Now there's an idea. Boarding ships would be really cool but I'm just wondering about the mechanics about it. Because I love the thought of boarding enemy colony ships so I don't have to use my own population, but how many turns would it take or would it be the same as the bombers?

Boarding is a good idea, but it is unfortunately not in the vision we have of fighters and bombers.



We are currently working on a first "prototype" version, but for now, I will update the first page soon, with our recent changes.

Meedoc wrote:
Boarding is a good idea, but it is unfortunately not in the vision we have of fighters and bombers.



We are currently working on a first "prototype" version, but for now, I will update the first page soon, with our recent changes.

Fine, fine

meant to chime in some time ago, but life got in the way. Sorry if it has been mentioned, wife is away and kids and job, etc.



I like the idea of carriers, fighters, bombers to an extent.



This smack of WWII in the layout and since then, it is pretty much fighter supremacy and tactical fighter-bombers on carriers how ASAIK



That said, let's go carriers and "planes/small craft" warfare.



The whole point of having them is long range warfare. The battleship was obsolete in WWII yet we have them here in Endless Space. So the idea that the craft only come into play in the last phase contradicts the entire point of a carrier with "planes". They are suppose to be the first strike component.



Now, I realize that space, while curved, isn't like the curvature of the earth. So, it is quite likely (sans black hole, etc) a "battleship" can fire from 1,000 km in a direct line while that is not possible of a ship on earth.



However, I feel in the future, small craft like fighters and bombers will not be "manned". That eliminates life support and G-tolerance. They will be remote controlled. So, these craft would be launched well ahead of any confrontation and are "expendable" to the extreme. The pilot will never "die" and could actually control a wave of craft. So his first craft "dies" he switches to wave 2. It "dies", he switches to wave 3, etc.



No matter what, these things have always been the "glass cannons" of warfare since WWII. Thus, carrier fleets now are surrounded by anti-missile and anti-aircraft ships, not battleships.



That said, nothing beats a nuke

JE66 wrote:
The whole point of having them is long range warfare. The battleship was obsolete in WWII yet we have them here in Endless Space. So the idea that the craft only come into play in the last phase contradicts the entire point of a carrier with "planes". They are suppose to be the first strike component.



Now, I realize that space, while curved, isn't like the curvature of the earth. So, it is quite likely (sans black hole, etc) a "battleship" can fire from 1,000 km in a direct line while that is not possible of a ship on earth.



However, I feel in the future, small craft like fighters and bombers will not be "manned". That eliminates life support and G-tolerance. They will be remote controlled. So, these craft would be launched well ahead of any confrontation and are "expendable" to the extreme. The pilot will never "die" and could actually control a wave of craft. So his first craft "dies" he switches to wave 2. It "dies", he switches to wave 3, etc.

This is something I agree with totally. If anything, carriers should deploy their craft during the arrival phase, so they're already active when combat starts. I mean, why not? You can deploy fighters and get them moving towards the general area of their targets long before you have a specific ship to lock onto (unlike conventional weapons), so long as you have some idea of what direction they're coming in from (and sensors tell you that). I'm not a big fan of the delayed action they represent now.



You probably wouldn't want to launch them if the first action being played is a retreat, because you'd be leaving them there if you did (unless they stay close anyway, which doesn't fit the description here). Though it might be neat to have a retreat action that launches all fighters/bombers and leaves them behind as a kind of suicide force to damage the enemy fleet while your main fleet withdraws. If you can launch them in the arrival phase you can do that, since if you play retreat as your first card they're already launched and ready to go. (Though I guess you could also do that with a "launch & retreat" card instead that launches them in long range, and then retreats kind of like offensive retreat works now.)

I second the concept of strike craft being a weapon used to hit the enemy before your fleet gets there. In fact, maybe scouting can have a viable function again and allow for strikes at true interstellar distances, NOT just in the same system! i.e. if you can see the ships, your strike craft can hit them before they get to the main encounter.



This mirrors how they worked in WW II. The more I think about it, the better this idea is. The strike should actually be taking place on the map-scale, and you can keep the battles the same. So if there is a strike before the fleets meet, some ships may have already been destroyed or damaged. A perfect way to counter the missile boat spam.

the difference being on earth planes can move so much faster than a ship whereas in space these types of limitations are limited to nil. Given the technologies we're pretending to use in the game there is no reason a smaller craft should move faster than a larger one.



so in a pretend world where we can send RC drones to do our fighting before we arrive, all races know about it (because all possible advances are laid out) and all races equip their larger ships with point defense devices in order to counter them. So in order to flesh that out into a system that is actually interesting and fun to play you've all but ruled out the need for warships and end up creating a system where the logical choice for a race to make is to have them (drones) sent from planets to secure systems and the only real populated ship that's ever created is a colony ship (even a scout is a drone at this point).



While the idea of fighters and bombers are romantic I think the concepts are outdated and "old" thinking. I cannot fathom any reason why a targeting computer would have any issue with "finding" and eliminated a smaller (only when compared to large space ships mind you) craft. I think it would be a grand thing for Endless Space to be happy with the tropes it has already embraced and start introducing some 'new' thinking into the genre.



