who knows, theres lots of bugs on any forum site, so maybe thats what it is... anyways, back on topic

my thoughts its easier said then done. the games are never gonna be as good as the movies since ur playing against ai/opponent and not urself.

optmaly you have bombers, fighters, and interceptors. the fighters gaurd the fleet and escort the bombers to there target(then break off, engage enemy fighters and escort the bombers back to the ships), bombers which sole purpose is to attack enemy ships, and interceptors which conter the bombers.

bombers would be heavily armoured and slow with heavy weapons, fighters are light and fast with medium weapons, and interceptors are very light/fast with heavy cannons/light missles.

the problem isnt the craft it show the players use them if one player spams SC only build fighters and use them as escorts for ur fleet along with flak, making sure to draw the enemy SC deep inside ur fleet were your SC and flak will be waiting.

Actually, the B-2 and B-52 bombers that hit Iraq came from Germany and required a few mid-air refuelling tankers along the way.

REGARDLESS, that is aerospace flight, and we are talking about space fighters not jet engines inside an atmosphere. i could go into all sorts or sci fi/physics jargon now, but its late so im just gonna be simple... space (lets not be grandoise, a planetary gravity well) is alot larger than the space between the carrier on earth and its respective battle space... i mean we are effectively covering a square distance many times the diameter of the respective planet.

if these SC are one-man craft, then we can assume they are of approximately similar size to modern day fighters/bombers. as CoBBQ said:

so, if a bomber in 'modern combat' needs to be refuelled between germany and iraq... good heavens... SC in space would be horribly nerfed.

id like to take the opportunity to mention that these changes dont have to be completely real... hey, maybe in the 1000 years approx the TEC have had, theyve designed a more effecient engine... honestly, who cares about the story bible atm, right now, we are talking about functionality, and from a functional point of view, the ability to fly around for 60 secs until fuel or ammo runs out, or the ability to go on a long run for long range targets seems a good way to limit the currently largely un-countered power of massed SC.

all im saying, in reference to limiting range of the SC, is that instead of having a massive column or missile spewing bombers than can wipe out a fully levelled cap ship or even a starbase, we have a game item that enhances gameplay and increases tactics, but one that wont win the game by itself.... otherwise why bother building any other ship?

hey, not sure how many of these posts you've read, but most of the others ones have mentioned what you said about a boost to anti SC weapons, and all of them were shot down with the response that then makes them too weak, and i agree...

the only way i think applying a weapons change to the SC "problem" is if SC are made to be suceptible to all weapons, even if the weapons were not targeted at them. i.e. a Kol is firing its beam weapon at an enemy ship, a SC flies through or close to the beam and is destroyed

however i think logistically and performance wise that is too much to ask.

i mean, the idea is that we make SC less overpowering, not that we make them easier to kill

and lastly, im not 'slamming' carriers, the idea is change the behaviour of SC to, once again, make them less overpowering. the only diff is that carriers now become relevant in battle, rather than something that can sit at the edge of a gravity well while its SC take out targets on the other side of the GW at their leisure

I think carriers are great as part of a fleet, but if I want to put a squadren into a grav well in the early game, as soon as my carrier enters the well, it gets toasted. if you could give an ability like summon bombers or what have you on the  Vasari cap carrier, have the squadrons able to jump, and as soon as the time of the ability is up... poof! SC gone..... or am I crazy?

you said that their effectiveness should be negligible against frigates, that mean we would lose a counter to lrf?

first off, Astax, I HAVE ENTRENCHMENT you ass, i was involved in the beta, go look at other threads of mine about entrenchment, otherwise i dont know how to prove it to you but if i could do so convincingly then i would

there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to come in here and slam ideas when you dont have all the facts. i DO have entrenchment, and my style of using SC has not changed since i played the original recipie Sins! if you have nothing better to do than come in here and call ppl names, maybe you should go and play some more Sins, or go outside some more.

secondly, RandomRetard, if you mean nerfing carriers as in nerfing the SC, then fine, i concede the point, but the point remains, every arguement for making them more suceptible has come up with the same coutner arguements. hey, honestly, making them easier to kill isnt a bad idea, but... look, im thinking of starwars here, when they assualt the deathsar (just seems like a good example) how was it that the bombers managed to get close enough to bomb? because the enemy fighter pilots were too busy taking out the alliance fighters and trying not to get shot at themselves.... until we can write AI code that can make a decision between fighting the fighters, hunting bombers or staying alive, making bombers and fighters easier to kill just makes them live shorter... to be honest, i dont see the diff between my objective and yours. if anything, making SC more suceptible to weapons fire would be nerfing more so than my ideas, because refueling a fighter would surely take less time than building a new one (barring that Sova ability). once again and i cannot stress this enough, these ideas are to STOP SC BEING SO OVERPOWERING! there is no other ship in the game that is as overpowering as massed bombers on a concentrated run. now, if you dont have anti SC support, well it does not matter what changed we make, you are still going to get your ass handed to you, but, the current state is that unless you spam enough flak frigs and fighters, you cant stop a 56 craft strong fleet of bombers, and even then, enough will get through to still cause damage. lets say you have 56 fighters... you now have no capacity to field bombers! just because you try to fight off his massive bomber push. there are lots of other little details why i think mine ar egood ideas, but i wont go into it here.

