Ar strike fighter implemented ?

[jtrowell]

Looking at designing a carrier, they are described as being supposed to be a mix between fighters and bombers, but they don't seems to add anything to the normal fighter design, they even cost the same to produce while bombers are much mre expensives in metal.

Maybe they are supposed to do the same damage as fighters but with better speed or defenses (armors or shields maybe ?)
If so, then their description would greatly benefit from giving their current defense status like we already get their current offensive power depending on weapon tachs researched.

This might also be useful for missile, especially for torpedos, as currently they don't seems worth the upgrade : a nuclear torpedo does 25 damage compared to a nuclear missile for 10, but it takes the space *and* the munitions of two nuclear missiles, so you are left with doing only 5 more damage at the cost of giving your opponent point defense half the number of targets to destroy and with the current meta where point defenses are usually plentiful and missilles and fighters need a huge number advantage to work (but are destructives when they do), torpedoes seems rather poor.

If torpedoes happens to have a hidden advantage, maybe a better armor than the corresponding missiles making them harder to shot down, then it would be nice to have it shown.

Else, maybe the torpedoes might come with the same munution cost as other missiles, this would make them slightly better for long range attrition wars, packing more punch in less space ?

[sven]

Looking at designing a carrier, they are described as being supposed to be a mix between fighters and bombers, but they don't seems to add anything to the normal fighter design, they even cost the same to produce while bombers are much mre expensives in metal.

In the current build, Strike fighters have 3x as much health as Interceptors, and are slightly faster. So, you are certainly getting some value for the extra metal cost. However, they're not yet using explosive munitions when carrying out anti-shipping strikes. That's something that should be fixed in the first post-release patch.

[Chasm]

Torpedoes are also slower then missiles last I checked (initial launch distance is farther, but after that they move seem to slower. This makes for an odd synergy with leech missiles...

[jtrowell]

Thank you sven, this indeed make them at least somewhat useful, but it would be nice if the information was available in game.

[spitfire_ch]

I totally agree with the suggestions. More stats on weapons and other items would definitely help to understand what their advantages/disadvantages are.

The torpedo question is a good one, I've been wondering the same: Sven, you please shed some light, there? What is the advantage of torpedoes over missiles?

Also I don't understand the mechanic how fighters/interceptors are supposed to shoot down incoming missiles and small vessels. Will this happen automatically? Do we just have to leave a squadron back on the carrier so that it will auto engage? Or do we actually have to target the incoming missiles/figthers/...?

Also a thought concerning fighters on a planet: planetary weapons usually are very powerful as they don't consume ammunition / have infinite stocks. Not so with fighters. Once they're shot down, they are gone, just like fighters launched from a station or a carrier. Using fighters in a planetary slot is thus a waste. Couldn't this be boosted somewhat? Maybe not infinite numbers, but e.g. 10 "reloads" before they are gone for good? A planet should be able to stack more fighters than a structure in space.

[jtrowell]

Maybe planet fighter bases might get fighter automatically repaired over time during battle ?

If one destroyed fighter come back per turn you would be able to maintain a small tickle of fighters, or you might wait to send later a full squadron again. This would certainly not make them overpowered

[bjg]

Maybe planet fighter bases might get fighter automatically repaired over time during battle ?

If one destroyed fighter come back per turn you would be able to maintain a small tickle of fighters, or you might wait to send later a full squadron again. This would certainly not make them overpowered

I'm wondering if the "autorepair" module have this effect. It might make sense to have "built in" autorepair and shield regenerator (than researched) on a planet. Maybe some race specific staff (viper launchers, shield capacitors, etc.) too.

[spitfire_ch]

Maybe planet fighter bases might get fighter automatically repaired over time during battle ?

If one destroyed fighter come back per turn you would be able to maintain a small tickle of fighters, or you might wait to send later a full squadron again. This would certainly not make them overpowered

I'm wondering if the "autorepair" module have this effect. It might make sense to have "built in" autorepair and shield regenerator (than researched) on a planet. Maybe some race specific staff (viper launchers, shield capacitors, etc.) too.

Good idea(s). We would need some more system slots for bunkers, though. Otherwise you could not add any weapon or shield any more.

[bjg]

We would need some more system slots for bunkers, though. Otherwise you could not add any weapon or shield any more.

Built in means not occupying any existing slots. Like you have maneuvering engines on every ship.