Star trek had shuttles, but not fighter craft.



While we did have at lest 2 different discussions on the topic of sci fi and fighters, it was essentially agreed that because Amplitude want to do them we should find a way of incorporating them into the game in the most logical way.



I am a fan of using drone fighters, or possibly brain controlled fighters if you think along the lines of hacking to disable the drones.



Along with a discussion thread a while ago, I stated that I would want fighters to deployed via battle cards, leveling up the cards when you have more hangers to support them.

Hi,

I wish not a card, but a support module to boarding and figther/bomber hangar module.

And would be especially nice modifications of weapons.

- shild piercing,

- armor piercing,

- cruw stun

That would be a great way of doing it

You could scale it well with tech too, first few advances the munitions and armour they can carry, next few levels can turn them into remote control drones, so they can be smaller which would increase numbers then better munitions and finally intelligent strike craft, AI drones

Well cards are the duration of a phase, with each phase having 4 rounds.



A bombing run or boarding assault would probably do done 4 times in this phase, with ships having at least 4 strikecraft in the phase being able to cycle its craft for each of the rounds in order to reduce the possibility of flak killing them in 1 go.



If you would like, you could have modules affect these cards, by adding more shuttle and statecraft bays and the like, you could have more craft per round to do what they do over the entire phase.



Have a hanger module, that allows ships to use these cards when on a ship within the fleet, each hanger provides 4 craft for the battle, and when deployed via a card these craft are evenly divided into each round in order to spread the damage out over a fleet and so prevent overkill. Craft killed in a round won't be available for another phase, meaning that these craft can become drained during a battle due to defenses, and defensive cards that specialize in killing them.



More hanger modules in the fleet, more craft per round!

Cards for boarding ships and deployable craft would definitely seem logical.

But how would you define the duration of them, fuel and munitions can only last so long on small craft and rapid strikes via boarding ships/torpedo's can only go on so long before the aims(attacking bridge, destabilising defences for examples) are either achieved or become non feasible and they would have to retreat(either the boarding shuttle can retreat or stealing shuttles for hilarity? Or of course they can be wiped out, but thats different)

from me too

CRAY MISSILES?







Macross Missile Massacre!

I strongly support fightercraft, boarding/privateers, and these cray missles

Close enough!



Gunship aircraft and flying mech's would also be cool, Its got to be big enough to pack the punch to blow up enemy engines and gun ports and the like and be large enough to eaisly move in a low gravity vacuum (Big ass engines)

If you dont like fighters then add macross style fighters/mechs for dual roles



If fighters ever make it in the game would love to see that kind of diversity

Ahh.



I guess these follow the logic that fighters aren't really 1 or 2 people craft but are more like gunboats or small corvettes.



Not a bad idea, and certainly makes more scientific sense then a small 1 guy pod flying through space.

Star trek most definitely used fighters, although they were mostly confined to DS9 as that was the only series you got to see proper full scale war in that far flung future

uhhh http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Federation_attack_fighter /star trek wiki for the fighters i was mentioning

actual example of them in one of the episodes(no i don't know which, but I quickly skimmed through youtube and this was appropriate) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbGs93JFfb0

Having a Module that enables a Battle Card "Boarding action" could be fun. Shuttles would launch after Card is selected, Once per Fleet Battle. Chance to damage or capture an enemy ship, could be defended against by anti-missile systems (at decreased efficiency due to higher "HP" of Shuttles). Risk could be added in that your ships stop targeting the enemy being boarded, so if the boarding action fails, the target ship is in better condition than if you had attacked normally.



Module that enables a battle card "Fast Missiles". Decrease transit time from launch to impact by 1 round (does not increase re-fire rate). This would allow you to potentially destroy enemy ships a round sooner, eliminating a little incoming damage.



Hangar Module that adds fighters or bombers to a ship. Fighters would launch in the Arrival phase and could be directed to intercept incoming fighters or harass enemy fleet. Defended against by anti-missile systems (at decreased efficiency due to fighter maneuvers). Bombers would add to Invasion strength, launch during the Arrival Phase, transit to the enemy fleet in 4 rounds and persist there, dealing damage every round. Every round they would be subjected to anti-missile fire and enemy fighters.

Star Trek had the small transport ships, lots and lots of small transport ships. And, assuming my seven ranks in Nerd Lore still apply, as I remember in BSG at least they began using fighters as they weren't something that could be easily hacked and were more effective than fire-and-forget ballistics.



Don't forget Farscape and Babylon 5 on that list.

Did you just say star trek in that list! :l

1alexey - Your post is well thought out, logical and interesting, but I think you miss a point! The game is science-fantasy and space opera, with fighter squadrons a staple of the genre. They might allow different cultural builds and diversity - Carriers as a new type of hull?



It's just as important for new content to be exciting and cool, and different from what's already in the game. I'm sure the Dev team and player base all draw from similar geeky source material; Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Trek, Space:Above and Beyond. All these shows and movies would lose so much if they didn't have fighter ships.



I hope I can convince you =)

I think the current battles are in a good spot, and with a bit of polish and balancing will become great.



I don't think trying to push for the battles toward Homeworld series style of space combat would be good for the game. Homeworld was an awesome (heck still is) space RTS with very good rock / paper / scissor units.



You can't add stuff in game (even in the form of a battle card) without adding something to counter it to make it balanced. Which diminishes the options for players when building their fleets or choosing what cards to play. I have to have this or I will get stomped, I have to play this card no matter what other cards I have, because if he plays his bombers card and I don't counter it, I am screwed. I don't like this, I would love for them to expand on more customization and liberty when choosing ship design / fleet composition / battle cards, to actually fit them to your playstyle (some are very aggressive, glass cannon like, others prefer mix of ofense / defense, others prefer to turtle it up with defenses as much as possible etc) and everything to be viable.



