Nosferatiel wrote:




But anyways, we should propose more archetypes and talk less about the details, here. We can do that in the game design discussion at any time.

Well, no one is proposing archetypes atm, so...



But I see your point lol



Shouldn't their be a fighter priority proticol? I mean, I want to choose which fighters go where (Either chasing or protecting)



I.E. If I have a fleet that has week AAA then I want my air superiority craft protecting my fleet.

On the other hand, If I have strong AAA then I want them protecting my bombers. Perhaps it will be implemented in a formation-like style???

the best 3 of both fighters/bombers or the best 3 overall?

Steph'nie wrote:


a poll would take at least a week, and we cannot unfortunately delay the vote (production schedule).

Gotta love those deadlines

Just a little reminder, as some of you seem to be going in the wrong direction. In the Game Design Document on Fighters and Bombers we mention that: Bombers DO NOT attack fighters. Their state can be defined as: moving or bombarding. Note that they bombard the fleet, not the fighters.

Just to clarify, we were not saying that the bombers should attack the fighters. Of course a bomber would never go out of its way to engage a fighter. We only asked if the bombers have turrets with which to defend themselves. Such as the examples given of the B-17's turrets, the B-52's tail mounted quad .50 caliber, etc.

Sovereign wrote:
You or a pool?

The reply is in the OP. -->

Steph'nie wrote:
We will only pick the best three (feel free to comment and give feedback) for a GAMES2GETHER vote. And of course, the final winner will get their idea implemented in the game.

As mentioned above, we would like to pick the 3 best proposals, thanks to the opinions expressed in this thread, and by also making sure if something is do-able or not (if it respects the guidelines, the game design document, and our realisation constraints). The deadline is set to May 2nd, so we can pick the best three and instantly let the rest of the community decide on a G2G vote; a poll would take at least a week, and we cannot unfortunately delay the vote (production schedule).

Codename_Veers wrote:
Of course there is no "back" in space, but there is a "back" of a bomber or fighter, meaning the position about 180° in the "back" of the pilot (or where the pilot is not able to look without help from displays!). You also don't need to be able to cover all angles, that is not the point. Usually turrets are build in such a way, that you don't need do much more than modify your ships angle, so the turret can aim at the enemy (regardless from where he is coming!).



But in game terms, we have a bunch of ships flying in a more or less direct line to the enmy battleships. The usual tactic to chase bombers is to attack a blind spot, where a bomber is not able to shoot back, except for altering the course. A Bomber with at least one more turret in the "back" is much harder to attack. A Bomber with 4 Turrets on every "side" of its mainhull is almost impossible to attack without losses - no matter from what angle you attack.



To summon: I didn't mean to build an undestroyable bomber! I meant to make more dangerous bombers, that loose their primary object for a ruse to distract enemy fighters.

Indeed, and I see what you're saying.

Steph'nie wrote:
Just a little reminder, as some of you seem to be going in the wrong direction. In the Game Design Document on Fighters and Bombers we mention that: Bombers DO NOT attack fighters. Their state can be defined as: moving or bombarding. Note that they bombard the fleet, not the fighters.



Feel free to edit your submissions if you think you did not respect this. We will get back to this thread to pick the best three on Thursday!

You or a pool?

Just a little reminder, as some of you seem to be going in the wrong direction. In the Game Design Document on Fighters and Bombers we mention that: Bombers DO NOT attack fighters. Their state can be defined as: moving or bombarding. Note that they bombard the fleet, not the fighters.



Feel free to edit your submissions if you think you did not respect this. We will get back to this thread to pick the best three on Thursday!

Nasarog wrote:
In space there doesn't exist a back per se. In a 3d environment, the fighter can come in at any angle. Unless the ship looks like a sea urchin, it can't cover all angles. Even turrets/batteries that have an area effect of coverage will have gaps.



A perfect example of this is Babylon 5. EVen though our gameplay resembles Battlestar Galactica, I think the B5 idea of combat is more accurate.

Of course there is no "back" in space, but there is a "back" of a bomber or fighter, meaning the position about 180° in the "back" of the pilot (or where the pilot is not able to look without help from displays!). You also don't need to be able to cover all angles, that is not the point. Usually turrets are build in such a way, that you don't need do much more than modify your ships angle, so the turret can aim at the enemy (regardless from where he is coming!).



