Kalis wrote:
Think of this;



If you spam strikecraft that can damage my ships, all I need to do is spam interceptors and use guns. Strikecraft cannot prevent guns from attacking, and my interceptors don't need to attack your ships, just the fighters. Bombers, gunships and fighters would be useless, as I only need to use interceptors to counter them, and I have the ship weapons to deal damage without fighters involved. Even if I cannot damage with interceptors, my weapons would be enough, not to mention I also have the flak to counter whatever fighters have survived. This would mean that in order to prevent fighter attack, you must willingly draw the match and not risk getting caught empty handed; I must have interceptors, you must have interceptors.



In a fleet to fleet battle, no side would want fighters running through the gauntlet, so both sides will always have interceptors. In fact it may just go down to interceptors; the other strikecraft will be ignored due to the need to defend from other strikecraft. So no one would risk having anything else than interceptors, just as not many would risk having no glass cannon destroyer fleets in the game; necessity to survive and win trumping the game mechanics and design. Therefore, on paper based on the game's mechanics, it sounds good. But if you're in a fleet fight, do you want to take the risk of thinking the enemy has no fighters? No you would not. Therefore interceptors become a priority and the other fighters aren't worth taking the risks. It doesn't matter if you didn't have other fighters, what matters is their fighters didn't do damage.

That is assuming of course that my fleet would try to us hangers at all.



However I suggest a change, by making either bombers or gunships invulnerable to interceptors.



That way interceptors wound not be a fix all counter, as they would be unable to counter one of the anti-ship strikecraft types.

"I don't understand, did you read my original post?



The cards would become more effective with more hangers, so i your hangers get better, and your ships get more tonnage then you would get much better strikecraft.

your main guns."



It becomes purely a hangar to hangar fight, and I would just counter with interceptors, forcing a draw, and using my guns and shields to do the work against your ships.

Effectively strikecraft would become pointless as we would both resort to using normal weapons?



Thus my new suggestion above.

"And I am not sure what you mean by 'fixed', you get better versions of them, and if you have more of the module the cards get better, where as the offensive cards won't get better."



If you have 10 hangar modules I'll just counter with 10 hangar modules of interceptors, and at full tech nothing happens. It's a forced draw. As you open up with fighters and offensive cards I'll open up with interceptors and defensive cards to take out gunships. Therefore, this forces the player to overlook the other strikecrafts.



Since they're value is fixed with tech and not modifiable by any means, it's just stack versus stack.

The same can be said about all of the games modules at that level, and most games never even get to end game tech like that without one player being in a state of already having won.

I like the defense frigate idea, although I think that extending defense modules to other ships is a bad idea overall. I feel like finding ways to spread damage over glass cannon fleets is a better way to go. It would also lead into a better way of dealing with strikecraft, when implemented. But that is a discussion for another thread. My idea for strikecraft implementation below:



For Strikecraft, I think it is important to have a module that provides capacity for strikecraft hulls. Include new hull designs, Carrier, and strikecraft. Strikecraft would be customizable, but to a different extent than standard ships. Carriers would get a tonnage bonus for hanger modules. There would be different classes of strikecraft, but it would be similar to the existing ship hull model, tonnage amounts, HPs, hanger capacity, and module discounts.



Basically, hanger modules would provide an increasing capacity bonus to housing strikecraft. They would also have a launch rate, and the ability to recover and rebuild x number of strikecraft from space scrap. Each phase, a certain number of strikecraft can leave the hanger and stay in the fight. Battle cards could be added that boost the number of strikecraft launched, amount of damage strikecraft do, defense, etc.



Strikecraft would be hulls, but have much smaller tonnage and not cost CPs, only hanger capacity on a carrier they are assigned to, otherwise they are stuck in the hanger of the system they are built in. Once assigned to a carrier, they reside in the carrier, therefore engine modules are irrelevant to them. If a strikecraft is destroyed in an engagement, it is out until after the battle, at which point, destroyed strikecraft could be recovered by the hanger modules on a carrier and reassembled for fighting in the next battle. Possible modules to equip would be weapon modules, defense modules, and support: power modules. Weapon modules and defense modules would be tweaked for installation on strikecraft. Lower tonnage reqs, lower damage, lower defense values Basically, when designing a strikecraft hull, you would see specific strikecraft weapon, defense, and supportower modules that follow the same progression as your regular ship modules.



