Efficient fleet compositions

General Stars in Shadow Discussion Forum
zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by zolobolo »

emky wrote:A couple things I've noticed in my meager experiences playing:

Missiles are overwhelmingly the best choice for fighting vs Harpies. They have no point defense, and missile swarms are the only way I've managed to take down their giant point blank burst things.

I often choose my options based on upkeep cost more than production costs. I don't remember how those are priced, but aren't missiles costlier in upkeep?

Yes, any warhead based weapons including small crafts are ideal against all types of Harpy units
If I plan to wipe some of their pockets for research that is the way to outfit the fleet

I believe that upkeep has been calculated based on production cost in the past but since the rebalance I am not sure
Right now, Rockets seem to cost slightly more upkeep then lasers so I guess it is based more on metal requirement as on production
zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by zolobolo »

Small craft efficiency is hard to determine as it depends on their hull plus possible armor value applied which I dont see plus the accuracy of the PD shooting at them

Empirical evidence during my games shows that small craft do not have sufficient staying power to deal enough damage (having been swapped to rockets instead of torpedoes) for their high metal cost
The main problem is that their counter both PD and AM is abundantly available on all designs for all factions, are cheap, easy to get via research and unlike their competitors, small craft have a diminishing effeiciency after each sortie as they loose their punch and leave their host unarmed in the end

There are a couple of solutions to this issue in theory:
1. Swap back from rockets to torpedoes for small craft
2. Use best PD nad or AM agaisnt missile targets to increase their efficiency in that doimain (but keep rocket/torpedo and gun for large targets)
3. Decrease their metal cost (high production cost is ok)
4. Apply armor improvements to them (if not yet the case) to gradually increase their staying power
5. Regenerate their losses each round

The issue with all of the above is that small craft are handled equally but there are actually 3 types and they fulfill all possible roles:
1. Anti-shipping
2. Anti-missile
3. Anti-bomber

The problem in the old balance was that bombers were dealing such an amount of damage that tehy could wipe put large chunks of fleets in a round or two + the AI didnt preserve PD nor AM at that time + large ships had very low maintenance fee back then and were easy to spawn

The AI has changed and is now preserving them so small crafts get decimated every turn but their punching power has also decreased
Upkeep cost has also increased correctly pushing back the amount of large ships especially capital ships

There is a theoretical advantage they have by being faster then missiles but they cannot deal more damage this way effectively as they also need to travel the road back to their carrier before tehy can strike again during which they are still vulnerable to anti-fighter barrage :)

So maybe a more innovate approach would be this:
1. Bombers carry missile fine BUT they have double or evne tripple the amount of armor AND they get armor upgrades
2. Fighers have double or even tripple the amount of evasion chance
3. No extra evasion when fighter attacks fighter

What the above would result to is bobmers beign hardy and able to offload their full salvo for longer while fighters beign able to survive navigating over the battlefield
The benefit of fighter now woudl be clear as they would not loose their stirke power rapdily either: they coudl act as true anti-bobmer and anti-missile platforms but even more importantly: thanks to their high evasion fiighters woudl become the ultimate counter agaisnt both bobmers and fighters trying to take out bombers

But if we look at thes right now: the resoruce cost does not seem to justify them not evne for Ashdars. Missiles and even torpedoes are a better spend of resources if the player has enough metal and if they dont, then either are an option anyhow and guns are the way to go
grothmag
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:14 am

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by grothmag »

zolobolo wrote:Empirical evidence during my games shows that small craft do not have sufficient staying power to deal enough damage (having been swapped to rockets instead of torpedoes) for their high metal cost


This is so true ... oh sure, it's fun to watch an absolute screenful of fighters annihilate some unprepared fleet (well, when it's the other guy's!), but that only happens early-game, or when the battle was so lopsided the outcome wouldn't have been in doubt with any other ordnance.

One other possibility - instead of fighters (and by this I mean all 3 types) going to point-blank and firing, have them launch actual missiles on their approach (at the end of their first movement if they don't reach their target right away, or sooner if they would). This way the PD would first target those missiles, letting the fighters either follow up with their direct fire weapons, or just turn and run, having a better chance to get home to rearm. After all, the AI is quite smart about positioning its ships at precisely the right distance to make station-mounted fighters face two rounds of point-blank PD before the survivors fire ... why shouldn't the fighters be just as smart, and only dart in when they can maximize their survivability and effect?

