Just FYI...The term "Alpha Strike" is a throwback to the Mechwarrior days. It means to to fire ALL of your weapons/weapon groups at your target in one single volley. It was usually used as either a finishing tactic or to cripple a limb.

Generally, it was bad news for you because doing it would generate so much heat that you would shut yourself down, making you a sitting duck if it didn't work. The only notable exception to the heat problem was that you could sometimes could do this more often if your mech was standing in a lake.

And yes, I did play every mech title that ever came out.

Just FYI...The term "Alpha Strike" is a throwback to the Mechwarrior days. It means to to fire ALL of your weapons/weapon groups at your target in one single volley. It was usually used as either a finishing tactic or to cripple a limb.

Generally, it was bad news for you because doing it would generate so much heat that you would shut yourself down, making you a sitting duck if it didn't work. The only notable exception to the heat problem was that you could sometimes could do this more often if your mech was standing in a lake.


At least, this is how it's been used in regards to gaming. Can't speak to it's real everyday use. Others may have more info on that part than I.

Main point> as far as fighters and bombers being the weakest link in the game balance, it all depends on your play style, i know there Should be some players out there that will be able to open your eyes as to the value of the fighter/bomber squadron.... i'm looking forward to seeing you post some positive constructive remarks on the subject once that day does happen.

Thank you for the props first, and I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea of my feelings about fighters and bombers, I love them and want to use them but playing online against another player often means carefully choosing where to spend your points and every unit the enemy fields you need to be ready to counter that unit.

In my experience that means I have to make an army big enough to push him back and the best way to do that is using something besides fighers and bombers in every case.

The results, to me, indicate that when facing X amount of LRM frigates it's more effective to use LRM Frigates, Battleships and Battlecruisers? (haven't tested) And none of those units specifically counter LRM frigates. The units that do, fighters, do a worse job than units that do not specialize in this task... That's needs fixing in my opinion.

When Facing 10 Light Frigates it's more effective to field 10 light frigates, a Battleship, Battlecruiser (Not tested) (or LRM frigates but that is a ton of resources into research so it's not a fair comparison to say 10 LRM vs 10 Light Frigates is a fair fight. If someone dumped all the other resources into Light frigates you be facing a lot more than 10 light frigates. Same with the carrier/LRM battle now that I think of that. I'm goign to rerun that test using enough light frigates to make up for the research costs of getting LRM frigates)

I think the tests I ran are clear...no? I was surprised by how one sided the results were to be honest. The Fighter/LRM frigate was my biggest surprise because the fighters say specifically that they are strong vs LRM frigates yet they fail to stop them in stunning fashion. Maybe a fair fight between LRM frigates and a carrier should include enough light frigates to account for the research needed to get LRM frigates so that battle is a bit suspect.

I'm curious how the equivalent amount of carrier cruisers would fair with fighters against LRM frigates. Everyone has bad things to say about carrier cruisers but honestly I think they are a better value/squadron than carriers are because I know you can buy more than 2 cruisers / 1 carrier and then you start with more squadrons than you had on the carrier right off the bat.

I'll try the cruisers vs LRM and Light frigates and see how that goes.

If someone wants to put a battlecruiser against the light frigates I'd be very curious to see how that battle goes. Motherships as well.

Or Vs scouts? I'm very curious how a carrier would do against a large number of scouts...that would be intersting.

Latest Testing:

Cruiser Carriers!

Was Advent vs TEC.

Put 10 Light Frigates vs 4 Cruiser Carriers.
Costs don't line up too well because the cruiser carrier needed 500 less credits, 100 more metal, and 200 more crystal but I figured I'd give this a shot.

4 Cruiser Carriers w/7 bombers each / 10 Frigates
Result
0 Cruiser Carriers / 8 Frigates

This was a head to head fight, worst case scenario, enemy jumps in right on top of you, you don't micro them to move around, it's a slaughter.


Next I started the cruisers on the far side of the system and tried to move them away to keep them at range. Didn't do much good.

4 Cruiser Carriers w/7 bombers each / 10 frigates
Result
0 Cruiser Carriers / 6 Frigates

Next I wanted to see how a carrier would do on the move vs Frigates.

1 Carrier w/16 bombers / 10 frigates
Result
1 Carrier w/16 bombers / 0 frigates !!!!!!

This was a surprise, the battle was fairly one sided with the carrier going down until 5 frigates had been destroyed. The carrier was at 50% hull and no shields at that point and the battle finally turned. Still not a very impressive result. Adding a few more frigates would have been to much for the carrier. It hit level 2 during the battle as well but didn't get any extra bombers at that point so even at level 2 you're still stuck with just 2 sets of strike craft.