In my opinion the real value a small craft(s) would have are:



Extending the "space" inhabited by a larger body (your warship). This could be signal strength for hacking, deploying defenses away from your structures, creating electronic 'false' ships to be targeted (since targeting is automated), ect.



Pinpointly (if I made up a word) deploying an attack that is not delivered effectively through velocity. hardwiring a hacking device, nano-robots that "eat" up a ship, a fluid that does...whatever, a biological attack to a specific area of the ship, etc..



delivering an emp or emp-type of weapon that for reasons we know or make up cannot be projected at great distances.



and likewise



----------



I'm certain its too late to steer away from the 'fighters' concept, but i hope you can retool it to be more science fiction from the year 2010 and less old sci-fi (and basically WWII) tropes.





appreciate your work,



eric

Eric this is a topic about the game play implications, not the logical implications of science fiction when compared to our own scientific knowledge.

So, what is the current take of the DEV's on fighters and bombers?

Igncom1 wrote:
Eric this is a topic about the game play implications, not the logical implications of science fiction when compared to our own scientific knowledge.

There should be some sort of official message that "realism" shouldn't be the main factor in any suggestion/crticism.

Eric



Totally disagree with you, my friend. While a "top" speed may not be limited due to mass, the manuevering would be. The more massive an object, the harder it is to change direction. This applies to the acceleration as well, but could be overcome by raw power I suppose. To me, using fighter/bomber drones is the future glass cannon. Cheaper because no need for life support or other things needed for a living being would be on the craft. Additionally, you could maximize the acceleration and g pulling manuevers that would kill a living being. Additionally, you lose the drone, you don't lose the pilot. Therefore the pilot can be more aggressive as his life it not nearly at stake as a piloted craft. So no, they are not the same as larger, manned vessels.



As a side note:

The main "not very realistic' thing in all video games is the minions that will happily throw away their lives no matter what. It seems a huge waste IRL to train a bunch of folks to run highly complex war machines and then not care about their survival. Also, except in extreme circumstances, you will have a tough time getting folks to volunteer to be laughtered. I think you would have a problem getting folks to sign up for duty on glass cannons. However, gamewise I doubt this will change anytime soon.

This is a topic about the game play implications, not the logical implications of science fiction when compared to our own scientific knowledge.



If you would like to discuss peoples hypothetical science, then please make a thread for it.

Igncom1 wrote:
This is a topic about the game play implications, not the logical implications of science fiction when compared to our own scientific knowledge.



If you would like to discuss peoples hypothetical science, then please make a thread for it.

I agree with you. People should stop discussing in this thread if strike craft are realistic or not. Let's just discuss about the gameplay here, so we can make the game more entertaining, and not exactly realistic.

HumanSpacer wrote:
I agree with you. People should stop discussing in this thread if strike craft are realistic or not. Let's just discuss about the gameplay here, so we can make the game more entertaining, and not exactly realistic.

Right, no science discussion in the science fiction. So when to we discuss Space Dragons and Dust Fairies instead?

JE66 wrote:
Right, no science discussion in the science fiction. So when to we discuss Space Dragons and Dust Fairies instead?

THIS IS A GAME-PLAY THREAD, NOT A LORE THREAD.



So take your sarcasm elsewhere.

correct, a gamplay thread. which is why i detailed my reasons for treating minor craft eminating from a larger one different from thinking gone past. A treatment which has not been done in this genre yet.



so that would change the way we play the game. Wouldn't it?



otherwise all i'm saying is: "don't do fighters and bombers do this intead.." sans reasoning.

Nope, becuse that's not what the dev's have suggested.

"....Here is the first design document for the expansion pack. Don't hesitate to have a look and give us your comments...."



I believe I did that.



have a good one.

Igncom1 wrote:
THIS IS A GAME-PLAY THREAD, NOT A LORE THREAD.



So take your sarcasm elsewhere.

LOL, whatever bud.



We were discussing the feature in the design thread. I was defending the game-play design concept in a valid discussion regarding the thread topic. That seems like a valid reason to post in it to me. Sorry if you disagree, but in the end, that isn't my problem.



Of course we don't want this devolving into micromanagement and no stretching of boundries. I could argue many things sacrificed in the name of balance and gameplay, but I understand they are done just for that reason.



You're the one derailing it IMO.

JE66 wrote:
LOL, whatever bud.



We were discussing the feature in the design thread. I was defending the game-play design concept in a valid discussion regarding the thread topic. That seems like a valid reason to post in it to me. Sorry if you disagree, but in the end, that isn't my problem.



Of course we don't want this devolving into micromanagement and no stretching of boundries. I could argue many things sacrificed in the name of balance and gameplay, but I understand they are done just for that reason.



You're the one derailing it IMO.

I don't disagree with you, what I am saying is that that topic of discussion isn't what is being asked here.



So I suggested you open another thread with the topic you are discussing, as here it isn't really appropriate to what the thread is about. The game-play and balance of the fighters and bombers.