Wedge nailed it.

strike-anti fighter-class (fighters, strikes and bombers)
fighter-general type
bomber-anti frig/cap ship.

Gunships kill interceptors Interceptors kill bombers

I dont think this is it, lets ask blair.

I think that fighters can play a limited anti-capital role, and a limited anti-fighter class role. but I think interceptors are specialized for anti-fighter with near no anti-cap ship capacity, and that bombers are fully anti-cap with nearly no anti-fighter capacity

I think there a bit more balanced than what Schem says but not as simple as Wedges explanation.

how so?

besides, who would take down strike craft if wedge was right.

I think fighters SHOULD be completely useless against everything but bombers. The reasoning for this is from what I observe from RTS games ive played...

For example

Total Annihilation , Fighters could hit ground targets. People would make fighters not for bomber interception but to use in swarms to effectively do the role of ground killing which isnt right. The person who built bombers for ground killing essentially does less well vs ground then the guy who just built fighters.

now compare to Supreme Commander, Fighters can only be Air vs Air. Now people have started to build bombers more regulary. Theres more tactics that involve the use of bombers.

Now look at homeworld 2. Bombers were just crap. This is because Fighters was better then the bombers at roles the bombers whould have had.

For example, taking out a module , you could essentially send in 3 bombers. But in homeworld , fighters would nail those bombers and because your behind , the guy makes up the full swarm of fighters and they would kill a module faster.

Now if fighters were only there to kill bombers , then the guy who makes only fighters will gain nothing but the interception of bombers , so they must make bombers inorder to gain some effectiveness vs caps ..to aid the cap v cap battles.

What we dont want is a general consensus that bombers are only built once you have "won the swarm battle" which means fighters first until u win the fighters war.

..as for how useless its up to the balancing

One will have the advantage, but no one would have "zero capacity"

yeah, but still
almost negligable effect.

I think fighters SHOULD be completely useless against everything but bombers. The reasoning for this is from what I observe from RTS games ive played...

no, no stop. we've had a 7 page arguement on this exact point in the last forum. I'm not doing it again.

I support a minimum harasment capacity at the most for ships that are attacking their weakness. with the fighters capable of doing moderately significant damage to both.

Mighty Mongoose January 13, 2007 10:01:26

Excellent description, I hope it works out like that

Fighters could be good for taking out ship subsystems.

these arent extensive, it appears taht there are only basic ones on the big ships. nothing more.

engines and something or others on big cap ships.
at least, thats what I remember blair saying. they wont be as important as HW.

like I said, ask blair

Alright fine... where is blair when you need him?

Prolly has off from work for the weekend! How dare he! Everyone at Ironclad should work like the EA slave camp coders, 24x7 365 a year!

That wouldn't put too great a dent in the strategy, most people would just want to disable a ship (engines MUST be a targetable subsystem, I mean, c'mon) to give them time to destroy it. So we won't be able to take out individual gun turrets, I'm betting there's gonna be a generic "weapons" or "sensors" subsystem that will render the enemy unable to target you.

I'd have an option to target the bridge, just think about it, bombing run takes out enemy ship's bridge, ship flails around in space guns firing in all directions, lol....