Battle specifics. Strikecraft would be handled uniquely, however there would be some notable differences. They would have an inherent dodge defense built in that would reduce the chance of ship fire hitting them. Otherwise, they would use whatever modules you put on them to the best of their ability. The other important thing to note, is that the strikecraft, when launched, will engage at their optimal range until destroyed or end of combat. This would mean that a strikecraft with missiles will fire from the equivalent of long range at all times, strikecraft equipped with beams will engage from medium, and strikecraft equipped with kinetics engage in close. Strikecraft will prioritize other strikecraft before hitting ships. If a carrier is destroyed in battle, it's strikecraft are not able to be recovered and will be lost.



Those are my ideas, not sure how easy or hard it would be to implement this kind of design.

"That might come back to bite you when people start using ships with nothing but defenses to shield glass cannons from any damage."



That would reduce their overall damage, as if someone uses glass cannons with frigates, I will counter with battleships and frigates; the glass cannons will have it harder.



Let's say they have neutrino pulsion and multi shielding; I counter with neutrino capture and multi shielding, not to mention my battleships have more shields, so that's pretty much even. Well not exactly as since they have frigates on the enemy fleet, overall firepower is reduced.



Things come down to the fleet defense modules in the opposing frigates.



I'd put Soft Kill, Systems Hacking and Gravity Shells. If there's still space I'd put Jammer Arrays.



Glass Cannons are nothing if they can't hit anything, so all one needs to do is redirect the attacks and prevent attacks.



Not to mention that fighters are still out of the equation; whether it be your strikecrafts or my fighters, fighters will be the bane of glass cannons.



Basically saying, frigates are the weapons of an admiral; use them well, and your fleets will be well defended.



----



Based on what I learned here I am actually thinking of redesigning the frigate; it's still stuck to its anti-fighter role. I might as well redesign it to become true defender regardless of what it faces.

Provides fleet defenses.



That might come back to bite you when people start using ships with nothing but defenses to shield glass cannons from any damage.

In any case, Multishielding is better than Multitargeting.

An interesting ship, dedicated in its anti-fighter role it would serve your suggestion well.



However as a general defensive ship multi-targeting is very, very bad because you don't want to split up your attack if you are struggling to deal with enemy defenses.



It does however work for battle ships, allowing them to help deal with glass cannons.

Although some of it's most important features, Multi targeting, is lacking a function due to the your fighters, if my fighters were the fighters we have, these ships would be a perfect counter.



Multitargeting can then be modified to(according to your scenarios),



Multishield:

Defence Modules screen other ships(3 ships baseline)

-this effectively puts the frigate back to it's defender role, since it's defence modules defend other ships as well.



The Advanced Targeting Systems Module would then become,



Advanced Defensive Systems Module:

-this module alone give plus one to multishield, which means a battleships with this module can defend two targets. Frigates should have a tonnage reduction with this module.

No, in my post, I designed fighters and frigates



Frigates are dedicated defense ships, whose priority is the defense of the entire fleet. It was one of my suggestions besides my fighters and fighter wings.



I'll repost it here, to clarify what my frigate are



--



The Frigate!



450 Hitpoints

100 tonnage

30 production

Multitargeting weapons(3 targets baseline)

Requires 1 Hyperium

1 Command Point



What is special about this ship? What's the difference between the destroyer, the corvette and THIS frigate?

The destroyer is an aggressive ship, an attacker.

The corvette is a scouting workhorse, with fast feet and a wrench.

The frigate is a stalwart ship, a defender.



Now now, it's not the same with a battleship; battleships have high armor to brawl with other ships. Frigates on the other hand, serve to protect the entire fleet, not just itself. In short, it's not a knight in shining armor; it's a fencer, a duelist, excelling in the role of preventing attacks, denying attacks, redirecting attacks, and countering the opponents strengths. If the battleships defend with muscles, frigates defend with intellect and intuition; attacks are halted before they begin, and when they do begin, it's not effective.



