Fighers and Carriers

from Sins Forums
Lurking for a while, loving SOASE. Interested in some mods, either as part of a larger project or at least for personal use.

First off, this game appears to be carrier centric early mid-game and on, but there are some 'interesting' choices regarding their implimentation that don't make much sense.

For one, the numbers of squadrons and fighters are relatively low. Secondly, the fighters are relatively tough. And third, they don't do much damage considering the focus is on them - they pound the little ships but have minimal effect on bigger ships (when fighters/bombers have always been a force to project more power than their size suggests, essentially... I single dive bomber (squadron) taking out a carrier, for instance). Also, they seem to be able to fly forever without thought to fuel/range/ammo/life support capacity - IMHO that's not very good.

So:

1) How can one increase the default capacities for carrier squadrons carried in all ships with that capability. A light carrier carrying only one squadron??? A capital ship carrier only carrying like 3? Doesn't feel or look right, not at all IMHO.

2) Increase stock damage and lessen slightly damage they can take.

3) Is it possible to put a timer to figher launch durations so that they are forced to return after X amount of time. Then by tweaking their speeds you could get variable operational radius for differentiation. Can't think of another way to put it, but essentially fighters shouldn't be able to just fly around all day every day... they should be forced return to rearm, refuel, swap crews, etc. Not sure if this is possible, haven't seen this kind of mechanic in action with the abilities and buffs of capships.

4) It would be nice to be able to simply abandon fighters. By this I mean that if you are making an emergency retreat it seems like your ships have to wait on the fighters to recover. I say if the ship carrying them makes it to the jump point and the ship/fleet is ready to jump any fighter left behind is left behind. It happens with fighters that are left over after their mother ship is destroyed. Once a duration timer is expired the fighters go dead.

I am not much of a 'modder' so some of this stuff is going right over my head it seems... plain english and a little more illiteration and I will lovingly take a stab at it and share my results.

Other suggestions - more fighter classes need to be available. Atmospheric bomber, fighter bomber, interceptor (fast, less damage still), heavy or patrol fighter (something that takes up 2 slots but has longer endurance and more firepower). A heavier cruiser model with more capacity for fighters to be an escort carrier or something would be nice... the jump from 'light' to capital carrier is pretty dramatic when I would think there would be models inbetween the two. To be more realistic it would be nice if fighters were made at system hangars only and had to be transfered to carriers... only the capital ship carrier should potentially be able to make them, slowly (And that I am not sold on, it's a resource and space issue).
modding
10,891 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
1) Personally instead of increaseing the number of squadrons, i increased the number of craft per squadron, largely because this way you get more actual fighter\bomber per carrier but still have to make a choice between choosing a bomber or fighter squadron

This is done through the entityfiles beginning with "squad" (which is which race is fairly obvious).
To increase the number of squadrons per carrier\cap ship involves editing each individual ship there is a field that says "maxNumCommandPoints" thats your golden ticket.

2) has to be done for each individual ship, their entity files begin with "Fighter" so are fairly obvious, just change the weapon damage and armour\shield\mitigation info

3) currently impossible as i am aware, but i shall look into it.

4) same as above, might be able to do it with a damage-over-time ability but that way your just destroying the squad and making it build a new one.

5) and im just about to start modding in some new fighter\bomber classes, so i'll get back to you.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
I think I would like more flexilibility in having more squadrons vs just more fighters per squadron. A light carrier with a single squadron just sucks... that wouldn't even qualify as a jeep/escort carrier honestly... not tactically useful, espcially given the relative weakness of it's embarked fighters.

In fact, more fighters per squadron would be a good tweak to their 'power' potentially, nice.

I think I would like to see the following classes:

Escort Carrier: The current light carrier, 2 squadrons, fast but light on offense and defense
Light Carrier: A cruiser class hull with 4 squadrons, fast, moderate weapons, good armor.
Fleet Carrier: The current capital ship carrier, more squadrons (say 8) with stronger fighters. Moderate offense, good defense, great speed.
Assault Carrier: A carrier focuse on planetary attack with bombardment weapons, light armor, decent defense and speed but not as 'fast' as a fleet carrier, bomber squadrons that can bomb a planet)
Super/Heavy Carrier: New hull, super sized capital ship, triple the cost, great armor and defense, battleship armament or better (along with range), 14 - 16 squadrons capacity, only carrier that can build it's own squadrons.

I do think as a mechanic having the hangars be the source for fighters and putting a higher cost on them balances the higher numbers of squadrons on ships. But I don't see any transfer mechanic in game that is an interface ability (only some buff actions would come close, that wouldn't work unless they are instantly repowering so there is no delay, but even then that leaves part of the equation unanswered in the mechanics of it).