I didn't get a chance to try all this with LRM frigates but I think it's pointless to continue testing at this point. Mass producing other units is a better investment if you want the most bang for your buck.

I am only playing multiplayer lately so for me spending points on units that handicap me is not an option so until they fix this issue I'm staying away from fighters/bombers.

It's possible some of the other races have more powerful strikecraft or more useful carriers and I'd like to hear from someone testing those ships if you'd like to do the legwork.

Enjoy!

I think the problem here is that you are viewing carriers from a standpoint that demands they function like other units.

You are viewing it in terms of: How many units of what type can x carriers engage effectively?

This isn't really a valid comparison. Because carriers do not directly engage their targets, you have to view them in the same context as you view your support frigates, like the command cruiser or robotics carrier or subverter or whatever. The exact combat effectiveness of a carrier is more difficult to get a bead on because it depends primarily on damage per lifespan of carrier, as opposed to damage per second. Because carriers have such an absurd effective range, they can deal damage without fear of reprisal. Their effectiveness is only mitigated by the employment of flak frigates or other carriers, which is, IMO, pretty great, because flak frigates are nigh useless against anything but fighters/bombers/LRMs.

By employing a significant (not overwhelming) number of carriers, you force your opponent to field flaks. You have spent resources fielding a unit that does decent DpS against a wide variety of targets, he has fielded a unit type that only counters one. The idea is to deploy them in an intelligent manner that forces your enemy to waste resources on countering them, thereby granting time and flexibility to the rest of your force, while denying it to your enemy. Just like the other support carriers, their job is not necessarily to bring home heads, but to change the face of the battlefield in a way that benefits the wielder.

The major downfall to using carriers is that if the bulk of your DpS hammer relies on fighters, you are incredibly vulnerable. You need to have a fleet that is effective enough to remove whatever flak counter units your enemy has employed -before- your carrier fleet either suffers heavy strikecraft losses, or, alternatively, before you launch your fighters at all. If you have the majority of your fleet's damage potential tied up in easily counter-able strikecraft, this won't happen.

But, excuse me for saying it: No kidding, you mean carrier fleets are really vulnerable to flak frigates? And they can't deal with enemy targets attacking them directly? For real? OMG, buff strikecraft!

'Carrier fleets' were never supposed to be workable. They are supposed to -support- your existing fleets. As far as damage... Advent fighters deal ~20 DpS per squadron to their intended light armor targets. And Advent bombers deal ~30 DpS to very heavy targets. Find me a unit that takes 8 supply and deals 30 damage per second to a heavy cruiser. If you employ the carriers intelligently, as a supporting arm of your main fleet, they do a great job at tacking on a great deal of extra damage, and forcing the enemy to waste resources on keeping around a counter force of flak frigates.

Strikecraft are not the workhorse of any fleet. They are a supplemental tool. They are great for certain things, and if you stick to employing them in situations where they can shine, they will continue to shine. If you try to use them to stand toe-to-toe with somebody, they will not shine. They will die, and you'll be out a lot of money.

Medieval commanders used cavalry. You slam the bulk of the enemy forces up against the main body of your force, and then you jump in the faster, more mobile, harder hitting units in to slam the flank of the enemy forces. Hammer and anvil. It's quite literally the most classic tactic in the history of warfare. Military commanders did not field entire armies of heavy cavalry... Why? They're expensive, and easily countered by people with long spears. Sad fact, pikes are useless against other types of infantry... Parallels? Anybody seeing parallels?

Tumbler, you used BOMBERS against light frigates, of COURSE they got decimated. That's a no brainer, I could've told you that.

And while I think they're not as good as they should be, they do have uses. Maybe someone has fortified their border world with a TON of turrets(They're not a fan of strikecraft either, eh?) and their fleet is elsewhere oppucied. It happens alot. You can use your bombers to kill those turrets without any losses or damages on your part. And the ability to get the first strike in a battle is always nice.

Also, I think you should try it when everybody is completely teched up. How does it fair then, vs light frigates? Try it from a couple of situations. Try it with a level 6-10 Carrier.

Honestly, I think we need more tests. Try it with 10 Kodiaks, 5 CC, and 1 Carrier VS 10 Kodiaks, 10 LRMs, and 1 Battleship. Again, different situations. Teched up and not. To be honest, I take back my earlier post. There isn't any conclusive evidence here.

