10 replies to this topic

[Aizen Teppa]

First of all I'm fully aware that v.1.3 will change - pretty much - everything except planet names (gameplay-wise)

 

Still, I decided to start this topic. We all know how bad fighter lag (FL) can be. Everybody had problem with it. Well after much though I have (perhaps) a way of bending the laws of FoC physics a bit. The main problem now is that with that we don't deal with single fighters but in several thousands (in extreme cases) of units.

 

 I will explain this on X-wing. Why not cut craft representation to physical 1 unit on the map? Give it appropriate boost for each upgrade. X-wing of x9 will have all advantages of x9: health, hull strength, armament with one difference - despite being it top of the line x9 model it will still be only one craft just with multiplied strength. That way even if AI decide to dump 1000 of fighters it with will be only 1000 objects instead 9000 which is something that game engine cannot handle. 

 

I'm aware that it will require extensive remodeling of fighters units, but it is doable.. 

[johnchm.10]

I vote we see how 1.3 goes before we even think about overhauling the overhaul. It could very well be that the lag has been significantly reduced.

[DoctorWho]

I vote we see how 1.3 goes before we even think about overhauling the overhaul. It could very well be that the lag has been significantly reduced.

 

I think we'll have to wait for 2015 to get v1.3

[skie9173]

I agree on waiting for the next version, from the news it sounds like lag will be much reduced, and I would hate to see anyone do all the work only to have it invalidated.

My personal preference is to keep squadrons as is.

[a.fake.name]

Just remove fighters w/o a hyperdrive from the build/research trees, and make them compliment only.
I imagine that'd do a lot to help with the issue.
 

[megabalta]

That deserves yet another poll. Do you actually build tie fighters/interceptors/bombers? I for one never did.

[johnchm.10]

Early on, all I pretty much have deployed are fighters and bombers. I save my capitals for planetary defense. Usually I send a spy to get a basic idea of what I'm facing, and deploy accordingly. Later on, when I am expanding and have access to cruisers, my fighters and interceptors join my offensive fleets and my bombers stay at home. Once I get K-wings, I upgrade them a bit to give them concussion missiles and send them out. Usually I can get away with a dozen squadrons. Aside from that, if I hear an enemy fleet approaching, I'll build as many headhunters as I can to boost my defenses

[skie9173]

Tie Fighters: No never

 

Tie Intercepters: At high levels, occassionally

 

Tie Bombers: A few, to snipe with their concussion missiles, and as extra fluff to smaller fleets

 

I use Defenders and Preybirds a decent amount.  Avengers and Star Wings at higher levels occasionally.

 

Scimitars for special occasions.

 

Nova Wings I don't actually use too often surprisingly.

[johnchm.10]

TIE/Ln x3s and later models are underrated I feel. Their shields, speed, and maneuverability basically allow them to better survive encounters with non-missile armed ships.

Interceptors are great. It can definitely back up its claim as the deadliest mass produced TIE. Even the basic production model without the extra blasters is deadly.

Bomber x2s are the bare minimum for me. They need the extra speed to survive. Once you get there, you actually get a pretty versatile, if slow, assault fighter. Idea: keep them as the slowest fighter in the game, but replace their light lasers with medium lasers to increase their punch.

Defenders I avoid. Too overpowered. It, to me is kinda like the IMI Desert Eagle or the S&W Model 500. Amazingly powerful pistols, but given their limitations, a rifle would be a more practical choice. The Preybird is kinda like an expanded E-wing. The E-wing can use its Medium Lasers to good effect against fighters, and its rapid fire/large magazine torpedo launcher allows it to deal with corvettes and other capital ships with little hassle. The Preybird with its Heavy Lasers, fore and aft firing missile launchers, and eventually the slugthrower and light turret can lay waste to fighter and bomber squadrons, and pose a threat to some frigates.

A TIE Avenger is basically a better A-wing but with 4 fixed lasers instead of 2 swiveled guns.

StarWings are good replacements for the TIE Bomber. On paper. Their lack of concussion missiles hurts them in a dogfight.

Scimitars are great. Up to 192 torpedoes going into 1 target in 1 salvo. Even an Imperial-class would be mauled by such an assault, assuming it still lives.

NovaWings are kinda overrated. Yeah they have a lot of firepower from their missiles, but they can only fire them 2 at a time, 4 if you are engaging capital ships. Now if you were to increase the number of warheads launched at a given time, then we'd have a menace on our hands

[Aizen Teppa]

OK, I think we drifted from the topic a lot. It's not about which fighter is good, bad or "ha ha ha you can't touch me wimp!".

 

It's about problems with FL generated by plethora of fighters - on AI side for overwhelming part. OK megabalta has a point about the poll. Perhaps after 1.3 is out and fighters are still an issue we should have one. 

 

Right now from my own preferences I rarely build over 50 squads. As Rebels I don't really waste time on "rebel" crafts. Just spamming Blastboats and/or Deltas. As Empire first Skips and Deltas. Later after Tie-D is upgraded to (at least) lvl 5 I just build these. For the most part I just use fighters for defending important but isolated planet or for holding vital crossroads when big fleet is somewhere else.

 

I have an idea to curb amount of fighters in 1.2 without resolving to remodeling (when I have some spare time anyway). 

 

1. Editing campaign files to remove all useless fighters of the map (for all sides)

2. Rising Pop required for ANY fighter to 5 (perhaps more) points / fighter sqr built.

3. Reworking a bit cost of some crafts.

[a.fake.name]

StarWings are good replacements for the TIE Bomber. On paper. Their lack of concussion missiles hurts them in a dogfight.

The StarWing is a decent recon bird, when I have them I tend to have a force to 6 StarWings as my advance force followed closely by interceptor craft from my compliment.
If I encounter snubcraft, and especially of I time it decent, the enemy snubcraft will still be reeling from the ions allowing interceptor craft, especially those armed with missiles and turrets, to do decent damage to them in a short period of time.

Now, if proton torpedoes could target snubcraft things would get a lot more interesting.

On paper, I just look at the synergy of the weapons.
Pair ions/missiles/turrets, and enemy snubcraft die fast.

Ions slow a craft and can make them sitting ducks for a short period of time per hit.
Missiles, I assume ignore a snubcraft's shields the same as they ignore a cap ships, obvious exploit is obvious.
Turrets on a snubcraft are exellent because it means more continual DPS being delivered.


I apply the same system to capitol ships, I plan what I build by what guns they have.
As capitols (other than the VSD-I) tend to not have many/any missiles or torpedoes, they do close to zero hull damage to one another until a shield goes down.

My first priority is to get ions (turbo ion turrets, or heavy turboion turrets):
They do the most shield damage, and can slow the ship.

My second priority is to get heavy turbolasers, or a doubly large number of turbolaser turrets:
Once the ions down the shields, this allows for the rapid disposal of the enemy craft.

Third priority is snubcraft defense.
Laser cannon turrets (especially quad) in bulk can do well at inflicting slow damage on enemy small craft in the area, and the heavies do far better (especially in quad).

When my snubcraft and capitols are close together, I consider both the lasers of the capitols nearby as well as the weapons of the fighters, and plan my battles using the above synergy so that I have as many turrets as possible adding decently to the damage my snubcraft do, ensuring fairly quick kills.