Having additional fighter classes is cosmetically great, but ultimatley somewhat useless without limits on how fighters can operate... which now there really aren't any. If all fighters can stay out on duty forever and what not the tactics of their use is rather limited... sure, you can make some have more firepower or damage ability, faster, etc... but if enemy fighters are always on duty and all have the same range the impact is minimal at best. Now, if they had operating times/ranges then there are some tactics to your carrier fights and the choices you make in what squadron types to embark.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
Could you perhaps make new squadrons require anti matter to build, and give the hanger bays an ability which can restore anti matter to nearby ships of the carrier class? Then you would stock the carriers up with anti-matter, build the squadrons and send them forth to attack.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
Seems, to me at least, an odd solution honestly.

I am a bit of an 'accuracy' maven... and while this is all scifi and fantasy, unlimited supplies always chap my arse in a game, as does the idea that ships can just magically repair themselves in space as well as build something from nothing. Combat ships are flying piles of weapons, armor, engines, fuel, electronics, sensors, and a bit of crew and crew support wedged in where possible... how a ship can build fighters from nothing or perform massive repairs on it's own without parts and fabrication/raw materials is beyond me... too much magic for my tastes, even when you factor in super advanced fantasy elements like nanotech or more.

Having hangars act as a factory to build fighters solves much of this for me (as would forcing ships to undergo major repairs at repair facilities, star/dry docks, or with the assitance of some kind of fleet support/engineer/construction ship).
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
Obviously you have never seen Robotech, sir.


Show a ship can build fighters from nothing or perform massive repairs on it's own without parts and fabrication/raw materials is beyond me... too much magic for my tastes, even when you factor in super advanced fantasy elements like nanotech or more.
End of quote


Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
Seems, to me at least, an odd solution honestly.

I am a bit of an 'accuracy' maven... and while this is all scifi and fantasy, unlimited supplies always chap my arse in a game, as does the idea that ships can just magically repair themselves in space as well as build something from nothing. Combat ships are flying piles of weapons, armor, engines, fuel, electronics, sensors, and a bit of crew and crew support wedged in where possible... how a ship can build fighters from nothing or perform massive repairs on it's own without parts and fabrication/raw materials is beyond me... too much magic for my tastes, even when you factor in super advanced fantasy elements like nanotech or more.

Having hangars act as a factory to build fighters solves much of this for me (as would forcing ships to undergo major repairs at repair facilities, star/dry docks, or with the assitance of some kind of fleet support/engineer/construction ship).
End of quote


When I first put my carrier up and carried it into battle for the first time, I said, "Oh, thank god. I don't have to go back 8 jumps to restock my fighters that were so easily killed."

I'm not saying it's realistic, but it is much more functional and more action-packed if you don't have to take care of the micromanagement of keeping carriers stocked. Taking away that level of micromanagement is refreshing in RTS, as it frees up your gameplay for the more interesting parts of the game.

But, to justify repairs in space and building fighters, I think of it as all going into the original production cost. Say something costs 2000 metal to make. I imagine that they use, say, 1500 metal in the construction and then 500 metal to make "hull patches". That way they can repair in-flight. Maybe they pick up teeny-tiny repair patches or extra metal from the ships they kill to keep a stock while they're away from a home port, and they have the machinery necessary to manufacture repair patches on board.

Just a thought on that one.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
Obviously you have never seen Robotech, sir.
End of quote


Heh, I have. Have every book and DVD. But that's more 'magical' and fantasy based than I care to have in a 4X/RTS type game.

When I first put my carrier up and carried it into battle for the first time, I said, "Oh, thank god. I don't have to go back 8 jumps to restock my fighters that were so easily killed."

I'm not saying it's realistic, but it is much more functional and more action-packed if you don't have to take care of the micromanagement of keeping carriers stocked. Taking away that level of micromanagement is refreshing in RTS, as it frees up your gameplay for the more interesting parts of the game.

But, to justify repairs in space and building fighters, I think of it as all going into the original production cost. Say something costs 2000 metal to make. I imagine that they use, say, 1500 metal in the construction and then 500 metal to make "hull patches". That way they can repair in-flight. Maybe they pick up teeny-tiny repair patches or extra metal from the ships they kill to keep a stock while they're away from a home port, and they have the machinery necessary to manufacture repair patches on board.

Just a thought on that one.
End of quote


Well, it's a valid point. Personally, not realistic very much, but a good point given scale and time issues (frustration in managmenet if you like). There is a V1.3 patch recommendation post in the SP forum that I posted a long list of future features in.

This list (not a V1.3 patch request, longer outlook item) included the creation of fleet support yards and space stations to augment hangars.

Additionally, as a mechanic, I think that you should be able to transfer fighters, platforms, and mines all but automatically from one planet to another if they have trade links (not posted) - but that may be too complex or over the top for an RTS (if possible as a game engine mechanic even, which I doubt).

Given the 'magic' of fleet supply in operation perhaps there is a 'fix' there for us folks who want a wee bit more realisim to the logistical scene. Fleet support ships (logistic/repair/supply ships that can handle building fighters and doing major repairs as well as keeping non-energy based weapons supplied to the fleet units). But this would imply as well a supply rating and tracking for ships equiped with non-energy weapons.

