Fighters

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
Draco
Space Krill
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Fighters

#31 Post by Draco »

Yeah true, but the best way to distinguish fighters from missiles
would be to make them commandable like or most like capital ships.
But that's a thing the Dev Team has chosen NOT to do.

I would prefer commandable fighters myself too, but that's just me... :(

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Fighters

#32 Post by Krikkitone »

Missiles and fighter are basically just two versions of the Indirect Fire weapon (or LR for FO)

Key feature
weapon travels to target but can be destroyed enroute

Variable factors

1. Damage Delivery... all at once/continuous

2. Reusability... Yes/No

All at once+Reusable=Bomber [reloadable??... the bombers remove bombs from your ship storage and apply them to other ships, then fly back and remove onother bomb... and get launched again... or do they just dump all thier bombs and fly back.... in which case you still have to rearm the ship... which makes it a missile]
Continuous+Reusable=Fighter
All at once+One use=Missile
Continuous+One use=??? no example I know of...


3. guidance (note organic=/= living 'person' and 'em' disruptable=/= manufactured computer... if you have a race of robots who build basic biological neural networks for that purpose it is the exact opposite)..
This also has nothing to do with #1 or 2... a Missile can have a 'person' as a pilot (ie kamikazes) and a Fighter/Bomber can be entirely 'automated'/'remote controlled' [ie Predator drones]


So I would propose that system,

1. You can have Fighters which do continuous (or multiple packets over time) damage to a target and either can stay in the field indefinitely OR have to fly back after a certain amount of time/distance from their carrier
*system described by Fighter stats, # of fighters, and launch rate

2. You can have Bombers which move bombs from the ship to a target (but the bomber comes back after firing the bomb for more bombs)
*system described by bomber stats, bomb stats, # of bombers, # of bombs, and launch rate

3. You can have Missiles which move to the target and destroy themselves with damage.
*system described by missile stats, # of missiles, and launch rate


Guidance is then the next issue, and I think that should be totally ignored (except for techs+mods that improve it or interfere with it) better computers/sensors will make for better automated/remote/and direct piloting.... and the impact of war could be seen to be similar in any case as suffering will happen as a result of battle and the race can be presumed to have built thier system around the type of system they find acceptable.

The ability for a LR weapon system to avoid/survive damage is useful whether it is a missile, bomber, or fighter (if it doesn't survive it doesn't do the full damage).. so techs and mods should be included there.

marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

Re: Fighters

#33 Post by marhawkman »

Well, continuous and reusable are functions of the same thing. As are all at once and one use. Thus continuous + one use is a contradiction in terms. Unless you define "One use" as one use per battle, and continuous as "doesn't cease to exist after battle".
Computer programming is fun.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Fighters

#34 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Draco wrote:Yeah true, but the best way to distinguish fighters from missiles
would be to make them commandable like or most like capital ships.
But that's a thing the Dev Team has chosen NOT to do.
Why do you say that?

I posted earlier in the thread about not designing fighters like ships are designed... But I don't think I've said anything, at least recently, that would imply you couldn't order fighters to move or attack during a battle. Has something to that effect been posted elsewhere or earlier?

If you mean that fighters can't be ordered around between battles, on the galaxy map, then yes, that's accurate, but there's no much you could do with them on the galaxy map since they can't move without a ship to carry them.

User avatar
Sui Generis
Space Floater
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:25 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Fighters

#35 Post by Sui Generis »

Krikkitone wrote:All at once+Reusable=Bomber [reloadable??... the bombers remove bombs from your ship storage and apply them to other ships, then fly back and remove onother bomb... and get launched again... or do they just dump all thier bombs and fly back.... in which case you still have to rearm the ship... which makes it a missile]
As you suggest, restricting bombers to one round of damage delivery per battle makes them all but indistinguishable from missiles. The only remaining difference would be that bombers are not (intentionally) destroyed in the process of inflicting damage and may return to the mother ship after an attack. In this case it might make sense to treat them exactly like missiles and not bother to show them returning to base at all.

I think this is a bad idea, as something like bombers are likely to be expected to be distinct from missiles by players. Bombers have a strong presence in sci-fi as being different from missiles, so it would likely be disappointing to a player who had eagerly stocked up a ship design with bombers (as a 'carrier') in the false hope that the bombers would return home for more bombs after each sortie. The player's expectations of something different would be dashed as he discovers that bombers are just a euphemism for another missile and the difference between the two is like the difference between rival brands of washing machine detergent - ie. cosmetic.