Your putting a Level 1 Halcyon against 10 LRM Frigates. Try putting a Level 1 Radiance, or a Level 1 Revelation, or a Level 1 Progenitor, or a Level 1 Rapture against them. OK, so the Rapture may do well because of Vengeance, but you can try it with all capital ships of all the factions. Carriers fare no worse.

Also, capital carriers need kiting as much as cruiser carriers. Their own guns are more or less worthless, like the guns on colony and siege frigates.



Light Frigates are a hard counter to Cruiser Carriers while Bombers are a soft counter to Light Frigates. Try vs. LRM Frigates, with Fighters, or vs. Heavy Cruisers with Bombers. Equal supply, not based on number of ships(10 Cobalts = 50 supply, 4 Aerias = 32 supply).

Another thing is that the Advent, while having good strike craft, have the worst cruiser carrier. The Aeria Drone Host is an absolute tin can, with negligible shielding, no armor, and mediocre hull strength. It appears that it was not designed with the idea that it was going to get shot at, so maybe you could try the Lasurak Transporter or Percheron Light Carrier instead.

The Lasurak's Fighters and Bombers, sling Phase Missiles at their target and screw shield mitigation, and the Percheron is a tough ship in itself while it's squadrons are not anything amazing. And don't be fooled by Vasari squadrons having very few strike craft in them, because each individual Fighter/Bomber is MUCH stronger in itself than the lighter TEC/Advent strike craft.



!

Do whatever tests you want, just throw in 20% of the supply/resource usage you put into carriers into the opposing enemy flak...Go on =p.

Tumbler, you used BOMBERS against light frigates, of COURSE they got decimated. That's a no brainer, I could've told you that.

Bombers do more damage to Light Frigates than fighters do. See earlier testing for proof. The only thing fighters do better is vs LRM frigates and bombers. (see posting by devs on 1.04 updates)

What I'm trying to get at is that the point cost to deploy fighters/bombers is too high for the damage they do. They just aren't worth it. Use them all you want but you are giving yourself a handicap.

I found one area they can do well in which is 1 carrier on the move vs 10 frigates but that is a fairly rare situation. Someone else pointed out that fighters/bombers do well around a star system because of the slow movement of everything.

We're just ignoring flak frigates at this point which basically take bombers/fighters out of the fight for a fraction of the cost. As Drexion pointed out, all you have to do to counter these units is spend 20% of the same points on flak frigates and you're toast. That leaves 80% of those funds to put into more ships that will give you a big advantage in combat.

Throw in a Repair Cloud, or a single Repair Platform/Regeneration Bay, or Rapid Manufacturing, add a touch of micro, and flak = nil. Or just simple strike craft micromanagement by diving into range only to shoot and then flying off again to minimize Flak DPS. So maybe a group of Sentinels will tear apart some paper-skinned Advent Bomber drones in one pass, but TEC and Vasari Bombers are more resilient and have some native repair capacity as well, with which micro can work.

And too many flaks = too little actual firepower and = turkey shoot for Light Frigates.

80% LRM, 20% flak will demolish any equivalent supply/cost force of light frigates (add as many carriers as ya want there too, keeping supply/cost the same for both forces).

Sure, regen bay and repair cloud HELP...not enough though, not nearly enough. You can micro all you want Just keep the flak by the LRM to provide coverage.

Flak also beats LRM, so if the opponent has LRM (likely) their very useful there. Even if the opponent does NOT have LRM, flak are great tanks...And the unit AI has a tendency to target them, heh (can be solved by microing and ignoring them though).

Because carriers have such an absurd effective range, they can deal damage without fear of reprisal. Their effectiveness is only mitigated by the employment of flak frigates or other carriers, which is, IMO, pretty great, because flak frigates are nigh useless against anything but fighters/bombers/LRMs.

I think the latest test of 10 frigates vs 1 carrier that started on the other side of the system and moved as soon as the enemy got close should make it clear that these things are not safe, even at range. Even after starting all the way across the map, bombers sitting at the jump in point to attack the frigates they still got over to me and nearly destroyed the carrier before I took them all out.

Please conduct some tests to support your arguments.

Breakdown the fleets of boths sides, let them fight, and give the results. Try using any variable you want to balance the fleets, cost, supply, research time, I don't care, but find something that supports your argument that fighters/bombers are an important part of your fleet.

The testing I've run so far indicated that they only make your fleet less effective by using them. You're better off building other ships and ignoring the fighters/bombers.