also, i ignored the tweak to the UI because i dont think its a bad idea, it could work... but then we'd need to add some command abilities to tell the fighters to attack only fighters, only bombers, everyone etc etc, and like i said above, until the fighters can be intuitive, its not the most effecient solution. not a bad idea though, id like to be able to control my bombers and fighters seperately when the side bar is clicked on, but for the moment, i just find a bomber and press alt and click on him, works the same, even if it takes a bit longer.

thirdly, Mortensenii, i realise that fighters atm are effective against a few frigates (i think, maybe its only the lrf?) in any case, why should bombers not be effective? this is my dilemma in this case, you have a small frigate, carries, what? a few hundred people? it has armor and shields and mitigation, AND its huge, relative to the fighter. so lets look at the fighter, its a one man craft, we can assume its of relative size to modern day craft... lets say its as big as a current space shuttle, just to compensate for the scale of the rest of the ships. how big could its weapons possibly be? i mean, the larger the gun the larger the ammo it fires, the less ammo to be had... lets say the fighter is rapid firing 120mm high explosive shells... now thats huge, and i could imagine it doing some considerable damage... but a fighter carrying 120mm shells? aside from the fact that firing such a weapon on such a small craft would most likely negate a LARGE amont of its forward momentum (ill get back to this in the next point) its only a small ship, looking at how fast the fighter fires in game, his ammo would be expended extremely quickly.

on the other hand, lets say he fires 20mm shells, much smaller, but still with a respectable damage output, and, of course, their smaller size allows for more ammo capacity and when fired wont negate the momentum of the ship as much. again, lets look at the LRF - shields, armor, mitigation, sheer size, i cant see 20mm shells doing much damage... i realise the logic of it, you have a frigate with respectable damage potential sitting way out of range of most other ships, you send in fighters to close the distance quickly and take it out... however the reality of it does not make sense.... in my opinion... taking out these larger frigates and cruisers should be a job best left to bombers with their heavier weapons. besides, the extra damage output of bombers would most likely counter-act the extra time it takes for them to arrive. so, to answer your question... and im trying not to be overly hostile or anything, but i think that this suceptibility in LRF's to fighters is wrong in the first place, but its nothing that cant be swapped over to bombers without too much hassle... to be honest, the whole idea was to make fighters focus on attacking bombers and other fighters

lastly, StarFallArmada, the fuel question has not been shown moot, Hack78's arguement was negated by his own logic, if you had read all the posts, you would have seen that. true, it does not have to burn fuel all the time to stay aloft, but we're not talking about staying aloft are we? we're talking about moving forward and changing direction, and for that to happen effeciently, and in a way that wont get your ass shot off ,you need to have a constant forward momentum which means keeping your engines firing at least 90% of the time. unless engines in Sins can shut down and restart and provide sufficient thrust to overcome inertia in the time it takes for the pilot to move the control stick, then its much easier and practical to keep the engines firing... remember these ships are in a dogfight, they're not like the current space shuttle that stays where it is until it needs to move. to concede a point, fine, while the SC are approaching the battle, and we are assuming they fly in a straight line, then yes, they would not need their engines to be powered up at all times, but while fighting and when retreating, they would need their engines on, means burning fuel.

i mention above about weapons fire negating forward momentum. did you know that the American A-10 Thunderbolt 2 'Warthog' jet aircraft carries a  30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun, that,  if fired for a long enough period, can stall the A-10's twin General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines.

think about it, a single gun firing can stall 2 very powerful engines so that the aricraft will eventually fall out of the sky. now, granted, the Warthog does not carry enough ammo for that to happen and nor does he fire it for long enough, however, in space, we can assume that fighters will fire longer, and from greater distances, and, due to the lack of gravity, the kickback effect of the weapons is increased, especially if the engines arent constantly firing.