In this case I would recommend that fighters or bombers not be included at all. At least there would be none of the disappointment from when the players discover FO is less rich as it led them to believe. (Please note that this is not a dig against the developer's necessary design decisions to simplify the game. I understand the motivation behind it and appreciate that it is impolite to make demands of people who are effectively unpaid volunteers. My point is that if FO is to KISS, it should not make pretensions of being more complex and deep than it is, or else players would be disppointed.)
Krikkitone wrote:Continuous+Reusable=Fighter
All at once+One use=Missile
Continuous+One use=??? no example I know of...
A LR weapon system that is continuous but one use only implies a missile that is destroyed in the attack but inflicts damage persistently (probably up to some kind of limit). The nearest pre-existing weapon I can think of would be MOO2's plasma web weapon, mounted on a missile. The 'plasma web' would inflict an initial amount of damage the turn it was fired, then the next turn it would inflict the same damage again but reduced by 5 points. In this way it would deliver a limited amount of total damage over several turns. One of the things needed to make any weapon like this actually useful and balanced would be to increase the total damage delivered in order to compensate for the time taken. Ideally the player would want the greatest amount of damage delivered as soon as possible, so any weapon that is slower in delivering damage (at least after it hits) than immediately, will be less attractive.

Another possible example of this type of LR weapon might be a missile that travels fast enough to embed itself into the ship's armour, or maybe just attach itself somehow. Then it would use something like acoustic vibration to (rather implausibly) cause damage over time by making the hull itself resonate. Obviously you could swap acoustic vibrations for something more techno-babbley like subspace-distortions or some such. The weapon would presumably stop by having a limited power supply, or the afflicted ship might deploy small space-based 'repair droids' that can remove/destroy it. etc

Long-range point-defence
The idea occurred to me that there is a fourth possible class of weapon system. What if LR weapon systems such as fighters and missiles could be used as point defence systems? Fighters could be used as interceptors to shoot down enemy missiles or engage fighters and bombers. Similarly, missiles could target missiles (like MOO2 anti-missile rockets) and fighters (like a SAM). I expect that these systems would have a longer range than standard PD (since they are based on LR weapons) but would be less effective than standard PD weapons, for reasons of game balance.

The advantages of such weapons would be that the owner player has a chance to destroy incoming LR weapons before they get too close to his ships, or that ships equipped with these weapons could be used further back, alongside the standard LR ships.

Would these weapons be classed as PD or LR, or even given a class of their own? Or is it something that shouldn't be added to FO as it is a lot of work to add compared to a small improvement in gameplay?

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Fighters

#36 Post by Krikkitone »

Sui Generis wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:All at once+Reusable=Bomber [reloadable??... the bombers remove bombs from your ship storage and apply them to other ships, then fly back and remove onother bomb... and get launched again... or do they just dump all thier bombs and fly back.... in which case you still have to rearm the ship... which makes it a missile]
As you suggest, restricting bombers to one round of damage delivery per battle makes them all but indistinguishable from missiles. The only remaining difference would be that bombers are not (intentionally) destroyed in the process of inflicting damage and may return to the mother ship after an attack. In this case it might make sense to treat them exactly like missiles and not bother to show them returning to base at all.

I think this is a bad idea, as something like bombers are likely to be expected to be distinct from missiles by players. Bombers have a strong presence in sci-fi as being different from missiles, so it would likely be disappointing to a player who had eagerly stocked up a ship design with bombers (as a 'carrier') in the false hope that the bombers would return home for more bombs after each sortie. The player's expectations of something different would be dashed as he discovers that bombers are just a euphemism for another missile and the difference between the two is like the difference between rival brands of washing machine detergent - ie. cosmetic.
This is why I think bombers Should be reloadable...whether or not bombs are Stored on the carrier or merely 'generated' by it would be a difference. But it would make bombs interesting... anti-planet norrmally, but anti-ship when you have bombers

As for Fighters I think they should be truly continuous.. ie they can fire indefinitely without a carrier. (just not travel)

In this case I would recommend that fighters or bombers not be included at all. At least there would be none of the disappointment from when the players discover FO is less rich as it led them to believe. (Please note that this is not a dig against the developer's necessary design decisions to simplify the game. I understand the motivation behind it and appreciate that it is impolite to make demands of people who are effectively unpaid volunteers. My point is that if FO is to KISS, it should not make pretensions of being more complex and deep than it is, or else players would be disppointed.)
Sui Generis wrote: Long-range point-defence
Well I think any weapon should be ABLE to be used in a point defense format, they may just not be Useful/efficient as such. In particular I think Fighters should be able to 'dogfight' [with the 'expectations' role again] essentially acting as a Point defense (and a way to stop LR Point Defense.... ie designing a good Bomber carrier should involve some fighter wings to protect the bomber from other fighters... as well as the carrier itself)



As for the "Continuous Missiles"... the Only thing that should limit how much damage a fighter wing does is that you wipe it out eventually.... and I think that would be enough... For something that destroys itself that can't work as a limitation... So for the 'subspace resonator' I would just class it like a special missile.

Post Reply