Fighters are broken. Can we fix them?

[Iron Giant]

TheDeadlyShoe said:
It's hard to say they're inbalanced, though, given several game mechanics in their favor.

Such as?

Getting 1000 Fighters together in one place is a logistical nightmare. It is far less work (and research) to put together a handful of capital ships with Point Defence V. Am I missing something? Can (at least) those 2 settings be made fair?

[Starhawk]

Fighters are not a logistical nightmare if you use them properly read my above post.

As far as their advantages:

Fighters= Cheaper, faster, harder to hit, more economical for planetary defense in force and properly supported.

Capital ships: Heavy firepower, expensive, slower, can't be everywhere at once, not good to use in groups smaller then 3 (in my experience). Can be easily seen at range (you can't ambush an enemy fleet in orbit of a planet).

[Iron Giant]

Starhawk said:
Fighters are not a logistical nightmare if you use them properly read my above post.

Posted while you were typing...

Ok, but when I'm putting fighters together over a planet, they mostly group together in a large force. How can I stop this? If I have a group of battleships, I set the formation and the tactics and have reasonable success. Again, its not fair to fighters that it is required to micromanage them to get them to work as designed, imho.

I have alleviated this somewhat by trying to use my fighters with their carriers so the carriers will launch them in smaller groups. But again, not fair. if I want to launch 1000 fighters from a carrier group and have them rampage through a system, I should not be forced to micromanage them.

Also, I hear what you are saying about "late game weapons should be able to destroy multiple fighters because of weapons advances, etc" and I disagree. The size of a weapon beam will never come close to the distances between objects in space. See "The Universe" in the Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy.

I still don't think damage should flow. you said that fighters cannot shoot more than one object (unfair) and that can't be fixed, can damage flow be fixed?

Thanks for the tactical help, I'll try to include more bombers than fighters. My next gripe though is how much they can carry... But I would be content to fix these 2 issues...

[Starhawk]

Ok, but when I'm putting fighters together over a planet, they mostly group together in a large force. How can I stop this? If I have a group of battleships, I set the formation and the tactics and have reasonable success. Again, its not fair to fighters that it is required to micromanage them to get them to work as designed, imho.

Dock them at planet then order the planet to launch fighters ONLY IN COMBAT and launch them in groups of 20.
It's not quite "Micromanagement" anymore then controling that many capital ships would be it's just that instead of 1 capship you get 1 fightersquad of 20 fighters. If you want booste it up to 50 but that's uber overkill with rocket packs.

I have alleviated this somewhat by trying to use my fighters with their carriers so the carriers will launch them in smaller groups. But again, not fair. if I want to launch 1000 fighters from a carrier group and have them rampage through a system, I should not be forced to micromanage them.

Yeah that's your problem buddy Fighters are NOT system conquering tools they are FLEET engagement tools, if you want to send them against a planet keep them IN the carrier until that carrier is attacking said planet. Don't launch the fighters beforehand as it also uses up supplies in shedloads and can get you fragged.

A fighter squad won't even be able to take on late game planetary defenses, yeah a thousand MIGHT be able to do it but you'd lose so many that sending in a capital ship fleet would be more effective, less time and resource consuming and cheaper.

Also, I hear what you are saying about "late game weapons should be able to destroy multiple fighters because of weapons advances, etc" and I disagree. The size of a weapon beam will never come close to the distances between objects in space. See "The Universe" in the Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy.

Fighters would still need to be "tightly packed" to effect a capital ship so a REAL warship firing a beam weapon into a squadron type formation SHOULD be able to do a "sweep" against the fighters thus destroying more then one at any time.

I still don't think damage should flow. you said that fighters cannot shoot more than one object (unfair) and that can't be fixed, can damage flow be fixed?

Not unfair, balanced if you had 1,000 fighters and it took 1,000 guns to beat them jack squat could stop you. Think of capital ships firing their guns at you as a "wash" effect over a squadron, ships would go BOOM in great numbers.
Also if you want to look at it this way think "AAA" in the form of pulsing the energy cannon against multiple fighters.

However you want to view it a cap ship killing only 1 fighter with EVERY shot is pathetic and unbalanced for that matter fighters in space is a stupid idea that will likely never happen for so many reasons it ain't funny Odds are they'd be more like large torpedo boats from WWII.

Thanks for the tactical help, I'll try to include more bombers than fighters. My next gripe though is how much they can carry... But I would be content to fix these 2 issues...

Can't fix what ain't broken You still need to realize that unless you play carrier battles mod FIGHTERS are not system conquest tools and nor should they be. Would you surrender to a fighter squadron? Uh no, for that matter most planets would have so much AAA fire a fighter FLEET would and should be toasted easily.

You don't like how much they carry lol the largest ones in Devnull carry FRIGATE level firepower if you put rocket pods on them

Heck design your own fighter if you want. But you still should realise that a capital ship should NEVER be beaten by less then a SWARM of fighters. And by swarm I mean several squadrons or a full carrier load.

[Fyron]

Fighters are NOT system conquering tools they are FLEET engagement tools, if you want to send them

Your preconceptions should not force me to be unable to manage fighter stacks in space. Further, I would be inclined to say that you are wrong simply because fighters can move through space within a system of their own power. They can definitely be "system conquering tools." Fighter management was simply coded poorly in SE4.

