Sure, it need to be more effective, not withdraw totally your ships.

Tikigod wrote:
They could be a form of weaponry themselves but of a tonnage requirement that isolates their use to the higher size tiers for ships.



As even fighters would need time to fly to their target when battle first starts the 3 step combat system should at least in theory work fine with the presentation of a weapon as independent fighters.



Weapon behaviour could vary depending on the variation of fighter weapon used. Initial fighters would be close range effective and practically useless at long and medium range... think of them as a kind of



Further research could provide bombers that are more effective at medium and short range and act like a different kind of damage.



Carrier tonnage designed modules could also be introduced that provide a significant increase to performance in a area that compliments fighter usage, to further allow tailoring the carrier support craft itself to compliment the kind of fighters being used.



Alternative idea is to have fighters introduced as an active combat ability that can be deployed during combat phases, though the complexity of accomplishing this route effectively IMO is perhaps not ideal.

Perhaps fighters and Bombers are mods that only carrier type ships can use. You have to research better fighters and bombers.

The problem is that your all thinking to small. Instead of buying individual craft you are instead investing in hanger space to house, launch, recover, and repair those craft. Really in a space title any ship can be a carrier as long as it trades weapon capacity for hanger capacity. So instead of buying individual craft, you buy hanger space and assign a type of craft to the hanger. Thus reducing the amount of micro managing per ship.

AngleWyrm wrote:
The reason for fighters to exist is so that they tie up enemy weapons. Their advantage is multiple targets.

If I understand the defenses right, don't the flak modules already target incoming missiles? So missiles already are drawing fire. Look at WWII ships. A battleship didn't aim its main armament at incoming fighters...it had AA for that, which wasn't engaging enemy ships in the first place. So the argument about about tying up the enemies weapons doesn't make any sense.



In all honesty, I wish they would trash their current combat system and instead adopt something like the Total War series has, with combat being similar to that of Sins of a Solar Empire. I think that would be a lot more engaging and less repetitive. That would also make a valid use for fighters/bombers/carriers.

glurg wrote:
If I understand the defenses right, don't the flak modules already target incoming missiles? So missiles already are drawing fire. Look at WWII ships. A battleship didn't aim its main armament at incoming fighters...it had AA for that, which wasn't engaging enemy ships in the first place. So the argument about about tying up the enemies weapons doesn't make any sense.



In all honesty, I wish they would trash their current combat system and instead adopt something like the Total War series has, with combat being similar to that of Sins of a Solar Empire. I think that would be a lot more engaging and less repetitive. That would also make a valid use for fighters/bombers/carriers.

I 2nd glurgs notion, dealing with carriers with fighters. Honestly, it would only be there for aesthetic appeal.

As much as I would like the fighting style to be more like Sins of a Solar Empire, I don't see that happening given the time and effort it would take to do right, and that having fights like that might results in playtames on Endless Space shooting far higher than they already are. I almost never bother manually fighting given just how much combat already goes on.



All in all, the current concept works, but it needs to be refined a bit more in my opinion. Carriers can fit into the game plenty well, first phase they bombers will move towards the enemies, second phase they might get two bombing runs off, and another two in the third phase. For the tactics, bombers can be on par with missiles in damage, but rather than two/three salvos hitting over the whole fight, they can get of four or six. The downside is if the enemy puts in enough anti fight laser (?) modules onto their ships then the bombers get taken out early and might only get off one or two salvos.



The result would be a risk reward, if the opponent is prepared for fighters, then they can drop your attack craft early enough to limit their damage, and you don't get any more that battle, unlike how you'd get an extra volley of missiles every phase if you chose them instead. I would be more uncertain about just how the cards played each phase would affect the attack craft, would the card played first always affect them, or would they change up how they fight each time to match your card? Or maybe the cards don't apply to them at all, but for any carrier heavy task force that would separate them a bit much from the mechanics of combat right now, give how simple they already are.

glurg wrote:
If I understand the defenses right, don't the flak modules already target incoming missiles? So missiles already are drawing fire.

Flak is a defense vs missiles, not a weapon. Just like shields are a defense and armor is a defense. None of those systems can attack another player, so they are not drawing fire away from the fleet.



If the player decides to build a lot of defense in their ships instead of weapons, then they have traded away firepower for survivability.