The biggest offering of the frigate to defense is that it can attack multiple targets. And now you know why this ship counters fighters effectively. A frigate can target 3 targets in one turn, however, a frigate's firepower is weak compared to the destroyer. Therefore it lacks the punch the destroyer has to effectively hurt the larger ships such as battleships and dreadnoughts. But a frigate can stand up to a destroyer if necessary, but that's not what the frigate is for. A destroyer can destroy, but it cannot protect it's friends.



Pros:

Multitargeting

Low production cost



Cons:

Hyperium requirement

Weaker firepower compared to the destroyer



Effective against:

Corvettes

Fighters



Less effective against:

Destroyers



Weak against:

Cruisers

Battleships

Dreadnoughts



Suggested Support Modules:

Advanced Targeting Systems Module - this module alone give plus one to targeting, which means a battleships with this module can attack two targets. Frigates should have a tonnage reduction with this module.

Jammer Array Module - this module removes one attack from a unit; if one unit has a kinetics weapon module that fires four times, when faced with a ship with jammer module it can only fire three times. This module affects one random unit, and that random unit has all weapons affected, which means if all it's missile modules can only fire once per round, it will not fire at all. The amount of jammers determine how many times a weapon module is jammed. Two jammers mean a missile that fires two times cannot fire at all. Frigates should have a tonnage reduction with this module.

Targeting Array Module - this module reduces the effectiveness of the defenses of a unit, therefore making it vulnerable to the weapons of the entire fleet. Frigates should have a tonnage reduction with this module.

Soft Kill Module - this module reduces the chance to hit of the entire enemy fleet. Frigates should have a tonnage reduction with this module.

Systems Hacking Module - this module interferes with the fleet bonuses of the enemy fleet. Frigates should have a tonnage reduction with this module.

Gravity Shells - Each phase of the battle this module fires shells which explode between the two fleets, creating a gravity distortion that has a chance to alter the trajectory of enemy weapons. This is different from the Soft Kill Module which affects the enemy ship's chance to hit; gravity shells affect the projectile and not the ship. However, they greater the accuracy of the enemy ship, the lesser the chance gravity shells will affect the outcome.

Kalis wrote:


Exactly; though this puts pressure on the fighter strikecraft, it would make it interesting as fighters strikecraft become the keystone strikecraft; everything depends on how you use the fighter in conjunction to other strikecraft you created. This now makes all the other strikecraft important.

Indeed.

You wouldn't risk having no combat craft; just because you don't have hangers doesn't mean your opponent would not. The changes you made were necessary so that there wouldn't be a counter-all strikecraft. Like I said, no one wants to be empty handed. There's no assurance that the enemy doesn't have what you don't have, due to the lack of espionage and intelligence factors in the game.

I guess, but with enough flak and good card choices, I fully intend to support players who do not want to use strikecraft at all.

This, is one of the reasons behind my fighter and earlier fighter wing designs; a modifiable fighter negates any existing stalemate. But a fighter too flexible and too many would be too powerful, and thus I made the frigate as a defensive ship.

There aren't any frigates.......so you have confused me.



Anyway, I would suggest there there be as many hanger modules as most other weapon modules (Being that hangers counters hangers) so around 8 or 9 should do it, allowing players to choose how much they should develop strikecraft classes.

"However I suggest a change, by making either bombers or gunships invulnerable to interceptors.



That way interceptors wound not be a fix all counter, as they would be unable to counter one of the anti-ship strikecraft types."



Exactly; though this puts pressure on the fighter strikecraft, it would make it interesting as fighters strikecraft become the keystone strikecraft; everything depends on how you use the fighter in conjunction to other strikecraft you created. This now makes all the other strikecraft important.



"That is assuming of course that my fleet would try to us hangers at all."



You wouldn't risk having no combat craft; just because you don't have hangers doesn't mean your opponent would not. The changes you made were necessary so that there wouldn't be a counter-all strikecraft. Like I said, no one wants to be empty handed. There's no assurance that the enemy doesn't have what you don't have, due to the lack of espionage and intelligence factors in the game.