You used the example of Anti-Grav and and Inertial Dampening. firstly, Anti-grav does not affect ships in space, at all. secondly, inertial dampening does not completely negate the effects of inertia, (you cant completely break the laws of physics) and besides, i thought that the only reason a space craft doesnt need to burn its engines is because it has inertia? now you want to dampen it? the only reason you would want that is to make the fighter stop quicker... but... we're in a dogfight, you dont want to stop...

now, thankyou for your ammo comment, its nice to have someone agree with me, and one of the other changes i propoposed is that SC cant be launched by the player, but rather that they are launched automatically when enemy forces are detected.

lastly, the SC build time, i agree its not a completely necessary change, but one i threw in there for the sake of it... my reasoning was: why do we as commanders decide to retreat our frigates and larger and not just kamakaze them? then i thought, because they take time and resources to build again, and, for capital ships, theres the whole matter of getting new cap ships to leve up again. so, i was thinking the same for SC, make a decision to pull them back because once they are destroyed you can feel the loss and it makes you want to command them better, rather than throwing them into the grinder. but, honestly, its not a necessary change, and some people might see it as too much micro-ing so, i agree.

one thing id like to mention... sawakaki mentioned that the most fuel is used up on take off. in atmosphere thats correct, because you have to build up enough speed to fly effeciently (thats why commercial airliners fly at a certain height, because it is fuel effecient.) in space however, you would still need more fuel to beat the initial inertia, but alot less fuel than that of a plane in atmosphere. its just like a car, has anyone noticed that on long drives your fuel effeciency increases as opposed to driving around the CBD where you are stopping and starting all the time? same principal applies here, except that you also have to use fuel to slow down as well as to start moving. given, as has been seen in battlestar galactica, ships can be launched catapault style, and considering the greater distances, its not a bad thing to be slingshot into the action.

however, and i cant emphasise this enough. in order to fly around like a SC in space, you have to keep your momentum up and that is done by keeping the engines firing. if anyone has played Freelancer you would know, keeping the engines firing gives you control and lets you turn, but if fyou shut down your engines, all you can do is move to the left and right a bit and spin on the spot while still moving in your original direction. ALL this, means, quite simply, fuel will run out. AND, if you want to say that Sins engines dont need fuel (explain it however you will, thats not the point) then fine, but no perpetual engine can account for unlimited ammo, and that! will need to be replenished.

once again, i want to make clear that this idea is simply to make SC a game tactic, not an all encompasing, nearly unbeatable game winner all by its lonesome. you should have to worry about SC hounding you, enough to make you consider anti-SC protection seriously, but you should not have to worry about a fleet jumping in on the opposite of the gravity well and sitting there while its X hundreds of bombers strafe you into teeny tiny pieces before you get halfway around the planet, taking out all your structures and starbase from well out of range, then moving onto the next planet and the next planet.

thanks for your continued support mate you make good points, and im trying to say much the same thing

and i agree, its funny how people are so sensitive, and i just cant tell if its because ppl genuinley think the ideas are bad, or if they are just worried because itll make SC less overpowering... which... i thought... was the idea

oh well, some people are just incorrigible

1) you are correct, (i thought i had mentioned that in my post, but i guess not) however, he did not quote inertial dampening in that sense, he quoted it in terms of the ship moving easier, which i rebutted. regardless, the use of inertial dampening as a reason for higher fuel effeciency, or even not needing to power your engines very much, is flawed.

2) yes, you may want to stop, thats what thrusters are for, or even reverse thrust (i.e. killing engines, spinning 180 degrees and firing engines again, or whatever you like) however, we are talking about a simple program that governs how SC fly and fight... we cant program (or we could but it would be a serious waste) in the instinct, or at least the conditional parameters to make a SC stop to let a trailing attacker overshoot him... there are all sorts of other things to take into account, but honestly, try to remember that we are talking about a rather simple segment of code here, not actual pilots...

also, the deathstar was a helluva lot bigger than anything in Sins, (although, if i remember correctly, though dont quote me, there were still point defense guns one the surface of the deathstar that gave the alliance some problems...)

sure, we can make the SC fly back and forth over a couple of hundred meters of ship... but that would just be unrealistic and stupid.

lets say we do do it, so bomber X is under the field of fire of capital ship X (and yes, it could be a starbase, but there are many more cap ships out there than starbases... and im not even going to mention frigates and cruisers because they are too small) so the garda next to cap ship X starts firing at the bomber, but now, every time it misses, it hits the cap ship... strictly speaking the cap ship should be taking friendly fire damage... but we cant have that because we need to add all new code... AND, lets say we do stop and hide behind a cap ship... what happens when a fighter come zooming down on your ass, guns blazing? you are a sitting target.

look, long story short, its a massive can of worms for way too many reasons.

i have to say, Hack, this is one of your less convincing rebuttal points... it does not even relate to the reality of the game. okay, lets say a bomber or a fighter comes to a complete stop to let its persuer overshoot him... well, then another fighter comes in and fires at a sitting duck target... or the garda who was firing a trail just a few meters behind you, suddenly catches up.

in Top Gun, there was a helluva lot LESS going on, with less ships (jets) and lesser other threats (i.e. sam sites). In Sins, your best defense is to keep moving, after all, its better to let them shoot at space rather than at you.