What I don't like is that you can create invulnerable ships with high enough armor/shields/flak. Even with the best flak, some missiles can find a hole in defenses.

It seems the RNG must be tweaked.

VieuxChat wrote:
What I don't like is that you can create invulnerable ships with high enough armor/shields/flak. Even with the best flak, some missiles can find a hole in defenses.

It seems the RNG must be tweaked.

What do you mean by "invulnerable"?



If you mean that your giant battle star of awesome can't be scratched by some lame backwater tech corvette, that is as it should be.



Or are you saying that it is possible to construct a ship that no other ship can defeat?

I say that I was with 100 kinetic damage and the oppponents had 110 in armor and some missiles. I didn't even scratch them. 4 ships against 4 ships. There should be some attrition.

100 power versus 1000 defense would be useless, ok. But 100 versus 100 ?

The idea is that you have counters in ship design, if your ships can't damage an opponents, then yes, there is something wrong. Mainly you need to have additional ship designs, if one ship has half it's tonnage in not dying to your pew pew boats, then bring out some lasers or missile boats, those ships that the other player had are going to be duds, they will only have half the tonnage of usable modules really. I have found it to be a good idea to have some of each weapon system on each of your ships, and a small bit of defense for each one with a bit of health too. If your foe puts all his tech into one weapon, make him pay for it, shield up against that one on your ships and focus mainly on the weapon that his ships are the least shielded against.



Odds are, if you can't kill him, he made a counter to your existing ships, now you just need to return the favor.

glurg wrote:
How would that fit into the current game mechanics though? Alternative to missiles?

As much as I want them I dont see them fitting in.

They could be a form of weaponry themselves but of a tonnage requirement that isolates their use to the higher size tiers for ships.



As even fighters would need time to fly to their target when battle first starts the 3 step combat system should at least in theory work fine with the presentation of a weapon as independent fighters.



Weapon behaviour could vary depending on the variation of fighter weapon used. Initial fighters would be close range effective and practically useless at long and medium range... think of them as a kind of



Further research could provide bombers that are more effective at medium and short range and act like a different kind of damage.



Carrier tonnage designed modules could also be introduced that provide a significant increase to performance in a area that compliments fighter usage, to further allow tailoring the carrier support craft itself to compliment the kind of fighters being used.



Alternative idea is to have fighters introduced as an active combat ability that can be deployed during combat phases, though the complexity of accomplishing this route effectively IMO is perhaps not ideal.

here is my vote for carriers. I love them of course you will need pd and anti fighter tech.

Tikigod wrote:
They could be a form of weaponry themselves but of a tonnage requirement that isolates their use to the higher size tiers for ships.



As even fighters would need time to fly to their target when battle first starts the 3 step combat system should at least in theory work fine with the presentation of a weapon as independent fighters.



Weapon behaviour could vary depending on the variation of fighter weapon used. Initial fighters would be close range effective and practically useless at long and medium range... think of them as a kind of



Further research could provide bombers that are more effective at medium and short range and act like a different kind of damage.



Carrier tonnage designed modules could also be introduced that provide a significant increase to performance in a area that compliments fighter usage, to further allow tailoring the carrier support craft itself to compliment the kind of fighters being used.



Alternative idea is to have fighters introduced as an active combat ability that can be deployed during combat phases, though the complexity of accomplishing this route effectively IMO is perhaps not ideal.

+1 - I was thinking something very similar to your suggestion



I think that the fighter/bomber concept could be quite easily integrated to the (already great) combat system. Here are some ideas :

- some new types of component for ship design : fighter bay, bomber bays, assault shuttle bays, etc..

- some new linked tactical options : intercept, bombard, capture, etc..

- the new tactical options could be limited to some specific phase : capture only in melee, intercept only in medium, etc..

Plus one here, you cant have "space game" without "fighter" of some kind. Could even add them as a planet-defense module, something to help fight off invasions.

Nimrod wrote:
I know it would be quite a lot of work but it would be amazing if the game had fighters/bombers carriers and whatnot in.

See: /#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13203-suggestion-ship-capture

Fighters are a must, if only for aesthetics. How they'd be implemented? I couldn't say. I liked the idea of bombers being used in the melee stage. I also second the idea of being able to get more hangar space on your ships to store the fighters.