"The same can be said about all of the games modules at that level, and most games never even get to end game tech like that without one player being in a state of already having won."



This, is one of the reasons behind my fighter and earlier fighter wing designs; a modifiable fighter negates any existing stalemate. But a fighter too flexible and too many would be too powerful, and thus I made the frigate as a defensive ship.

Kalis wrote:
It'll just come down to interceptors, flak and defensive cards.



EDIT



Either that, or I use cards that prevent the use of offensive cards thereby leaving my interceptors untouched other than flak.

In this suggestion, you can go for interceptor cards or the counter to offensive cards, but not both at the same time.

Taken from a discussion i had with fellow members of the forum i have created a method strike-craft could be implemented into the game. https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11335-discussion-strikecraft-implementation



Strike-craft would be implemented via modules a player puts aboard his ships, then activated via combat cards, the more modules in a given fleet, the greater effect of the card. These cards would have a large variance as you would expect, but their main function is to actually do damage to enemy ships (Being able to avoid deflectors and shields) in any way they seem fit, however each carrier module would only have about 1/4 the damage that a normal weapon in its phase would have, the difference being that the strike-craft would never be impeded by direct defenses, only the ships HP.



Strike-craft should be divided into these category's:



Bombers hitting with strong one shot weapons but being vulnerable to fighters, interceptors and flak.



Gunships attack with weaker but rapid firing weapons, vulnerable to fighters, Interceptors, flak and defensive cards.



Fighters attack bombers and gunships, can draw with fighters, vulnerable to interceptors, flak and offensive cards.



Interceptors attack all other strike-craft except other interceptors who they draw with, and cannot attack bombers, vulnerable to Flak and offensive cards.



Specialty strike-craft would lose their main attacking ability in exchange of their unique ability, but would retain their designation (i.e Boarding Gunships, Bombardment bombers, Replicator Fighters.) Fleets using strike-craft could drain their supply of the cards over the course of a turn, but refresh them every turn.



I don't see strike-craft having actual HP, but being more dependent on what flak uses, interception. I believe missiles only have to account for Flak one a phase (not being shot down on the way) and thus would have the once use advantage over strike-craft, however in numbers and with a high evasion, higher then most missiles, strike-craft could survive an entire phase of multiplier rounds destroying them. (Looks cool), this of course meaning fighters and interceptors (I'm sure some gunships and bombers could also have interception) can shoot down missiles, possibly leaving missiles far to easy to shoot down right? well i actually think this could leave missiles wide open to unique diversity, with multi-launch mods, MIRV tactics and super heavy torpedoes of death. All in all bringing much diversity and strategy into ES, lessen the focus on (Better technology? you win) kinda wars.



Many have suggested modifying the dreadnaught hull to give a bonus to this module, and i slightly agree.



I hope you all enjoy my proposal. Any if anyone has additional ideas or questions, please post below.



Edit: Changed the interceptor balance to ensure the other strike craft are useable.

It'll just come down to interceptors, flak and defensive cards.



EDIT



Either that, or I use cards that prevent the use of offensive cards thereby leaving my interceptors untouched other than flak.

Think of this;



If you spam strikecraft that can damage my ships, all I need to do is spam interceptors and use guns. Strikecraft cannot prevent guns from attacking, and my interceptors don't need to attack your ships, just the fighters. Bombers, gunships and fighters would be useless, as I only need to use interceptors to counter them, and I have the ship weapons to deal damage without fighters involved. Even if I cannot damage with interceptors, my weapons would be enough, not to mention I also have the flak to counter whatever fighters have survived. This would mean that in order to prevent fighter attack, you must willingly draw the match and not risk getting caught empty handed; I must have interceptors, you must have interceptors.



