likely that ES deflector and energy shields wont protect against an upfront attack of statecraft, making strike craft avoid defences entirely in the face of dealing unmolested damage to enemy ships.



(But lest not get back into hypothetical discussions)



SO what I suggest is that these strikecraft be weapons designed to penetrate enemy defenses and slowly cut the enemy to death (Death by 1000 cuts), while being vulnerable to to defensive strikecraft, and Flak that has dealt with enemy capital missiles.

Hmm...I don't see the point of Bombers, then. Personally, I'd prefer to have bigger, harder hitting missiles for the money (and space) I would spend building the bomber, training the crew, supplying the smaller missiles, etc. Yes, I know that's more of a literal look than a game probably warrants, but it's how I look at additions to a game. Also, if these missiles are smaller, would they be worth using at long range? They would probably want to hit a more focused area to ensure greatest damage dealt. Firing them at longer distances would make it harder to ensure that is done, due to a variety of reasons. Saving them for later would allow you to fire more at the enemy and ensure they do their work.



I'm not sure if this is a workable comparison, but I think it kind of relates: Picture the naval battles of old. Would a ship fire grapeshot at range? No, probably not. The grapeshot would be saved until the ship was in closer, to ensure it caused as much destruction as possible on the enemy crew and sails. You could fire at longer ranges, but between the spread and the fact the enemy was moving, its effectiveness was greatly diminished. And if there existed specific defenses at the time for it, it would be even less effective.



I understand the set-up you're using, and it makes sense. I'm just wondering if it does so realistically. And yes, I know, applying realism to a video game could be considered stupid, but...Well, I like making sure things make sense. Blame the writer in me



And I know the difference between Fighter and Attacker, as we use them today. However, as those are distinctions of anti-air and anti-ground, they don't exactly apply to space combat. In almost all sci-fi I've read, the term "fighter" technically covers both your Attacker and Fighter category (and, in some cases, the Bomber as well). The Fighter category is usually described as an interceptor, as their job to to intercept oncoming enemy craft and destroy them.

I still think carriers would be the perfect addition to the battle card system.



Choosing when to deploy your fighters, interceptors, gunships, bombers and whatever craziness the next 300 years of fiction will bring us.



With advantages when countering the right deployment of these, or when focusing on enemy bomber launch bays with your flak to slaughter enemy craft.



Also strikecraft range isn't an issue because they close the distance right?

Now before you say "Oh this has been suggested" Yes I know. But none of the posts I found really go into -how- these would work. This is my Idea..





I believe Carriers could easily be implemented into the game, without wrecking the balance at all, but without making Carriers "essential" either. My Idea would allow them to be another choice for the player, whether they wanted to use it or not, while adding a new way you could play or build your fleet as well.



First however, lets look at how the game is essentially..



Essentially you have weapons that have both strengths, and weaknesses. As well as defenses for these. You also have tech which enhances each of these aspects as well as your ships.



That's pretty basic. But how do you Implement Carriers into something which again, is pretty balanced and smooth? By changing nothing, but still adding a new style of play. (If the player so chooses)







On the basic level Carriers would be no different than normal ships, with the same stats, etc. They would also have the same defenses.



The only different thing about them is: The weapons. Instead of having Lasers, Missiles, etc. They would have a style of "ship" instead.



Beam - Attackers

Missiles - Bombers

Kinetic - Fighters



These would be the weapon "types" these ships use. Each "ship" would have HP to them. However, They are effected by distance of battle.

Upgrading

Ok so we got the basics down, but what about upgrading? Upgrading would be essentially simple, and better yet for the devs, no additional research required! (Just a little tinkering on already existing ones).



Basically the research thats already there would also effect the ships the Carriers carry. If you upgrade Missiles, the Bombers are also boosted, Upgrade Beams, etc.



If you upgrade your ships carrying ability, that equally upgrades the Carriers ability to hold more ships inside it (or use up that space for additional defenses)



Like-wise, Anti Missile defensese, would also be usefull against enemy carrier based ships, the stronger your Anti Missiles are, the stronger your defense against enemy fighters, etc.



The research which ups the Health of your ships also ups the health of the fighters/attackers/bombers. Making them a little more durable in fights.

The 3 Ship types themselves:

Note: Remember

Attackers: Beams

Bombers: Missiles

Fighters: Kinetic



Long Range

Attackers: Not very effective, weapons at this range are inaccurate.

Bombers: Very effective, Missile barrages as effective as normal ships.

Fighters: No Damage Done. They do not leave the "space" within "close range"



Medium Range

Attackers: Most effective. Beams do the best damage. Slightly Susceptible to enemy Fighter counter.

Bombers: Less Effective. Very Susceptible to enemy Fighter counter due to their slowness, more easily shot down. Missiles do less damage.

Fighters: Able to easily counter Enemy Bombers, Attackers are a little more resilient to fighter attacks. (Example: Since Attackers are faster than bombers, they get a slight boost in defense vs fighters, if no bombers exist)



Short Range

Attackers: Effective, but not quite as effective. Susceptible to Enemy ships counter fire, and enemy fighters. (Flak guns on normal ships AKA Anti Missile weapons also effect All Fighters/Bombers/Attackers)

Bombers: Very weak, prime target for both Enemy Flak and Fighters. Missiles do lowest damage.

Fighters: Strongest, Able to focus bombers quickly and easily, and help main ships take down Attackers. Fighters weapons also damage enemy ships at close range.(If no more enemy fighters/bombers/Attackers exist)



Note:

Attackers get a slight boost in defense against fighters for balance reasons. Since Attackers are essentially faster and able to dodge fighter attacks. However at close range, despite the slight defense boost against enemy fighters, they are still torn up by enemy Flak (Anti Missile defense)

The Fight Itself

For my last bit I'll answer a question you probably have; "Ok this may sound doable but how will it actually work?"