Fighters would only be viable if they would have their own "battle phases" seperate from the main ships long-medium-short range phases. Bombers could be used to strike fast for the enemy ships to close combat them. So your ships are still in long range. but your fighters are in close range near instantly if not countered. They could be countered thour by interceptors, trying to delay the bombers arrival at the enemy fleet. Thour interceptors could then again be "countered" or weakend in their effectivity by escorts flying with the bombers.



So. Imagine: while you fat ships are still in long range, first of all they launch their fighters, every 3 types. While the bombers and escorts make their way to the enemy fleet fast, your interceptors try to catch the enemy bombers and escorts midflight, while the same happens with your bombers and escorts. In the end it would of course be technology, numebers and perhaps Ship XP, random factors and Leader skill + eventually some card-decisions you can make that would bring the result.



Eventually PV weapons, Flaks and so on could also defend capital ships from swarming bombers and such.



To realise such a system and to be meaningfull the battle phases would have to be longer for the big ships thou, which is a thing i would like to see anyway. And also, just to say it again, i think the player(s) should have the abilty to delay or fasten the different battle phases with commands. Making the ships engines a vital part of ship-combat.

Couldn't carriers/motherships be wonder-esque late game rewards down the tree, able to send disposable swarms of fighters/bombers down to neighbouring nodes, and in last ditch scenarios, fight in battle itself.

I wont copy paste, but please refer to my blog post. Leave your thoughts and if you agree with me, keep on posting the link around. I hope to get the devs attention somehow.

If carriers are not in the game, I hope they will bring it in a future expansion.

Gray_Carlyle wrote:
If carriers are not in the game, I hope they will bring it in a future expansion.

Sure do hope they wont stop the development after release. I would pay for future expansions

glurg wrote:
How would that fit into the current game mechanics though? Alternative to missiles?

As much as I want them I dont see them fitting in.

Fighters could be done as a flying weapon in one of the three flavors, bomber, blaster, or gunner. So you have the Wing Commander torpedo fighter, the Star Wars pew pew, and the Battlestar Galactica rat-a-tat-tat. And they might come in different sizes representing different hit point levels.



The principle advantage of a fighter is multiple targets. It takes at least one gun to target a fighter. Size only matters if there is a definite possibility that one shot won't be enough to kill the fighter. So the HP sizes would have to be approximately equal to the weapon upgrades.



Is it worth it? The firepower of a fighter is going to be less than a weapon that takes the same amount of space on board. But it causes the enemy to shoot at (and possibly miss) a small nimble target instead of you. So fighters are part-way between a defense system and an attack system.

I'm fairly sure carriers are already in the game, or being added. They're in most 4x games with grand space battles

Wafflashizzles wrote:
I'm fairly sure carriers are already in the game, or being added. They're in most 4x games with grand space battles

true, ill have a closer look tomorrow and if not then well see what happens!

That would be awesome. I love me some dog fighting .

No carriers in the build I was allowed to play so far.

Nimrod wrote:
I know it would be quite a lot of work but it would be amazing if the game had fighters/bombers carriers and whatnot in.



The fighters would work differently from normal ships however as their long range phase would be flying towards the enemy ships and the medium and melee range attacking, and obviously the carriers would hold X number of fighters and bombers.

Maybe have a fighter/bomber bay as a support module on the carrier and each module holds 5 fighters?



Just an idea anyway, what do you guys think?

I was a bit disappointed at no carriers in the current build. Im sure they will be added later on, a long with other ship classes.

yeah they are definately not in currently, but there are frigates! (kind of) the scout class is probably the smallest ship in the game at the moment and thus is essentially a frigate

That would be a shame to not have such classic in the final release.

How would that fit into the current game mechanics though? Alternative to missiles?

As much as I want them I dont see them fitting in.

Fighters would be a close range option for the carrier to use, that would be somewhat immune to large weapons fire which could cripple a larger ship. That is really what they are for anyways, a cheap option with which you can get into close range to use weapons that the opposing ship has no great defense for, other than point defense equipment.

Carriers are more of support vessels then head on head combat. They don't necessarily have guns, their main purpose is logistics and fighters.

Currently i feel in-game ship logistics kind of lack, i hope they add in support modules that can repair (other than the current repair one), or offensive modules that automatically sabotage enemy ships, or assist other ships in some way.

I know it would be quite a lot of work but it would be amazing if the game had fighters/bombers carriers and whatnot in.



