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.