But in game terms, we have a bunch of ships flying in a more or less direct line to the enmy battleships. The usual tactic to chase bombers is to attack a blind spot, where a bomber is not able to shoot back, except for altering the course. A Bomber with at least one more turret in the "back" is much harder to attack. A Bomber with 4 Turrets on every "side" of its mainhull is almost impossible to attack without losses - no matter from what angle you attack.



To summon: I didn't mean to build an undestroyable bomber! I meant to make more dangerous bombers, that loose their primary object for a ruse to distract enemy fighters.

Nosferatiel wrote:
If the Amoeba have mostly hardly compressible fluids as a basis, then the question is just, if the Amoeba hull will burst or not. That's rather unlikely if they settle on the depths of the ocean.

But I have to say that machine races will have similar problems to organical races: All the internal mechanics have to work under duress of high accelerations. On earth we have droptowers for testing electronics for satellites and scientific instruments before ever sending them into space.



But anyways, we should propose more archetypes and talk less about the details, here. We can do that in the game design discussion at any time.

Actually that much easier to achieve with electronics then with organics, but I digress.

here's my horrid go at it.

laughter or shock/horror may follow, especially since i can't do industry, tonnage, or invasion strength at all.

those can be changed since i'm making very rough guesses.





Fighter archetypes:





Tri-Shot Fighter-



Balanced fighters



Evasion-65%

Health- 30

Shots Per Round- 3

Damage Per Shot- 9

Accuracy- 65%

State bonus (for each possible state)- +25% accuracy and damage when chasing, +5% evasion in melee

Quantity: 6

Tonnage required 50

Industry cost- 73

Invasion Strength-10



Scrimmagers-



These are meant to bog down enemy fighters in melee combat.



Evasion- 90%

health- 5

Damage per shot- 1

Shots Per Round- 20

Accuracy -5

state bonus- +8% evasion in melee

quantity- 7

tonnage cost- 120

industry cost- 180

Invasion Strength- 1



Hunter-



designed to hunt down enemy bombers, and nothing else



Evasion 20%

Health- 15

Damage-20

Shots Per Round- 3

Accuracy 33.333%

State bonus- Accuracy is tripled and damage doubled when chasing

quantity- 1

Tonnage cost- 70

industry cost- 160

invasion strength-1



Ace Squadron-



used to hunt down fighters



Evasion 75%

Health-30

Shots Per Round- 4

Damage Per Shot- 10

Accuracy- 80

quantity- 4

State bonus (for each possible state)- accuracy increased by 20% in melee

Tonnage required 80

Industry cost- 220

invasion strength 25



Bomber archetypes-



The Leeches-



meant to break the enemy fleets, once they're there, they're there to stay.



Evasion- 0%

Health- 30

Damage- 80

Shots per round-5

Accuracy- 100%

Quantity-7

State bonus- +99% evasion while bombarding

tonnage- 250

Industry cost-320

invasion strength- 10



Blockade Runner-



mostly meant to aid in the invasion of systems



Evasion-85

health 30

damage- 10

shots per round- 2

accuracy- 100%

quantity- 3

state bonus- evasion increased by 5% while moving

tonnage- 100

Industry cost-175

invasion strength-150

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
The taller you are, the less G forces you can with-stand. Since the Amoeba are stocky, they would be just fine (Unless they are to soft, and the torque simply shreds them lol)

If the Amoeba have mostly hardly compressible fluids as a basis, then the question is just, if the Amoeba hull will burst or not. That's rather unlikely if they settle on the depths of the ocean.

But I have to say that machine races will have similar problems to organical races: All the internal mechanics have to work under duress of high accelerations. On earth we have droptowers for testing electronics for satellites and scientific instruments before ever sending them into space.



But anyways, we should propose more archetypes and talk less about the details, here. We can do that in the game design discussion at any time.

Nasarog wrote:
Indeed.



U.E., Pilgrims and Horatio would be like normal humans. Sheredyn would be less susceptible. Hissho should be well equipped for it. Amoeba, I'm just not sure. Cravers should be hardly fazed by it. Automatons and Sowers would be immune. Am I missing anyone?

The taller you are, the less G forces you can with-stand. Since the Amoeba are stocky, they would be just fine (Unless they are to soft, and the torque simply shreds them lol)

Nasarog wrote:
Indeed.



U.E., Pilgrims and Horatio would be like normal humans. Sheredyn would be less susceptible. Hissho should be well equipped for it. Amoeba, I'm just not sure. Cravers should be hardly fazed by it. Automatons and Sowers would be immune. Am I missing anyone?