In a fleet to fleet battle, no side would want fighters running through the gauntlet, so both sides will always have interceptors. In fact it may just go down to interceptors; the other strikecraft will be ignored due to the need to defend from other strikecraft. So no one would risk having anything else than interceptors, just as not many would risk having no glass cannon destroyer fleets in the game; necessity to survive and win trumping the game mechanics and design. Therefore, on paper based on the game's mechanics, it sounds good. But if you're in a fleet fight, do you want to take the risk of thinking the enemy has no fighters? No you would not. Therefore interceptors become a priority and the other fighters aren't worth taking the risks. It doesn't matter if you didn't have other fighters, what matters is their fighters didn't do damage.



"I don't understand, did you read my original post?



The cards would become more effective with more hangers, so i your hangers get better, and your ships get more tonnage then you would get much better strikecraft.

your main guns."



It becomes purely a hangar to hangar fight, and I would just counter with interceptors, forcing a draw, and using my guns and shields to do the work against your ships.



"And I am not sure what you mean by 'fixed', you get better versions of them, and if you have more of the module the cards get better, where as the offensive cards won't get better."



If you have 10 hangar modules I'll just counter with 10 hangar modules of interceptors, and at full tech nothing happens. It's a forced draw. As you open up with fighters and offensive cards I'll open up with interceptors and defensive cards to take out gunships. Therefore, this forces the player to overlook the other strikecrafts.



Since they're value is fixed with tech and not modifiable by any means, it's just stack versus stack.

Kalis wrote:


Then the game will become an interceptor spam.

Errr how? Interceptors can't damage enemy ships. and are vulnerable to flak and offensive cards.

It again becomes an interceptor spam.

Flak and cards are good, but it doesn't answer that people will just use interceptors.

It would lead to another mono fighter design.

I still don't see how, if you are just going to spam interceptor cards, then I would just counter them, or ignore them as they cannot do any damage to ships.

Very good idea. But this would leave them fixed, and therefore easily countered in the future since there are no modifiers for them that gives them a chance to be useful at full tech; the ships can adjust but the fighters cannot.

I don't understand, did you read my original post?



The cards would become more effective with more hangers, so i your hangers get better, and your ships get more tonnage then you would get much better strikecraft.

your main guns."

I disagree with kinetics being useless against fighters, as kinetics are the fastest projectiles we have and they fire by salvos of many. Beams likely, missiles of course try swatting down a fly with a mallet, but kinetics have a chance.



(And since you mentioned they're weaker than offensive cards)that is why I disagree with the idea that they cannot be modified. Since they're fixed, they are easily countered.

Kinetics cannot shoot down missiles, and so will never shoot down a strikecraft.



That's from the game mechanics, and has nothing to do with logic, I have applied my strikecraft suggestion to work like the missiles and not like actual ships.



And I am not sure what you mean by 'fixed', you get better versions of them, and if you have more of the module the cards get better, where as the offensive cards won't get better.

"Either other interceptors for a draw or offensive cards, and as per usual flak modules can shoot the interceptors down."



Then the game will become an interceptor spam.



"Bombers do heavy damage, but a very easy to counter and shoot down

Gunships are harder to shoot down, and are better countered by fighters or interceptors, but gunships do small amounts of damage over time."



It again becomes an interceptor spam.



"Flack modules, offensive cards and other strikecraft."



Flak and cards are good, but it doesn't answer that people will just use interceptors.



"They ignore ship defenses and attack the hull, and of course the fighters and interceptors shoot down other strike craft."



It would lead to another mono fighter design.



"They would be using the latest technology available, but their role isn't the same as a ship, they are intended to be able to swarm enemy ships producing the result of death by a thousand cuts.



Upgrading them would require you to equip more advanced hangers, giving you access to better strikecraft cards, that produce more damage and are harder to shoot down."



Very good idea. But this would leave them fixed, and therefore easily countered in the future since there are no modifiers for them that gives them a chance to be useful at full tech; the ships can adjust but the fighters cannot.



"However the capital missiles that your ships usually fire are much larger then these strikecraft, so a single shot by flak will kill them, shooting your main guns at them would be a wasted effort as their maneuverability would allow them to avoid the larger weapons like kinetics and beams.



In this suggestion, my fighters have heath in the same way that missiles do, via the ability to avoid being interspersed by flak and enemy fighters and interceptors.