As a mild alternative to this suggestion perhaps you could have lines of supply... IE, any where your trade ships can reach you are 'in supply' fleet wise, anywhere they can't you are out of supply and will run out of non-energy based weapons and repair parts/supplies unless you have a fleet support ship as part of the group or in range? I rather like this, and the in-game mechanics for this already exist in some form so it could be relatively easy to impliment I would think (the only question being adding supply levels or markers to ships and squadrons).
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
I could make you a mod to help a little bit with the realism. I'll see what I can do after I finish this other mod (which is being a total pain).
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
Realism has no place in a video game; it's slow, it's monotonous, it's boring. Frankly I don't know how we live it. :P
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
Another point to consider when worrying about "magical" repairs is that SOASE does not have any support tender type ships, that are otherwise what keep present day fleets moving about and happily supplied with various replacements. Instead, an arbitrary amount is taken out of your economy to take in to account all this support infrastructure that needs to be floating around throughout your empire, which is a reasonable high-level view of the fact that this would be needing to happen.

However, what this does not allow for is the problem that can befall many forces, and that is of over-extending your supply lines. What would be good to add in therefore is all the support infrastructure required to keep a massive fleet running, especially one behind enemy lines. This would also allow for a valid tactic of interdiction of supply lines to hurt your offensive troops indirectly. To implement this in SOASE I would imagine something similiar to the way trading ports and merchants keep floating around your systems, but instead as a series of supply depots and supply tenders. To balance the extra investment in this type of infrastructure, the fleet upkeep cost would need to be reviewed. I agree that much of it would still need to stay as they would represent the costs of getting supplies in to the supply depots/tenders, but should not be as high to balance out the cost of building the depots in the first place.

Cheers

Tramapolean
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
I am not sure that kind of depth is required... it is a game after all and you want to keep the pace up and in general the fun factor there. For a purist or someone with patience, yes, but then you might as well add in a ton of other things.

I think a simple line of supply extending in a similar fashion to influence as seen with the relay towers (but from a depot structure you must build) can define your internal emperial infrastructure for supplying your fleet. Adding in star bases for empty sectors to help connect that woudl be essential which would entail a deep space construction/support/supply ship as well as a new mega structure. Ships that move beyond your lines of supply then deplete their organic supply (keep it simple, just call it supply) over time and once they are out they can no longer fire non-energy weapons (alternately, they can no longer replenish antimatter, allowing you to use an existing in-game mechanic rather than creating something new). Ships that travel into a system outside of their line of supply that has a support ship are resupplied to full automatically.

Ideally you would want to have to resupply the support ship, but this may be too much for simplicity and fun sake. One possible mechanic is simply having trade ships treat it as a trade port and transit to it just like a trade port (thus simulating it's supply connection), but if there is no mechanic existing to simulate a supply level (IE, if you successfully interdict it from trade ships it starts to run out of supplies itself)... that's probably too much though.

I think instead the other mechanic would be repairs. Minor repairs can be carried out by ships on the move. However, major repairs (over 50% damage to keep it simple) can ONLY be done in a repair yard or by a support ship.

Of course I would love to see the support ship and supply mechanic tied in with the changes I envisioned above for fighters and operations... in that only hangars, space stations, and support ships can build fighter squadrons and provide them to carriers (but unlike ships, they can be fully repaired by carriers). This would create a nice, relatively simple but realisitic enough system of supply as well as a focus on carrier warfare and tactics that keep an eye on supply.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
Actual tender ships moving around or simply supply lines extending like culture would achieve the same thing, but considering we already have trade ships moving, I thought it would be nice to do the same for supply ships :-) However, purely a preference thing and either could be done.

For the starbase type idea, this sounds interesting, but I am not sure if that is getting away from SOASE's premise of having habitable and non-habitable areas, so this might actually mess with the game more than intended. Certainly something to ponder though.

The idea of needing a repair base to assist with major repairs certainly makes sense, but I think this would mess with the games idea of encouraging active offense and continued attacks, as you would otherwise need a large contingent of repair ships or nearby bases to be able to repair as fast as the defender can rebuild. Otherwise, any close fought engagement will mean that both sides will stalled, with one rebuilding their fleet and another moving away to repair, potentially anyway. I think this would then encourage turtling and the super weapons, especially the Novalith.

As for how a Supply stat could be implemented, I definitely agree that it should be abstracted just as Supply. This would then cover fuel, ammo, food, crystal, etc. I don't know about free firing energy weapons though, as that would definitely give some ships/fleets a huge advantage over others and the energy to fire them does not come for free :-)

Cheers

Tramapolean
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
Whether or not infinite fighters is realistic, carriers would be useless without them. 1 squadron of fighters, and then you have to go home to restock? You would be better off just building a ton of disposable frigates.