Endless and Harmony, mostly.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Inertia might take a very heavy toll on the pilot in these cases and, of course, you need to consider the amount of energy your thrusters need to facilitate such abrupt and strong torques... and stop them, of course.

Interesting idea, anyway. ^^

Indeed.



U.E., Pilgrims and Horatio would be like normal humans. Sheredyn would be less susceptible. Hissho should be well equipped for it. Amoeba, I'm just not sure. Cravers should be hardly fazed by it. Automatons and Sowers would be immune. Am I missing anyone?

Inertia might take a very heavy toll on the pilot in these cases and, of course, you need to consider the amount of energy your thrusters need to facilitate such abrupt and strong torques... and stop them, of course.

Interesting idea, anyway. ^^

Nosferatiel wrote:
Nasarog, could you please elaborate for me on Babylon 5 combat? As a nonfan (I'll out myself, voluntarily), I have no idea what exactly you're talking of, right now.

Sure, B5 combat was based on 3D vectors. Let me find an example from youtube to give you an idea.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSa6Zl8fcyo



Here's an idea.



While a fighter is flying "forward" it spins on it's axis and fires "backwards" at a chasing fighter. Using that tactic, a fighter can actually maintain it's momentum while firing in all directions. I remember a movie, the last starfighter that did exactly that. Anime also has that happen. As long as the pilot can withstand such maneuvers, s/he will win.



Now, if you have automated fighters, then it's not an issue, but they give up autonomous tactics in exchange for a battle plan.



THat video is actually pretty good. I haven't watched B5 this year yet, I might have to re-watch it. My favorite space opera of all time.

Nasarog wrote:
In space there doesn't exist a back per se. In a 3d environment, the fighter can come in at any angle. Unless the ship looks like a sea urchin, it can't cover all angles. Even turrets/batteries that have an area effect of coverage will have gaps.



A perfect example of this is Babylon 5. EVen though our gameplay resembles Battlestar Galactica, I think the B5 idea of combat is more accurate.

Nasarog, could you please elaborate for me on Babylon 5 combat? As a nonfan (I'll out myself, voluntarily), I have no idea what exactly you're talking of, right now.

Codename_Veers wrote:
Thank you for the critique.



Of course Bombers are able to fight back, as you have seen earlier in a post. From my experiences from good Space-flight simulaters, Bombers, Transporter and every other ship with turrets (expecially in the back) are pure horror for any fighterpilot, since it allows us just to fire some shots before beeing forced to evade counterfire. Bombers with Anti-Fighter tourrets in the back (and/or at the sides) are better defended than just with good shields or plating.



In game terms, that would not mean that the bombers are chasing fighters! It would mean, that they are still doing their job, flying to the enemy battleships in a more or less straight line. If the Defender decides to have his fighters attack the advancing bombers, that would mean, that the fighters get damaged during their attack phase against the bombers!

The Bombers however wouldn't do much damage against the enemy battleships, their sole purpose is to distract and damage the enemy fighters. Combining this tactic with my "Blackout Squadron", your fighters would do the "bomber work" while your bombers just distract enemy fighters to maximize the chance that your fighter reach the enemy battleships!



I am naturally not sure if that is complicated to programm or visualize, but I think it would be something like this:



(depending on the exact Evading and Accuracy Stats)

To visualize that: For every shot, the Fighter fires, the Bomber gives a countershot. Accuracy decides, if one hits the other.

In space there doesn't exist a back per se. In a 3d environment, the fighter can come in at any angle. Unless the ship looks like a sea urchin, it can't cover all angles. Even turrets/batteries that have an area effect of coverage will have gaps.



A perfect example of this is Babylon 5. EVen though our gameplay resembles Battlestar Galactica, I think the B5 idea of combat is more accurate.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Thats good. I was worried that it would all be created by the community. Imagine the balance issues lol

You know, I sent a list with 13 more complex possible mechanics for bombers and fighters to Steph in order to get to know if they were doable and so contest-usable, but she replied that they would like to keep it very basic, until it works.



If I had got to propose any of these...

Actually I was going to post the list and grab one or two with a few new designs, so more people could enter the contest with fresh ideas, but that is a bit futile, now. The variations of the current base mechanics are very limited, sadly.

The vote is up!



Fighters:

• H-2 'Elephant'
• Hunter
• None shall pass
  
  

Bombers:

• Shinobi
• The Leeches
• Kaiten Tokkōtai
  
  

This vote will last two weeks! Good luck to all of you!