Further more these cards will be universally weak to offensive cards, as the increased enemy fire would damage the craft as they exit the hanger, so in reality they are being hit by your main guns."



I disagree with kinetics being useless against fighters, as kinetics are the fastest projectiles we have and they fire by salvos of many. Beams likely, missiles of course try swatting down a fly with a mallet, but kinetics have a chance.



(And since you mentioned they're weaker than offensive cards)that is why I disagree with the idea that they cannot be modified. Since they're fixed, they are easily countered.

Kalis wrote:
I do have a disagreement with this,



First is, what counters the interceptors?

Either other interceptors for a draw or offensive cards, and as per usual flak modules can shoot the interceptors down.

Second, what is the purpose of the variations between the strikecraft? Is there a specific reason, a justifiable need for many variations between the classes?

Bombers do heavy damage, but a very easy to counter and shoot down

Gunships are harder to shoot down, and are better countered by fighters or interceptors, but gunships do small amounts of damage over time.

Third, to balance the game, where is the counter to the strikecraft you propose?

Flack modules, offensive cards and other strikecraft.

Fourth, what is the clear purpose of the strikecraft? Intended role? Something they can do that other ships cannot do?

They ignore ship defenses and attack the hull, and of course the fighters and interceptors shoot down other strike craft.

Fifth; You mentioned cards. Are these strikecraft with people inside, pilots? Or just drones? Turning them to a card would reduce them to drones, as they're just AI attached to the mother ship's computers.

Battle cards are more like a strategic choice for a section of the battle, allowing the player to choose when to deploy strikecraft to attack an enemy.



It has nothing to do with whether or not they are piloted or not.

Sixth, if these are strikecraft, as in ships themselves, it wouldn't make sense that they cannot be modified and that they have fixed abilities and stats. We can modify the biggest ships in the galaxy and we cannot modify the smallest? What would be the reason?

They would be using the latest technology available, but their role isn't the same as a ship, they are intended to be able to swarm enemy ships producing the result of death by a thousand cuts.



Upgrading them would require you to equip more advanced hangers, giving you access to better strikecraft cards, that produce more damage and are harder to shoot down.

Seventh, if they are "craft", as in ships by their own right, it wouldn't make sense that they can only be shot at by flak, ie lepton shields alone. They have to be vulnerable to weapon modules. Even if they are drones, they aren't missiles; the drones are not the weapons, they carry the weapons.

However the capital missiles that your ships usually fire are much larger then these strikecraft, so a single shot by flak will kill them, shooting your main guns at them would be a wasted effort as their maneuverability would allow them to avoid the larger weapons like kinetics and beams.



In this suggestion, my fighters have heath in the same way that missiles do, via the ability to avoid being interspersed by flak and enemy fighters and interceptors.



Further more these cards will be universally weak to offensive cards, as the increased enemy fire would damage the craft as they exit the hanger, so in reality they are being hit by your main guns.





Not that logic applies here, considering that space fighters aren't really possible anyway. This was my bridge to combine the games mechanics with space fighters without dealing with the problems entailed by general logic.

I do have a disagreement with this,



First is, what counters the interceptors?



Second, what is the purpose of the variations between the strikecraft? Is there a specific reason, a justifiable need for many variations between the classes?



Third, to balance the game, where is the counter to the strikecraft you propose?



Fourth, what is the clear purpose of the strikecraft? Intended role? Something they can do that other ships cannot do?



Fifth; You mentioned cards. Are these strikecraft with people inside, pilots? Or just drones? Turning them to a card would reduce them to drones, as they're just AI attached to the mother ship's computers.



Sixth, if these are strikecraft, as in ships themselves, it wouldn't make sense that they cannot be modified and that they have fixed abilities and stats. We can modify the biggest ships in the galaxy and we cannot modify the smallest? What would be the reason?



Seventh, if they are "craft", as in ships by their own right, it wouldn't make sense that they can only be shot at by flak, ie lepton shields alone. They have to be vulnerable to weapon modules. Even if they are drones, they aren't missiles; the drones are not the weapons, they carry the weapons.

Nice, Igncom1!

Yes please!