They totally heal strike craft. Fighters attack every 12 seconds and Bombers every 13.5 seconds. In between this time, you send the strikecraft stacks into the Regen Bay/Repair Cloud and get them patched up. A single burst from flak, which is all that will be allowed for each pass, can't kill strike craft faster then the Cloud/Bay can fix them, and even if they kill a few individual Fighters, it's not faster than they can be rebuilt.



You can build anything you want, of course.



Cruiser Carriers aren't even a counter to Light Frigates at all. It's the other way around. Bombers kill Heavy Cruisers, Structures, and Capital Ships. Fighters kill Fighters, Bombers, Scouts, Long-Range Frigates, Siege Frigates, and Civilian Ships. Where does "Light Frigate" come in here? Your putting Carrier Cruisers' direct counter against them.

Cruiser Carriers aren't even a counter to Light Frigates at all. It's the other way around. Bombers kill Heavy Cruisers, Structures, and Capital Ships. Fighters kill Fighters, Bombers, Scouts, Long-Range Frigates, Siege Frigates, and Civilian Ships. Where does "Light Frigate" come in here? Your putting Carrier Cruisers' direct counter against them.

My previous tests showed that a single carrier with fighters or bombers both fail miserably at stopping a wave of 10 light frigates. If you micro the carrier in circles this changes but the carrier still takes a major thrashing.

Carrier Cruisers were used in the latest test because for the same cost of a carrier (approx) you get 4 squadrons of bombers/fighters instead of 2 but those units died even faster against a fleet of 10 frigates.

The point of all this is to find some reason to use fighters/bombers. So far I've found 1 scenario where a carrier can hold it's own and it's not likely that will ever help in a multiplayer game.

If the carrier can't counter even a core set of units that are worth approx the same value why would it be useful in combat with larger fleets?

Try it yourself. Put equal value fleets on the map. I suggest using credits/metal/crystal to balance both fleets but other have suggested supply as well.

How about this:

Side A
1 Battleship
1 Battlecruiser
1 Mothership
10 Light Frigates
10 LRM Frigates

vs

Side B
1 Battleship
1 Battlecruiser
1 Carrier with bombers/fighters
10 Light Frigates
10 LRM frigates

No upgrades, just stock units, let them fight. If Side B wins this battle then I'm wrong. If this battle doesn't play to the carriers strength then design a battle that does. Just keep it equal and if my test are accurate you'll see that Sibe B loses almost every time.

Try putting them against hvy cruisers if prefer, just keep it equal. Hvy cruisers for both sides in that case.

By throwing all these equal units on both sides, you are simply introducing "noise" into the experiment.

I agree but many people have mentioned that carriers need to be used in a support role and this experiment would possibly offer some proof to that argument if the force with the carrier came out on top in this battle.

I think the simple tests against simple units show clearly that the carrier is underpowered. I think any other capital ship would defeat the small group of enemies. That would be a good test actaully. See how each cap ship does vs 10 light frigates and 10 LRM frigates.

I just try to have fun and build a balanced fleet

Tumbler, 4 drone hosts killing 4 out of 10 frigates, without any real fleet, is a good result. They have a support role, of course they won't work alone. Also they work only when the alpa strike is enough to kill or almost kill frigates, so a test with 4 carriers will of course result in dead carriers.

Once you have enough to alphastrike frigates (i found they start working very well after 15 squadrons, decent with 10+) and have some frigates to fight the battle and take the damage, they will be worth their cost. As advent you can also add guardians later who will help them survive.

Tumbler, 4 drone hosts killing 4 out of 10 frigates, without any real fleet, is a good result. They have a support role, of course they won't work alone. Also they work only when the alpa strike is enough to kill or almost kill frigates, so a test with 4 carriers will of course result in dead carriers.

Prove it.

Put 15 of them in a battle and match them up with something costing approx the same points/resources.

Put them against anything you want and they'll lose because they suck. You may get a few 1 shot kills but when you're facing off against 20-30 light frigates you're dead. And that is a fair comparison.

Frigate costs 250,40,0 x 19 = 4750,760,0
C.Cruiser costs 450,50,50 (I think) x 15 = 6750,750,750

Try that test and let me know how that goes. And that isn't even close to fair for the frigates, if you bought more metal with that 2k credit difference and sold the crystal you'd add at least 7 more frigates so if you want a fair test do:

26 Frigates
vs
15 C.Cruisers

My money is on the frigates. Use LRM frigates if you like. The fighters counter then off the cruisers a bit better so that might be a more interesting test. But the number of LRM frigates you can field will be different. It's probably going to be more like 20 vs 15.