[Iron Giant]

Imperator Fyron said:
Your preconceptions should not force me to be unable to manage fighter stacks in space. Further, I would be inclined to say that you are wrong simply because fighters can move through space within a system of their own power. They can definitely be "system conquering tools." Fighter management was simply coded poorly in SE4.

I really have to agree with Fyron. While I do appreciate the discussion about how to use fighters better, in the mid to late game they are useless. After all the work building, collecting and getting them together in a fleet, the enemy wipes out 1000 fighters with a small handful of capital ships like they are not even there. Total waste.

In a game like SEIV, I should be allowed to come up with my own tactics and carry them through the whole game. Something as big as fighters in the SciFi world should not be relagated to a minor role so quickly. I wouldn't want them to be the ONLY viable tactic, not by far, but now at best they play a minor role, and only that if you heavily micromanage them.

So, can those 2 things not be fixed in the current game?

The fact that fighters in a stack only can fire on one ship and damage flowing to multiple fighters in a stack? Can I get hard confirmation that those 2 things can not be fixed? I'll take the advice from others with a smile on my face, but after 5 years of playing this game, I doubt that I'll get any revelation that will lead me to believe that fighters are not broken with these 2 issues.

I really hope fighters are worth something in SEV....

[geoschmo]

Iron Giant said:
The fact that fighters in a stack only can fire on one ship and damage flowing to multiple fighters in a stack? Can I get hard confirmation that those 2 things can not be fixed? I'll take the advice from others with a smile on my face, but after 5 years of playing this game, I doubt that I'll get any revelation that will lead me to believe that fighters are not broken with these 2 issues.

The second issue is definetly hard coded and cannot be changed short of changing the code. The first I'm not sure. Is it possible to mod fighters and give them multiplex? Would that have any effect? If so, would that do what you want?

[Starhawk]

Fyron "preconception" has nothing to do with it, have you ever considered what I pointed out about the fact that most planets would be so riddled with AAA cannons that fighters would get dusted?

Let's face it a Fighter in and of its self is not something that can ever conquer a system, for that you need indurance and FIREPOWER which fighters lack, how many hours of bombardment would it take for fighters to seriously hurt a planet? Especially a planet with shields and defense platforms (even basic ones).

Now I know your saying "1,000 fighters" consider that against a planet with 8-10 or God forbid a sphereworld with 64 BILLION people do you know how fast those 1,000 puny fighters would get destroyed?

Also since I think a great many players and even a lot of AI have fighter squadrons guarding their worlds you'd have to deal with attrition, sending in your 1,000 fighters against maybe my 100 (per planet) but say my 100 get the drop (I.e get to firing range first) and open up with repeated direct hits, I could very well kill 200+ of your fighters in that one pass.

Now add a weapons platform with their extreme ranges and heavier damage weapons and odds are you'd lose about 500 fighters before getting to the planet.

Now use 100 capital ships you'd probobly lose 10 or even possibly 20 but you'd be in weapons range of both the fighters and the planet sooner and be able to destroy the planet's defenses in a matter of battle turns instead of GAME turns.


Fyron the only way to conquer a system with fighters is if it's a poorly defended frontier system that the guy doesn't much care about protecting in the first place.

Fighters are good in large scale fleet battles supporting capital ships, I can't stress that point enough that you NEED capital ships to be there in most versions of SEIV (including mods) having entire fleets of fighters is rather expensive, time consuming and in the end foolish. Especially because if I get my dreadnought in firing range of your carrier before you can launch any large number of fighters I can blow up HUNDREDS of fighters without them ever leaving their mothership.

I know I sound like one of those old naval 'big guns are best' admirals but in space Big ships would be best just about every way you hack it, fighters or fighter like ships would be too small and have to little fuel and to light of weapons to be of any great risk to capital ships in RL.

The only REAL reason Fighters today have such an advantage is that they can move in three dimensions while ships can only move in two, take that advantage away and the fighters not be so important anymore. I mean if we ever got a flying ship (not saying space saying FLYING) that did not rely on helium or some such explosive material and with decent PD you'd probobly be seeing a steady decline in fighter usage.

[Hunpecked]

Iron Giant writes:

"In a game like SEIV, I should be allowed to come up with my own tactics and carry them through the whole game."

Well, I don't think a game designer is under any obligation to ensure that a particular weapons system is useful under all circumstances. In fact, I'd argue that the play is more interesting if players are forced to re-evaluate their design strategies as game tech advances. In any case, it would seem to be a moot issue given the modding possibilities in SE IV.

"The fact that fighters in a stack only can fire on one ship..."

One of many simplifications in the game, and probably not the worst.

"...and damage flowing to multiple fighters in a stack?"

Not necessarily broken; Iron Giant may be taking the game too literally here. The game is a simplified simulation of "real" events. What we see as a single "shot" may be thought of as the composite result of multiple salvoes at multiple targets in a stack.

Another example: In stock the first fighters lost in a stack disappear without a fuss, but the last goes up in a spectacular fireball. So does that mean the last fighter is packing some pyrotechnic device the others aren't, or is it just eye candy to signal the elimination of the stack?