A swarm of thoughts about small craft

from Sins Forums
I know that beta 1 was supposed to be about compatibility testing and not gameplay, but there haven't been too many bugs to find, so I'll write up some thoughts I had on my favorite units, the fighter/bomber squads.

I'd like to see small craft have an endurance timer. By that, I mean the amount of time they can spend undocked from their base should be finite (instead of the current infinite). You could have a research tree to increase the timer to give small craft more range / attack time. I think this would pull the hanger platforms closer to the battle and give a risk/reward tradeoff (right now, it doesn't make sense to base the hangers anywhere dangerous. Hanger location only helps the initial travel to the combat area right now).

I'd also like bombers to perform one (more powerful) attack on ships and then have to return to base to reload. It doesn't make sense right now that the bombers will continually attack a target one-missile-at-a-time rather than just firing all those missles all at once. I think an attack of, say, 4 bomber squads should halve a capital ships's shields (or worse).

More (potential) research topics for small craft would be to increase hanger capacity (allow more squards on the carrier and hanger platform). Increasing carrier experience would result in faster turnaround time for the bomber rearm or small craft refuel rather than the current "more squads" bonus. I think max squad limits of 4 for the carrier and 4 or 6 for the hanger platform would be about right. The hanger platform might need to be upgraded to get the higher squad counts.

My final thought would be to remove the separate fighter/bomber squads and have just one type of small craft. There would still be fighter (i.e. anti-small craft) and bomber (anti-ship) roles, but the squad could switch roles with a dock+rearm rather than the current remove (fighter|bomber) and add (bomber|fighter) management we have to do. Squads would auto-build as a slot opened up, and the squad management screen would let us determine fighter/bomber role and launch. In space, we'd have a dock and a dock+change role button in the special abilities pane.

7,275 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
I think gameplay beta may be the next beta not this one.
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
"Hanger location only helps the initial travel to the combat area right now)."
That should be the only thing hangar location helps...

"I'd also like bombers to perform one (more powerful) attack on ships and then have to return to base to reload. It doesn't make sense right now that the bombers will continually attack a target one-missile-at-a-time rather than just firing all those missles all at once. I think an attack of, say, 4 bomber squads should halve a capital ships's shields (or worse)."
I do think this would be an interesting idea, impractical perhaps from a gaming standpoint, but more, um "realistic?" lol

your ideas are cool, but i'd hate to add more research... and i personally don't like the whole experience points thing to begin with, how does a cap ship gain hull points by surviving battles? i'm just glad the xp in this game doesn't tip the balance too much, iirc 2 level 1 caps should beat a level 10 cap of the same class, if it doesn't then no me gusta
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
Those are some good ideas - let's see what the dev's think.
Not sure I'd combine the fighter/bomber types though - that would add to the micro-management of a battle.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
how does a cap ship gain hull points by surviving battles?


A more experienced crew is better at damage control and keeping the ship running in extreme circumstances.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
[quote]My final thought would be to remove the separate fighter/bomber squads and have just one type of small craft. There would still be fighter (i.e. anti-small craft) and bomber (anti-ship) roles, but the squad could switch roles with a dock+rearm rather than the current remove (fighter|bomber) and add (bomber|fighter) management we have to do.[/quote

I disagree on that. Fighters and bombers are very physically different. One does not go from light and nible, to torpedo-hauler with a simple reload. (can't change a B-52 to an F-16)
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
Wraithguru brought up my comment about the risk/reward tradeoff caused by hangar location. I don't think I expressed my point very clearly. I agree with him that hangar location should only influence travel time to (and from) the battlefield. However, right now, with the infinite loiter time small craft have, that's a trip they only make once, so the reward for placing the hangar close to the action is small compared to the risk of the hangar being destroyed. A finite loiter time would require small craft to be making multiple trips to the hangar, and directly affect time in battle (a long trip will chew up time the small craft could be fighting).