The fighters would work differently from normal ships however as their long range phase would be flying towards the enemy ships and the medium and melee range attacking, and obviously the carriers would hold X number of fighters and bombers.

Maybe have a fighter/bomber bay as a support module on the carrier and each module holds 5 fighters?



Just an idea anyway, what do you guys think?

For fighters, you usually want three basic classes of fighter. Bomber, Interceptor, and Escort.



Bombers are the reason fighters exists. As mentioned, the ability to ignore a lot of defenses, and do surgical strikes on enemy vessels is a good enough reason to have them exist. And when Bombers exists, you want Interceptors. Short range fast fighters that have one purpose: Destroy Bombers. Interceptors are basically the defense against Bombers. So, you want your Bombers to deliver their torpedoes, you need Escorts. Long range fighters that can fly alongside the Bombers and protect them from Interceptors, both by getting in the way, and by taking out Interceptors.



It's a bit WW2-ish, yes. But it's also a nice little Rock-Paper-Scissors layer to add to the combat. Then you get to how to outfit the fighters, designs, and so on. It gets complicated, in a good way, fast.

McNum wrote:
For fighters, you usually want three basic classes of fighter. Bomber, Interceptor, and Escort.



Bombers are the reason fighters exists. As mentioned, the ability to ignore a lot of defenses, and do surgical strikes on enemy vessels is a good enough reason to have them exist. And when Bombers exists, you want Interceptors. Short range fast fighters that have one purpose: Destroy Bombers. Interceptors are basically the defense against Bombers. So, you want your Bombers to deliver their torpedoes, you need Escorts. Long range fighters that can fly alongside the Bombers and protect them from Interceptors, both by getting in the way, and by taking out Interceptors.



It's a bit WW2-ish, yes. But it's also a nice little Rock-Paper-Scissors layer to add to the combat. Then you get to how to outfit the fighters, designs, and so on. It gets complicated, in a good way, fast.

That's a good idea but adds a little more complexity to the standard fighter/bomber idea.

Remscar wrote:
That's a good idea but adds a little more complexity to the standard fighter/bomber idea.

Yeah, perhaps start with squadrons.

Inquisitioner wrote:
Yeah, perhaps start with squadrons.

Of course, in a 4X scale game, a single fighter shouldn't really be something to make the player worry about. They should be bought in bulk, either as units or weapons to be used on carriers.



To put the Bomber/Interceptor/Escort thing into the three ranges used in Endless Space I think it would be like this: Bombers are Melee Range weapons. If they get close to your bigger ships, they'll wreck it. Interceptors are Medium Range weapons. They fly out to get the Bombers before the Bombers get to Melee Range. And Escorts are Long Range weapons. They go for the Interceptors before they can reach Medium Range.



But the big problem with fighters, really, is that while they add a lot to the awesome factor, and can provide some fantastic camera shots if you latch on to one and follow it, it's hard to justify their existence. Why not just build inexpensive self-guided torpedoes instead? Answer that, and you have a reason for fighters. Of course, "It's awesome!" is a good enough reason for me.

I would really like to see giant smarms of fighters swearing around

Does anybody know whether there will be "Titanships" something like the Geth-Dreadnaught from Mass Effect 3?

McNum wrote:


But the big problem with fighters is ... it's hard to justify their existence. Why not just build inexpensive self-guided torpedoes instead? Answer that, and you have a reason for fighters. Of course, "It's awesome!" is a good enough reason for me.

The reason for fighters to exist is so that they tie up enemy weapons. Their advantage is multiple targets.

Wotan wrote:
I would really like to see giant smarms of fighters swearing around

Does anybody know whether there will be "Titanships" something like the Geth-Dreadnaught from Mass Effect 3?

Titan ships would be awesome, but I'm not sure if they are currently planned.

AngleWyrm wrote:
The reason for fighters to exist is so that they tie up enemy weapons. Their advantage is multiple targets.

But drones would do the exact same thing, and with less loss of life on your side as each craft is unmanned. Now a swarm of drones is pretty cool, but not as cool as piloted craft. Of course, with some races, here might not be that big a difference between drones and manned craft anyway.



It's a little funny, I do want fighters, but I'm also arguing against them... I just want fighters with a reason to exist, but not be so good that they're must-haves. Just nice to have if you opponent doesn't.

I love the idea of fighters. Hope they are going to be added.