But no matter what, I'd support making them far more robust with tech advances (shields and armour?) to keep them relevent in a later galaxy bristling with PD.
zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by zolobolo »

grothmag wrote:One other possibility - instead of fighters (and by this I mean all 3 types) going to point-blank and firing, have them launch actual missiles on their approach (at the end of their first movement if they don't reach their target right away, or sooner if they would). This way the PD would first target those missiles, letting the fighters either follow up with their direct fire weapons, or just turn and run, having a better chance to get home to rearm. After all, the AI is quite smart about positioning its ships at precisely the right distance to make station-mounted fighters face two rounds of point-blank PD before the survivors fire ... why shouldn't the fighters be just as smart, and only dart in when they can maximize their survivability and effect?

But no matter what, I'd support making them far more robust with tech advances (shields and armour?) to keep them relevent in a later galaxy bristling with PD.

We have been using that tactic before the loadout and economic adjustments. Since then the maintenance costs have increased and made production of large number of ships in early game not really an option which has also kind of negated the effect of this diversionary tactic (it needs numerical superiority)
Rockets are already among the most metal costly weapons out there and would be used as flairs here which is kinda wasteful so I wouldnt recommend it at all for an optimal fleet composition. When everything is accounted for, and no matter how much metal we have its simply difficult to find a scneario where carrier with small craft would be a wise investment now (they were super good investment before)

I love the idea of shields though!
I think both staying power and damage output would need to be adressed at this point due to their metal and maintenance costs
So how about this?:
1. Same hull value as right now whatever it is
2. Armor upgrades applied if not applied yet, or if they are applied, double it (this would actually help coil PD make sense as currently it makes little sense to use it comapred to laser PD but if small crafts armor they would make sense :). Base armor upgrades wouldthen also help the craft to stay relevant with tech upgrades in PD and AM
3. Shield and its upgrades applied to Strike Fighter only. Their dual prupose mode is not that useful but if they have much better protection that would rectify their even higher cost then base small craft with the added benefit of being dual purpose
4. Assign AM to fighters as a second mount next to gun and also to Strike Fighter as a third mount specifically for coutnering warheads (not small craft, guns should be used for these). This would massiv3ely increase their efficiency against warheads as evasion of the warhead is less of an issue AND AM has a long range so the craft needs to take shorter routes and be less exposed
5. Optionaly and this might be too much at this point ssign torpedo back to Bombers and Strike Fighters. Not sure it will be needed on top of all the above would need to test
grothmag
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:14 am

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by grothmag »

zolobolo wrote:We have been using that tactic before ...


Sorry, I mean have the fighters launch actual missiles of their own, as a modification to the game to make them more survivable; the missiles would indeed be like chaff/flares in practice, but built-in to the fighter rather than carefully timed by the player.

But your suggestions are easier to implement I'd think, and might do all that is needed. Give armor and shield upgrades to the fighters (and, on the flip side, ensure that PD weapon mods behave appropriately against fighters - I'm still fuzzy on whether things like AP actually serve any purpose on PD when targeting missiles or small craft.

In general, I think fighters would be more useful (especially in an anti-small craft, anti-torp role), and more fun, if they didn't hit any harder than currently - in fact, I'd consider having them hit half as hard, but attack twice per sortie - but were scalable in their defence.
zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by zolobolo »

grothmag wrote:
zolobolo wrote:We have been using that tactic before ...


Sorry, I mean have the fighters launch actual missiles of their own, as a modification to the game to make them more survivable; the missiles would indeed be like chaff/flares in practice, but built-in to the fighter rather than carefully timed by the player.

But your suggestions are easier to implement I'd think, and might do all that is needed. Give armor and shield upgrades to the fighters (and, on the flip side, ensure that PD weapon mods behave appropriately against fighters - I'm still fuzzy on whether things like AP actually serve any purpose on PD when targeting missiles or small craft.

In general, I think fighters would be more useful (especially in an anti-small craft, anti-torp role), and more fun, if they didn't hit any harder than currently - in fact, I'd consider having them hit half as hard, but attack twice per sortie - but were scalable in their defence.

