There has been a lot of discussion lately about balancing the Strike Craft/Carriers and Its been observed the main problem is the un-counterable strike craft that focus fire on your capital ships making it go down in seconds. I thought there has to be a more elegant solution to just buffing Flaks, and while I do support a Flak buff and preventing Carriers from instantly replacing their SC without any cost, I also always wondered why SINs never had the elegant Interceptor.
Interceptor are designed for 1 thing: to destroy other strike craft, fighters and bombers in a Air-Superority mission. Their primarily mission and purpose is dirty messy dogfighting, taking the fight to the fighters/bombers and protecting the main capital ships from Strike Craft attacks. (There is some conflict with the real world definition of interceptors, but for the purpose of this thread we're going to take the Sci-Fi definition of specialized dogfighters.)
Bajorian Interceptor, Star Trek ; Colonial Viper Mark VII, Battlestar Galactica
The Interceptor is designed to be a class below the fighter and the bombers. Fighters being generally multipurpose can still take out capital ships by focus fire, while bombers will take them out in 2-3 passes (1 late game), Interceptors will do close to zero damage to ships larger than a LRM and cannot take out a HC or Capital Ships; they are meant purely for taking down other SC. In the spectrum of strike craft balance:
low Lethality against ships high
| ---------------------------------- | --------------------------------------|
Interceptor (none) Fighter (moderate) Bomber (Very high)
♣ ♦ ♥
WING COMMANDER Strike Craft.
♣ - The Bearcat Interceptor, developed as a pure interceptor customized to destroy other fighters
♦ - The Hellcat V Multipurpose Fighter
♥ - The Shrike Torpedo Bomber
The Thunderbolt Star Fury from Babylon 5, a remarkable improvement from the original Star Fury, and excelling at a Interceptor Role against enemy fighters.
In terms of lethality against Strike Craft, the scale is below.
low Lethality against SC high
| ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ |
Bomber (none) Fighter (multipurpose) Interceptor (high)
Star Wars
The underrated Y-Wing Well-known X-Wing A-Wing, fastest ship in the Rebel Alliance
In almost all popular Science-Fiction we see Interceptor craft. In Battlestar Galactica, Vipers don't attack Cylon basestars, they take out the raiders (bombers do that) one could argue there are only Interceptors and Bombers in depicted battles on Battlestar Galactica. In Star-Wars we have esp. designed A-Wings and Tie Interceptors to have a more specialized role in dog-fighting. In real life, the F-16 (a interceptor) is considered to be better than the multipurpose F-14 Tomcat in air to air combat and is the primarily first choice for such roles.
Why we need Interceptors in SINs
The problem with just having fighters and bombers, is when the enemy spams a lot of fighters, they are effective against large ships as well as other fighters. In a fighter and fighter war, the person with the most fighters (Flak withstanding) wins hence to effectively counter his fighters you just need more fighters than he does. What if you only make SC to begin with to counter his SC? You end up having to dump a significant amount of your fleet just to counter 1 aspect of his fleet. This problem is solved with Interceptors. Interceptors will engage in dog-fights with enemy fighters and effectively protect your own ships, and if you are relying on a melee shp-to-ship combat strategy you can blunt his fighter/bombers with your own interceptors. Note, Interceptors will still take losses from fighters, but fighters will need to fight at at least a 2/3 to 1 advantage to defeat interceptors. The cost-effectiveness of Interceptors will make those 1 or 2 SC slots on regular capital ships much more useful as now you could load up on Interceptors to better protect your capital ships against enemy SC despite being outnumbered. Interceptors will receive a 75% huge penalty received dmg penalty from enemy fighter/interceptors for targetting bombers if in the presence of their own escorts. (If the player micros to target the enemy bombers instead of enemy fighters/Int erceptors)
Interceptors will offer more and better Tactics in SINs.
People will now have to use ALL THREE TYPES of SC to achieve the best results. He will now need to have the correct ratios of Interceptors to counter other Interceptors, Fighters to support your own Interceptors, and escorting bombers while also doing some dmg to enemy ships, all the while protecting your own bombers which will now be the primarily attack SC. To ensure, Interceptors do not annhilate bomber SC and effectively moving them from the game, make them target enemy Interceptors and fighters first before they target the bombers, add to the fact Interceptors cannot dmg enemy ships larger than a LRM (and even for them they will do crappy dmg per sec) it makes Interceptors fit in perfectly with the SINs game. This adds more dept to SINs and more strategic planning in the allocation of SC to Carrier groups.