As long as there are no immunities in game (granted by stacked defenses, cards or hero actions) everything can work and the game would be more fun - IMHO. Fine so you love missiles while I love beam weapons. So we're about to fight and you stack on missiles and shields to counter my beam weapons, I stack on flacks and beams and we face off. Both defenses should mitigate / reduce a portion (even if significant one, but maybe only up to 50% at max value) of the damage, but never annihilate completely the weapon type they were designed to counter. So they both deal damage, even if reduced one, and here comes the fleet composition, tonnage, ship and hero experiences and skills into action. And battle cards should give a slight bonus - enough to make them worthwhile and fun to use, but not give a decisive headon advantage. For example if I'm using missiles, hell I have to make sure that the card I pick will counter chameleon (as this will be most likely used by enemy if he got flaks) or my missiles will never hit a thing - this is not ok.

Totally discounting the tactical advantage earned by being able to attack an enemy position from multiple angles, thereby spreading out their defence.



Your copy-pasta has been judged, and found wanting.

When might Space Fighters NOT be practical?



Long-range missiles are a viable alternative.

In real life, long-range missiles are an increasingly important part of warfare; the same may be true in space. Instead of fighters, large spacecraft could simply launch robotic missiles at each other from great range. These would have a few advantages over fighters. For starters, a missile doesn't need to make a return trip (or indeed decelerate relative to its target at all), which means it can either carry much less fuel (making it smaller and lighter) or it can carry the same amount of fuel, but use it for manoeuvres that a fighter could not afford to make. The missile could also accelerate more rapidly, both for this reason and because it wouldn't carry a pilot that could lose consciousness from excessive G-forces. All this can combine to make the missile harder for point defenses to hit — it could give the enemy less time to react as it approaches, evade point-defense fire more effectively, and present a smaller target. Unlike an Attack Drone (see below), a missile would not necessarily need advanced AI or remote control. It would simply have to track a target, accelerate towards it, and perhaps make some randomized evasive manoeuvres to try and dodge point-defense fire. A missile could also be cheaper than a fighter or an Attack Drone, meaning that more could be deployed — also making the job harder for point-defense systems. It may still be much easier for the enemy to shoot down missiles in space than it would be on Earth — greater distances mean more warning and more time to react, and no horizon or real limit on the range of point defense weapons means more chances to take the missile out. However, depending on the way Space Fighters would be used in the setting, they may suffer from the same weaknesses to an even greater extent (see above) — their one advantage would be if they could engage the enemy from a range great enough to make dodging defensive fire possible, while missiles obviously would not have this option.



Missles launched from ships already Exist in game.



Everything Space Fighters can do something else can do better.

While there are advantages as well as disadvantages to space fighters when directly compared to larger ships, a good look at the concept from the very base upwards is necessary. The first question shouldn't be "What advantage does a fighter have over a big ship?" but "What can a space fighter do?". Because we're talking about military ships here, the answer is generally to bring some sort of weapon payload (bullets, lasers, blaster bolts, missiles, bombs) in contact with a target. But the conditions of combat in space make fighters pointless for that. On planet, fighters are needed to extend the range of whatever deploys them (an airforce base or a carrier). If the base were to shoot the guns or the missiles that a fighter carries directly, it wouldn't have nearly the range that a fighter can achieve. The horizon on planet prevents direct targeting beyond a limited range. The friction of the air slows down bullets and missiles so they drop to the ground short of the target when they have been slowed down enough or their fuel has run out respectively. The engines and shape of an fighter allow far more efficient travel in atmosphere than those of a missile (or bomb or bullet).

Not so in space. There is no horizon, so everything can be targeted directly. There is no friction, so ranges are not limited. There is no aerodynamic design, so missiles are far more effective than fighters. For comparison: if one were to use a missile that is the same size as the fighter i.e. using the same engine and same amount of fuel, it would have four times the range of a fighter, because the fighters needs a lot of fuel to brake and return to base again. So, unlike in an atmosphere, where mounting missiles on a fighter extends the effective range of the warheads, in space it would seriously limit it.

As for guns, those are even less effective. Unless there is some sort of magical technology at play that makes 5 tons of gun components, propellant and bullets somehow capable of more destruction than just 5 tons of warhead (not the case with real physics) then carrying a small gun close to a target to shoot it is a colossal waste of time.

Targeting is another thing that potentially looks like a reason for fighters to exist. But it is again not the case. Getting closer to the target does exactly the same thing as using a bigger lens (because there is no horizon) so the bigger lens wins. (does not get closer to danger, doesn't need refuelling, etc.)

Intercepting incoming missiles works pretty much the same as launching attacking missiles, attaching a space fighter makes it worse, not better.

In the end, while one can point out plenty of advantages that a space fighter has over a larger ship (in a universe with real physics), there just is no task that a space fighter is best suited to perform. Either a bigger ship will outperform several small fighters, or one or several missiles will outperform one fighter.



from

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/SpaceFighter





Unless the lore and battle system are fundamentally changed, there simply is no space for fighters in ES.

I think the missiles card effect is too weak. I think it would be OK to also give it a slight extra punch, like 5 or 10%.



Fighters/Bombers:

The suggestion are mostly good:

Fighters vs. fighters are mano-a-mano

Fighters would counter bombers, i.e. bombers would be shot down quickly by the fighters.

PDS (point-defense-system, called anti-missile in-game) would be able to shoot down fighters and bombers.

My additions to the suggestion:

Fighters should be able to do reasonable damage to smaller ships, but very little to large ones such as dreadnoughts - perhaps a -10/-50/-90% damage scale according to size.

Conversely, bombers should have a harder time hitting the smaller targets (-70/-30%).