Ok I see what you mean: yes it would be a good idea to have bombers and Strike Craft release rockets separately instead of getting into close range and applying their damage
The chaff effekt would not help fighters who are using guns but the range icnrease would if applie the same way

Shorter journey, not getting that close to the enemy and thus maybe even staying out of range of PD entirely (but not AM) - sounds like a solid concept I love it :)

I just dont know if it can be implemented

Yes its a very valid question: are AP mods and in general armor penetrating coil guns in advantage against small craft?
I think it makes logical sense to apply armor upgrades to these craft if for nothing else only to keep them up to stuff with the advancing weapons but also to give more reason to have coil and laser PD in the first place
zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by zolobolo »

I was thinking on the idea of giving range to small craft weapons (bomber and fighters) and it would have several beneficial effects:
1. Carriers would be encouraged to stay out of direct fire range so they can release their squadrons from a safe distance instead of holding onto them until as close to the target as possible to minimize losses forcing carriers to act out of character right now and function more like heavy hitting tanks rather then valuable assets serving as base of operation
2. By staying at a distance losses to small craft can be decreased signifficantly thus their effectiveness does not deteriorate so quickly anymore unless enemy ships break formation to engage them which is also good for the owner of the carriers as they can now engage individual ships outside of coverage of the PD and AM cones of the main fleet
3. Thus the logical way to engage small craft is via interceptors as these can engage them in a neutral zone outside of anti fighter coverage and are fast enough to do so - automatically increasing the value of interceptors and realizing their true purpose
4. Small crafts could thus be deployed right at the start of the battle to soften up weaker elements of the enemy fleet and counter craft to these sorties can result into skirmishes in between them which is highly thematic :)

The downside of all of this (beyond feasability of the change in general) is the AI though:
In order for carriers to keep their distance from assault ships (short range ships and or boarding ships) they need to decide when and how much to move which was not really feasable to do during the AI optimisation.
The AI controlled ships could be told to not move at all or spend all of their movement range to get to their target but not in between which would be needed for the above concept to work and have carreirs skirt around the thick of battle and make use of the range of their craft without putting them in danger

So however awesome the above would be, it is likely not feasable and we would need to have one or more from those crude options to expand upon small craft viability
Last edited by zolobolo on Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
grothmag
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:14 am

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by grothmag »

zolobolo wrote:I was thinking on the idea of giving range to small craft weapons (bomber and fighters) and it would have several beneficial effects:
...
So however awesome the above would be, it is likely not feasable and we would need to have one or more from those crude options to expand upon small craft viability


Of course you're right, this is building castles in the clouds ... but oh, that sure sounds like some rich, interesting fighter-inclusive gameplay. Nice thinking.
zolobolo
Posts: 1544
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:49 pm

Re: Efficient fleet compositions

Post by zolobolo »

grothmag wrote:Of course you're right, this is building castles in the clouds ... but oh, that sure sounds like some rich, interesting fighter-inclusive gameplay. Nice thinking.

Indeed I think there is nothing wrong in theorizing until expectations are grounded in the end

Since distance is already heavily abstracted, it doesnt matter all that much that carriers are in the think of a battle
As long as their craft are not a one-shot pony and they are allowed to get the job done, then cost efficiency pans out and everything is ok

Currently there are very few cases where they are worth the metal and production and special hull (which is not suitable for other roles):
1. Sieging planets that do not have PD or AM but have heavy gun - in this case cheaper rocket destroyer and cruisers are more effective so its only a half valid scenario
2. Against smaller fleet with rocket or even torpedo heavy outfit (specicially Yoral): Not to counter the warheads but to destroy the glass cannon torp destroyers ASAP as these are relatively weak in PD, hull and armor all at the same time and rely in shooting out as many salvos as possible before they are in range
3. Against masses of other small craft - This has become extremely unlikely since hte economic rebalance. When paying against Colonials or Imperials there are cases where sufficient amount of small to medium carriers can stack up of course with maybe even a Fleet carrier or two sprinkled in there

Altogether these are very specific cases though that is why I would recommend them for an optimised fleet
They do carry the benefit of fulfilling all of the above purpose at once while many outfits such as shutles, PD/AM and even heav weapons to some extent only serve a single purpose, the chance of encoutering any of the above scenarios is low while there is almost alway a use around the corner for a PD/AM role, a boarding or heavy role
Post Reply