Could Fighters Get a Buff?

[Malacodor]

There are options in the blockbehavior.cfg for turret turn rate. Three I believe, all dependent on the turret's mass. Perhaps these could be modified to prefer lower mass, making the likes of close-in fightercraft able to keep out of the arc of fire for large weapons?

Does mass not already slow down turrets turn rate? I would have thought that 5k block uber-cannons not being able to track fighters would just be common sense.

I guess I'm not up-to-date on this.

 

[KiloZulu]

The Japanese Zero was a highly successful fighter because it outmaneuvered its enemies. It failed, ultimately, because as the US sank carrier task force after task force, Japan ran out of good pilots. Though the Americans show the other side---American fighters were slower, but they packed a punch and could take damage that would take down several Zeroes.

Not to derail the thread, but the history nerd in me can't let this go. American fighters that came into use just after Pearl Harbor were faster than those of the Japanese. Certainly the Zero was more maneuverable, so U.S. strategy was to simply ignore engaging them in a turn fight. They used the higher speed of their fighters to make passes on the Japanese planes, zipping in, shooting them in passing, and then getting clear before turning around for another pass.

It did also help that America was able to win the war of attrition, too. They had the capability to replace ships, aircraft, men, and resources that the Japanese lacked - it was the main reason Admiral Yamamato regretted attacking Pearl Harbor at all.

 

[Madman198237]

Well, that and Yamamato got shot down by American P-38s (I think...) while in transit...and he died. Which really put the damper on his enjoyment of victory.

Americans were slower in turns and maneuvering, which is what I meant. Yes, their line-speed was better, but they couldn't really use it---they didn't have that much of an advantage to make it the end-all be-all of aerial combat. Instead, they used teamwork. One guy attracted an enemy, then flew around (Using his plane's toughness to absorb any damage necessary) until his wingmate or somebody else could nip in and remove the enemy.

 

[sayerulz]

Well, that and Yamamato got shot down by American P-38s (I think...) while in transit...and he died. Which really put the damper on his enjoyment of victory.

Americans were slower in turns and maneuvering, which is what I meant. Yes, their line-speed was better, but they couldn't really use it---they didn't have that much of an advantage to make it the end-all be-all of aerial combat. Instead, they used teamwork. One guy attracted an enemy, then flew around (Using his plane's toughness to absorb any damage necessary) until his wingmate or somebody else could nip in and remove the enemy.

there's also the TIE fighter issue. If your craft is killed by a single burst of fire, most pilots won't get the chance to learn from their mistakes.

 

[Malacodor]

there's also the TIE fighter issue. If your craft is killed by a single burst of fire, most pilots won't get the chance to learn from their mistakes.

The problem with Japanese pilots was, that they often refused to use parachutes. As a consequence Japan lost almost all experienced pilots within a few years.

 

[Madman198237]

I'm sure they did refuse to use parachutes. Apparently, the only real measure of a man in WWII Japan was how many feet he could fall from without wanting/needing a parachute.
Also, they developed the nasty habits of losing carriers (And therefore all the planes which now had no place to land), losing territory (And the resources that come with that territory), and also the nastiest of all: They sent pilots to suicide-ram enemy vessels and ground emplacements (Good plan. Very good plan. If you have an RC plane!)

 

[sayerulz]

My great-grandfather was on a destroyer that got hit by a Japanese plane. Apparently it wasn't actually a kamikaze, just a fighter that was damaged and either lost control on a strafing run or just decided they weren't going to make it back anyway.

The depth charges on the deck went off and a fire was heading towards the ammunition, so they abandoned ship, but it never actually detonated, because the fuel and water tanks had burst and covered the ammunition (the fuel on those things was heavy bunker oil, so it wouldn't ignite easily). They managed to salvage it and bring it back to repair it.

 

[StarWars1981]

Neat story.
We have all managed to totally derail this thread into a discussion on AI tactics.
Perfect. The SMD community is functioning as intended.
Or ... it's functioning, at least.
Right?