and, after all of that, you still have to implement a huge amount of code to give the AI a list of conditions in which it can stop moving to let a persuer over take him... and then... we have to ask, why cant the guy who was persuing do the same? theres nothing to say the fighter persuing the bomber cant just stop as well and fire at the now stopped bomber...

and not to rant, but we have now come ALL the way back to the fact that to start moving again, you are going to need to fire your engines, using fuel, meaning you can fight for a shorter amount of time before re-fueling.

sorry mate, i dont think sitting still will work... and if by some reason it will, then doing so is not a good enough reason to use inertial dampening as a way to use less fuel.

way to go to try and start a fight... if i didnt know any better id say u know me...

first, i defer to your superior knowledge of Star Wars, and honestly, i dont mean that in a cynical tone. i didnt follow Star Wars THAT closely, and even so, the Sci Fi in Star Wars wasnt so much Science as Fiction, so its all in all a moot point, but regardless, there is nothing in Sins that even comes close to a deathstar... maybe a planet... but you get the idea.

second, you said something about use... i think you are talking about the Inertial Dampening, but... yeah, i really dont know what you are talking about there...

third, i didnt mean your second comment, i meant your entire post, it seriously feels to me like you are grasping at straws to discredit my ideas, and not that im so arrogant as to think its something personal, but i dont appreciate it, i dont even like it when people do it to other people, sometimes its a laugh, but in this case, and most cases, its not necessary, and is usually just some loser getting hyped up because he/she can bully someone else from the safety of his/her home, hiding behind his/her computer screen. i mean, you are no longer even talking about things i mentioned in the post... yes, it relates slightly to the fuel point, but lets be realistic.

what im really irked about, is that you are no longer talking about the post, but rather, seem to want to shoot me down at every opportunity, no matter what im talking about (and yes, in this case its me, because i dont believe ive seen you debate with anyone else in this thread like you have with me), you dont even have decent arguements, INSOFAR, as they are very weak statements, and ones not really in contention... this thing about the Inertial Dampening... why?

and, back to sorta topic, you were not at all wrong when you said stopping quickly is a good tactic for a fighter pilot... but in the case of Sins, as it is, treating SC like real fighters, is unlogistical. i mean the huge re-writes to code, all the math to be done, both by programmers and the software itself, the potential for bugs (like there are now, i.e. SC wont take damage if being attacked by a flak frig and a fighter or sometihng like that, so its not unprecedented), all for what? aesthetics? i cant imagine people paying THAT much attention to SC dogfights, and any advantages that sudden stopping may have could easily be re-created in the numbers of the battle damage program.

yes, i rebutted your idea, maybe i could have said it better, i know that sometimes what works in my head comes out differently in words, i was trying to say A) in my opinion, this idea is wrong because.... etc, and stop attacking my ideas and replies just for shits and giggles, but seriously mate, there is no reason to get upset, or cynical. i have tried to be very fair and very concious of your position, however, as much as i try to rationalise your arguements, i still come up with the fact that it seems like you are attacking my ideas because they're my ideas, and im getting a little sick and tired of such immaturity.

i know this is massively off topic, but again, im sorry if i offended you, it was not my objective. granted, sometimes when defending your position one can get overly zealous when championing his ideas, but then, if you dont believe in your ideas enough to fight for them, then why should other people believe in them? i simply wanted to let you know i do not appreciate rebuttal simply for the sake of rebuttal, without points, evidence or thoughtfulness. like i said, by all means, continue to post your ideas... but try to make them constructive criticism, rather than just mindless clutter

thanks, and sorry again

okay, maybe im missing something here, and the greater Sins community has found that specialising your fleets is more effective, something like that.

what i mean, is that if you build a fleet JUST of close range ships, JUST long range ships, JUST support craft (you get the idea) you think its more ffective? i dont know, my personal playing style is  to build large fleets that can tackle ANY situation, so i can have a fleet on either side of the map doing the exact same thing with the same or near amount of effeciency as the other fleet, which is why im assuming most people build carriers and incorporate them into their fleets

i mean, i think not building carriers for whatever reason is kinda stupid (unless you are challenging yourself) because you have this tactic available to you, and you dont use it? why not?

that said, if you dont want to use carriers thats fine, means these changes shouldnt affect you...

just a question, are all your flak frigs clustered together in your fleet or huddled around your cap ships or just in loose formation throughout your fleet?

also, one other question...  do you have 30 flak frigates at all your frontline worlds? because if you dont i think your protection against a massive SC cloud is lacking.... 30 flak sounds good, depending on where they are station and the target the SC are firing at.... but if i jump into a system with a starbase and no 30 flak frigates... still sounds like you are screwed?