Cost for cost, compared to Carrier Cruisers with Bombers, Assailants do:
133.5% more damage to light armor
250.3% more damage to medium armor
75.2% more damage to heavy armor
12.5% less damage to very heavy armor
16.8% more damage to Capital Ships

The Assailants also have 18.9% more effective health.

It doesn't matter that your carrier cruisers are sitting on the edge of the gravity well, because either:
1. The enemy will rush them in seconds and get free shots on the carrier cruisers as they try to jump.
2. The enemy is fighting something else and is effectively dealing much more damage than the cowardly carrier cruiser.

Flak Frigates aren't even needed, carrier cruisers are simply not even close to being cost effective against anything but HCs and structures, even in pure offense scenarios.

Capital Ship abilities that can easily kill, disable and/or cripple massed strikecrafts, and Flak Frigates are just an extra weakness that can further cripple the already gimped carrier cruisers.

About Capital Ships, yeah, Carrier Caps do have the best offense. If only because Capital Ships are rather poor offensive ships. (4 Assailants can out-dps any Battleship, for half the cost.)

Great Stats Phoebus, thanx

133.5% more damage to light armor
250.3% more damage to medium armor
75.2% more damage to heavy armor
12.5% less damage to very heavy armor
16.8% more damage to Capital Ships


That means that is we double the damage of bombers the numbers would for assailants would be:

33.5% more damage to light armor
150.3% more damage to medium armor
25.2% LESS damage to heavy armor
112.5% LESS damage to very heavy armor
84% LESS damage to Capital Ships

Those numbers seems more interesting for using bombers.
And if we went to 3x the current damage for bombers damage for assailants would be:

77% LESS damage to light armor
50.3% more damage to medium armor
125.2% LESS damage to heavy armor
212.5% LESS damage to very heavy armor
184% LESS damage to Capital Ships

This might be extreme, but bombers would be awesome!!! Bye Bye Hvy Cruisers!

No not double..

Also you're forgetting that bombers and fighters replenish for free, and have longer range, and only flak and abilities can attack them.

In many cases, they SHOULD be weaker. They shouldn't ALWAYS be the best bet.

Also keep in mind bombers are supposed to be anti HC, anti support cruiser, anti-building, and anti cap.


Part of this issue is due to LRMS having an overpowered damage type.

See my post where I've gone over the issue of BOTH.
https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/304141/page/1
My suggestions to buff them are quite conservative.. Really bombers could due with having their AntiVeryHeavy damage type do more damage to 125% or 150% damage to VeryHeavy.
Fighters should be Antiscout, Antilrm, antilightfrig, and antisupport. Right now they're only Antilrm and antiscout, and they have such low HP and flaks do extra damage to them, so they die so fast.
50% more HP to bombers, and a new improved damage type for Fighters is a good start for them.
Maybe Bombers should get an increased damage against HeavyCruisers. Maybe they need double HP, not just 50%. Maybe Fighters should do 150% damage to medium armor, not 100%(as I suggested, currently they do a measily 25% of their already lowish dps). But it's important not to do anything.
Hopefully IC will buff fighters/bombers similar to how i suggested(preferably exactly the same! They really need their own damage type!) and if that's not enough, well 1.1 will be coming next for more balance changes.

But, small steps. Be conservative. Sometimes a small change does a lot more than spreadsheet balancing says it should. Sometimes doing what the spreadsheets say horribly imbalances things!


A game is effected much less when it has 50 units and 5 of them are underpowered, than 50 units and 5 are overpowered. You have 45 units to abuse in the first scenario, instead of just 5.



Also with bombers you have to consider their damage PER PASS. While it may be 20 dps or so against something, they're doing like 150 damage in the pass, it's just each pass is 13.5 seconds. So they are usually killing things in one pass with a group of them, which drops the enemy dps quickly with the opening shot.
Again, spreadsheet balancing doesn't work unless you're REALLY thinking about.
You use spreadsheet balancing as a refernce combined with actual gameplay. But in this case the actually gameplay shows that Fighters/Bombers/Carriers are ineffective and near useless.

And you are forgetting that missiles and lasers replenish instantly and for free, and they can't be shot down.
The strikecrafts are the ordinance; if the carriers are killed they will go down. That the strikecrafts themselves can be killed is only an extra weakness.

The extra range (carrier cruiser's only advantage) is not worth having far weaker damage AND risking being easily shut down by flaks or fighters.

No, I understand these things just fine.

Many people can attest to that.

Don't forget the other two weaknesses: high resource cost and high supply cost relative to the units compared above (LRM, assailant)