AlcariAmbaron's point about fighters and bombers being different is valid, but I'd argue the difference is not as great as people might think. Most of the size difference between a B-52 and a fighter is due to max range, and not payload. A B-52's max payload is ~50,000 pounds. A F-15E's max payload is ~25,000 pounds, and they'd be very close to the same ship-killing capability. A better example is a F/A-18. In bomber config, it can carry 20,000 pounds of ordnance. In fighter config, it's good enough that the Navy decided to remove the F-14 wings (the dedicated interceptors) from the carriers. The difference between the two configurations is only a payload swap.
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
I tend to agree. The question is whether or not there are enough CPU cycles to make little details like this happen. It may not seem like much, but when you multiply it by X number of hangars times Y number of other features that need AI time (times each of of those items), it adds up incredibly fast.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
it's good enough that the Navy decided to remove the F-14 wings (the dedicated interceptors) from the carriers.


f-14s are being replaced with the navies version of the new f-22

and i would assume that as soon as that is done they will start replaceing the f-15s

the f-22s is the new fighter/bomber for the usa military

i think that the only plane it cannot/will not replace is the warthog but that plane has a very specific mission

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
f-18s and f16s = fighters (yes they can carry bombs)

f-14s and f15s = fighter/bombers (these would be the torpedo/dive bombers of ww2)

warthog(sorry only know it by its nickname)= close ground support(yes the others can do this job but the warthog was built for it. the difference would be kind of like a professional vs an ametuer)


f-22 is also a fighter/bomber but i think it is better when in the role of fighter than the f-14 or f-15


sorry about the spelling
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
While I do agree that fighters and bombers should have limited flight time, it should last for quite a while, enough to finish a fairly long (5 mins?) battle. Nobody wants a fighter or bomber that can only last half a battle.

Also, as far as the bomber unloading their entire payload, I do think that if they use missles, they should be limited, I would say make it an ability. Because you don't want your bomber unloading everything on a kol that has its dampening field (sorry, forgot the actual ability name) up. So I would say give us a choice.


For those who are interested in this off-topic material:

The F/A-18 and F-16 are multiroles, not a fighters. The F/A-18 was specifically designed to be able to handle a multitude of missions to save on carrier space. The F-16 was designed as a fighter, but was found to have enough versatility that it is a multirole.

The F-15 is a air superiority fighter. That's what it was designed for, that's what it is. And although there was talk or retiring it, they have decided to retrofit them and keep them around for a while longer, mainly due to the cost of replacing them with the F-22.

The F-14 was also designed as an air superiority fighter, however it has had other roles as well, although it is still classified as a fighter. It has indeed however entered retirement, and been replaced by the F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet.

The F-22 was pretty much the same as the F-14 in that it started as a fighter but can be and has been equipped for other roles such as recon and precision bombing.

Also, the Warthog's designation is the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and there is talk about using the F-35 to replace it, although not anytime soon, in case daniel was wondering.

Also, what I'm assuming daniel meant by the Navy's version of the F-22 is the F-35 Lightning II, which was an international effort, and is not going to be strictly an American plane.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
then again most fighters can be used in a multi role function

the first bomber was when someone went up with a bomb and threw it out of the cockpit
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
It's how they are designed though. SOASE fighters won't necessarily have the targeting equipment needed for launching missiles. This could quite possibly be due to the fact that in space you need to decrease your mass rather than shape of the craft so you can pull off tighter maneuvers, while a bomber relies on the fighters for escort and therefore can deal with decreased maneuverability caused by the extra mass from the targeting equipment.

So, yeah, in theory, you could probably strap a missle to a fighter and launch it, but you might not be able to actually target a ship, and therefore would have to lanch it from so close a range the fighter even might not be able to avoid a collision with it's target.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
You could think of current in-game bombers this way - since a carrier has the manufacturing capabilities to build their own aircraft while in space, perhaps a bomber has the manufacturing capability to build their own bombs in space.

As part of making the process cheap and efficient, the bombs are very volatile, never lasting more than tens of seconds. Only one can be constructed at a time, and when launched bombers are not armed - they construct their bombs en route to the target, and continue constructing and launching bombs while in flight.

Ultimately, any gameplay mechanic used can be explained away. I wouldn't mind at all seeing bombers with a single weapon that strike and return to their carriers to rearm, but I can understand how adding things like that can tax the AI and system resources.

Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
we have the capability today to build/make spare parts in space out of some kind of gel
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
@Commassion:

Yeah, but even then, they would have only a limited amount of materials to make the bomb, unless it the entire bomb is made up of energy (although the current bombs look quite solid).