 

[Malacodor]

Neat story.
We have all managed to totally derail this thread into a discussion on AI tactics.
Perfect. The SMD community is functioning as intended.
Or ... it's functioning, at least.
Right?

We are talking about AI?

 

[sayerulz]

Neat story.
We have all managed to totally derail this thread into a discussion on AI tactics.
Perfect. The SMD community is functioning as intended.
Or ... it's functioning, at least.
Right?

Functional is a relative term.

 

[Jasper1991]

I am just throw my 2 cents on fighters here

Fighters are not a practical application in warfare, fighters in a capital ship battle in space is like bringing a high speed patrol boat to a battleship fight on the water, its going to get fucked up.

This whole idea that "fighters are useful" only makes sense in a realm of fantasy, fighters do not need a buff simply because they should not be used in a combat scenario in the first place, and there is no way to buff them without making them overpowered.

The only use small ships in combat I can think of is boarding craft.

Fighters have no place in warfare, its not practical, the only time fighters in a space battle make any kind of sense is in the movies and media.

If you bring fighters into a spaceship battle something like this will happen to your fighter.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

Fighters aren't really practical, which is why the aircraft carrier completely replaced the Battleship in utility?

 

[Malacodor]

Fighters aren't really practical, which is why the aircraft carrier completely replaced the Battleship in utility?

Aircraft carriers are good to destroy virtually defenseless countries such as Iraq, but a real enemy can easily sink them with a single missile or torpedo. However, such comparisons don't make sense, since planes with a StarMade level of armor couldn't fly and ships would be far too sluggish.

 

[Jasper1991]

Fighters aren't really practical, which is why the aircraft carrier completely replaced the Battleship in utility?

The fighters I am talking about are fighters in space, in real life, fighters are a useful asset in warfare because they can fight on a 3d plain where as ships can only fight in a 2d plain, in space, battleships can fight on a 3d plain just like fighters.

But since you bring it up, most naval ships are capable of shooting down a fighter squadron, not with the big anti ship guns but with the miniguns that use computers to track targets with extreme accuracy, just like fighters in a space battle would be able to shoot down a fighter squad with the same principle.

Fighters in real life can destroy a ship mind you, but in a space battle, a battleship would be fitted with lots of anti fighter armaments, such as flak, miniguns and maybe even heated lasers (heated lasers are in development for ships to shoot down cruise missiles)

 

[Panpiper]

Fighters aren't really practical, which is why the aircraft carrier completely replaced the Battleship in utility?

He's talking about space battles, in which there is no speed advantage for fighters.

In a naval battle, ships are limited to a speed of roughly 30 miles an hour. Meanwhile fighter aircraft cruise around at close to sonic speeds, twenty times faster. Missiles can move two to three times faster than the fighters. In 'that' sort of environment, fighters makes all sorts of sense.

In a space battle, a real one, not something dreamed up by Hollywood, large ships would be 'faster' than small ships. Fighters would be slower! They would also have substantially less armor capacity. Fighters in a space battle make no sense and would be utterly suicidal.

Edit: D'oh! Ninjaed

 

[Pacific_Jim]

Aircraft carriers are good to destroy virtually defenseless countries such as Iraq, but a real enemy can easily sink them with a single missile or torpedo. However, such comparisons don't make sense, since planes with a StarMade level of armor couldn't fly and ships would be far too sluggish.

History disagree's there, since in WW2 aircraft carriers where already supplanting battleships. Even before aircraft carriers really started dominating smaller ships played a bigger role. And yeah, comparing a real life wet navy to a Starmade doesn't quite hold up (fighters advantages are diminished, though likewise a carriers relative defenselessness is diminished since doesn't need to devote nearly as much internal space to carrier functionality as a real world carrier does).

The fighters I am talking about are fighters in space, in real life, fighters are a useful asset in warfare because they can fight on a 3d plain where as ships can only fight in a 2d plain, in space, battleships can fight on a 3d plain just like fighters.

But since you bring it up, most naval ships are capable of shooting down a fighter squadron, not with the big anti ship guns but with the miniguns that use computers to track targets with extreme accuracy, just like fighters in a space battle would be able to shoot down a fighter squad with the same principle.