Fair question. Which I'll answer.



Each Distance (Long, medium, short) is a new "Wave" of these ships. How many are released depends on how many you've decided to put on your Carrier when making the ship.



As a wave is released, the ships do what their supposed to do. When the Wave is over, they return. Due to their faster speed they can continue to the mothership even as a new wave is "released". By the end of the battle during the last count down when everything is being processed you may see some ships returning to the mothership.



Essentially your decision of how many ships to put on your carrier is entirely up to you, and wouldnt be much different from your choices of which weapons you put on your normal ships. The only difference is the new factor "Fighters" take in the battle in being able to counter enemy carrier based ships at medium to short range.

Side Notes

-Each Fighter/Bomber/Attacker would cost about 1/4th of a normal weapon on a ship. (Due to the fact that they can be lost in battle, and not all are released per wave)



-A 1/3rd of each ship would be released per wave, that way more of the ship type you want released, would be released each wave



-Fighters/Bombers/Attackers are only effected by Enemy ships Flak (Anti Missile defense), at Close Range



-Fighters/Bombers/Attackers are effected by Enemy Fighters at Medium/Close Ranges.



-Carrier held ships (the ships inside the Carrier) are automatically replenished after a few turns.

This can lead to new tactics in defense, such as attacking an enemy fleet in waves to dwindle down their Carrier held ships, and also make you wary of protecting your own Carriers



-A slight boost to the speed of Carrier based ships replenishment for "repair" support modules, each turn.



-Engineer Skill ability in battle would also replenish some HP to Carrier based ships.







And Lastly, -maybe- a new hero ability for in battles, which would cost Dust. Called "Reinforcements" which would replenish your Carriers ships, or a certain % of their ships at the beginning of that turn.



This Ability would allow you to perhaps get out of a very sticky situation, like multiple attacks on your Carrier, possibly buying you time to get away without losing the whole fleet, but would also not allow it to be abused due to the price.

I'll spare you my arguments against fighters (I'm sure Nos would kill me if I brought that can of worms back up), so, just this:



I don't see how Bombers would be effective at long range, but Attackers not. After all, a Bomber should have to (theoretically, in all the example of space fighters I can think of), still fly in fairly close to the enemy fleet to deploy its payload. If they're getting that close, Attackers should be within range to to something as well. Also, I just feel iffy about having any kind of fighter launched at long range. It would be a suicide run, I think, for a wave of craft to engage an enemy fleet without their own fleet being able to effectively back them up. The enemy fleet would have their big ships ready to target the fighter craft, as well as their own fighters flying around in defense.



At least, that is how I picture long range: the fleets really only being in effective missile range, not effective gun range, so the support they would be able to lend their craft would be minimal. And fighters almost always need support of some kind.



Other than that, nothing else is really troubling me. I'll let the idea roll around in my head for a bit...I would recommend renaming your "Fighters" to "Interceptors" or something along those lines, to fit their role better. Just a suggestion.

Igncom1 wrote:
An interesting proposal indeed, but with the way combat works in ES it might become rather complicated very fast.



But interesting none the less (Not to my personal preferences as towards my own suggestion, but good work none the less)

It may seem complicated, but I assure you its not as complicated as it seems on paper trying to explain it. From how I am picturing it in my head it'd still be rather simple and easy enough to understand compared to everything else in the ES combat.

An interesting proposal indeed, but with the way combat works in ES it might become rather complicated very fast.



But interesting none the less (Not to my personal preferences as towards my own suggestion, but good work none the less)

I thought I explained it pretty well LOL.

squadrons of strike crafts basically function as modules on the strategic level and as additional ships in combat.

Nerdfish wrote:
/#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12597-strike-crafts-and-carriers

Nice idea but ...

I beat you to it

Yes I did see this, but like I stated in the first few lines of my original post: Now before you say "Oh this has been suggested" Yes I know. But none of the posts I found really go into -how- these would work. This is my Idea..



Your idea doesn't explain how it can be implemented into the system which is already in this game. Nor do you explain exactly how each craft would work, their strengths, weaknesses, etc.



Nice Idea but.. yours needs to be thought out a lot more. And falls into my very first line of my original post.

/#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12597-strike-crafts-and-carriers

Nice idea but ...

I beat you to it

http://forums.amplitude-studios.com/...Implementation.



Another discussion on the implementation of strikecraft, if your interested.

EvilTactician wrote:
It's a well detailed suggestions but personally I'd much rather see a proper implementation of carriers - complete with fighters/bombers/drones the player can design himself as well as point-defense weaponry and other game enhancements.



If they are brought in, I hope they vastly enhance the game by providing more differences in weaponry and defenses and not just do 'more of the same' so to speak.

I would as well, but the game is already released, and the chances of the dev team doing that is slimmer, than using a system which is already in the game itself.

With this method they can bring to the table something new, and something big, while still allowing them to focus on multiple other updates as well.



If you wanted to make carriers a little more "different" you could perhaps add the ability of a 4th new "ship" type, that helps in planetary take over? This "Type" of ship only works for taking systems over, but it would make Carriers multi classed.



Or another random Idea.. Allow Carriers to "boost" the fleet in some way? Sorta like a Flagship.

This looks like a great idea.

It's a well detailed suggestions but personally I'd much rather see a proper implementation of carriers - complete with fighters/bombers/drones the player can design himself as well as point-defense weaponry and other game enhancements.



If they are brought in, I hope they vastly enhance the game by providing more differences in weaponry and defenses and not just do 'more of the same' so to speak.