Fighters in real life can destroy a ship mind you, but in a space battle, a battleship would be fitted with lots of anti fighter armaments, such as flak, miniguns and maybe even heated lasers (heated lasers are in development for ships to shoot down cruise missiles)

The usefulness of fighters in Starmade is they can use the 3d plain to a greater degree then larger ships, due to higher acceleration and a quicker turning speed. They can also be deployed in much greater numbers then the enemy has anti-fighter measures, and can be defended better then a real world fighter jet would be.

He's talking about space battles, in which there is no speed advantage for fighters.

In a naval battle, ships are limited to a speed of roughly 30 miles an hour. Meanwhile fighter aircraft cruise around at close to sonic speeds, twenty times faster. Missiles can move two to three times faster than the fighters. In 'that' sort of environment, fighters makes all sorts of sense.

In a space battle, a real one, not something dreamed up by Hollywood, large ships would be 'faster' than small ships. Fighters would be slower! They would also have substantially less armor capacity. Fighters in a space battle make no sense and would be utterly suicidal.

Edit: D'oh! Ninjaed

Starmade has never been particularly realistic tbh, it's always been more of the Star Wars esque space opera sci fi then hard. If the combat in Starmade where realistic battles would take place over astronomical distances, and you'd likely end up dead as soon as the thing shooting you knows you're there. Even then there's merit in using a group of smaller vessels, since in realistic terms you can pack a lot of destructive potential into a small space.

 

[Panpiper]

Starmade has never been particularly realistic tbh, it's always been more of the Star Wars esque space opera sci fi then hard. If the combat in Starmade where realistic battles would take place over astronomical distances, and you'd likely end up dead as soon as the thing shooting you knows you're there. Even then there's merit in using a group of smaller vessels, since in realistic terms you can pack a lot of destructive potential into a small space.

I have no problem with a space game such as Starmade being unrealistic as long as it makes for a good game. What I think is slightly absurd is people looking at the atmospheric, ocean navy reality and trying to foist that into a space game in the name of 'realism'. Such is neither realistic, nor frankly good game design. Unless your game is all about fighters and larger ships exist in the game solely to be targets that is. In Starmade, such is most emphatically NOT the case.

 

[Scypio]

In a space battle, a real one, not something dreamed up by Hollywood, large ships would be 'faster' than small ships. Fighters would be slower! They would also have substantially less armor capacity. Fighters in a space battle make no sense and would be utterly suicidal.

I don't see where you take that from.

Large ship got a massive inertia while small ones don't. This is well designed ingame with the thruster mechanics and maneuverability. That being said, fighters could use this to their advantages and go to some blind spots unless you're running in a spheric ship covered with defense turrets. Of course ships could go on race and try to play the mouse and cat game but then they've won, the ennemy must flee to take care of them.

Note that i don't agree with the idea proposed in the thread, that's just totally absurd and wrong. What we could think is a lower range where shields aren't in use for small vessels to take advantage of that. For example if you're, let's say, 50m away from the ennemy ship with your gun then shields won't be in use and your small fighter could take away a few decisive blocs in the battle to come against the main fleet. Okay, i might like this idea.

 

[Malacodor]

For example if you're, let's say, 50m away from the ennemy ship with your gun then shields won't be in use and your small fighter could take away a few decisive blocs in the battle to come against the main fleet. Okay, i might like this idea.

That would encourage collisions.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

I have no problem with a space game such as Starmade being unrealistic as long as it makes for a good game. What I think is slightly absurd is people looking at the atmospheric, ocean navy reality and trying to foist that into a space game in the name of 'realism'. Such is neither realistic, nor frankly good game design. Unless your game is all about fighters and larger ships exist in the game solely to be targets that is. In Starmade, such is most emphatically NOT the case.

Again, Starmade takes a lot of cues from pop sci fi as far as combat goes, so there's always going to be the space navy aspect to it. Though, one of the biggest focuses of Starmade imo is the player freedom aspect, and I think combat should reflect that and allow for multiple different size classes to have their place. Which, tbh the game already does a decent job of.