Yes this will make the counter table more complicated, but thats what happens when you add tactics and dept to a game.
I'd gladly appreciate any suggestions, and I really hope Ironclad takes a serious look at my proposal. (Dorian)
Now Enjoy the deadly Imperial TIE interceptors:
OBJECTION & REBUTTAL COLUMN
—"fighters already fill this role..."
No they don't, a fighter vs. a fighter will be equal. Fighters are significantly good at destroying ships, even capital ships leading many players to make purly all fighter SC for their carrier fleets because essentially as I mentioned you can only counter him by having more fighters then he does which if he is going for a pure SC-spam fleet and you aren't it makes it very difficult to counter fighters. With the addition of Interceptors Fighters will again be even more crucial to serve the role as Escort Fighters protecting bombers and dog-fighting Interceptors.
—"Bombers will be obsolete because now they have 3 counters" (assuming Flak is buffed)
No, they won't. Firstly Flak should counter all SC, regardless of if they are bombers/fighters/Interceptors. Also Interceptors will only be able to target bombers with impunity only if the bombers do not have their own fighter/Interceptor escort to get slaughtered which happens already anyway if bombers don't have fighter backup against enemy fighters. Bombers need escorts, is that something new? If you do escort them, then there is little difference with the addition of interceptors apart from now you need to tactically manage your ratios more. Which is a good thing.
—This will make everyone go back to LRF spam because the interceptors will take out all the strike craft that can take out the LRF.
No, it won't. The Interceptors will still be able to take out LRFs pretty decently, Interceptors will not be able to damage any ships larger than LRFs. Furthermore, everyone won't spam Interceptors because they can't damage large ships at all. Furthermore Fighters will still be able to defeat Interceptors in mass and if they mix in a few of their own Interceptors they will surely win.
— "Why not have the fighter changed to the stats of the interceptor? That way fighters can't take down crusiers or caps."
No, that is a bad idea because the fighter does have an important role right now. Also that'll completely make the bombers obsolete and un-tendable. Fighters should be able to take out heavier ships while being able to fight interceptors in a multi-purpose role. Also just replacing the fighter with the interceptor is limiting tactical options again to two types of strike craft.
—I played a game last night where I was going against [_] Tax in a 2v3 (my two allies were playing another [_] player). He had more fighters then me and had air superiority, even when I ended up with more physical carriers as I lacked the AM to replace the SC. The game was largely a stalemate with my egg leveling up under a repair cloud while I pumped out LF and LRMs and tried to kill his carriers. It wasn't his fighters that I was worried about killing my cap - it was the assailants or HCs!!! Due to tactics, I was able to last. An interceptor would not have made a difference as we would have both spammed them and ended up in the same situation...
This is a Straw Man Argument but in any event Yes, it would have helped. With interceptors included it would have ALL mattered on the ratio of Interceptors/Fighters/Bombers. If you had a higher ratio of intercepters then you would have won allowing some of your bombers to damage his carriers if you didn't you would have had to change your ratio, this is called adding tactics to the game. In this event YOU WERE BOTH CARRIER SPAMMING, in addition to letting players depend on the ratio, Interceptors would allow non-carrier spammers to use Interceptors to protect their ships. Should this not be an option?
it could happen true
doing that could also cause lots of lag and or memory related crashes
i used to play using the real combat mod which added alot moar SCs than were avalible with the normal game at the time and lets just say all those extra SCs really slowed the game down...well i think it was the SCs at least
edit: double post sry impulse is lagging for me prolly a bad interbutt connection
i think that fighters should be remodled to fit the fighter-bomber role doing a decent job when engaging bombers and lightly armoured ships and a meh job at taking out moar heavely armoured vessels and other fighters and do poorly at engaging structers and intersepters but still being able too
bombers are fine how they are being unable to engage enemy SC but making short work of frigets crusers caps and structures
and interceptors should serve as a dedicacted air-superiority role being able to pretty easly take out other SCs but being unable to engage other things
Ok, totally off topic, but you keep mentioning demagogues and all those random arguement quotes. You're not using the word right, none of us are leaders, and none of us are using prejudices or emotions to gain power. You keep linking to wikipedia too... over... and over... It's not helping your point, and is only making you look hostile and condescending.
As to my take on the subject, I'm ok with any addition to the game as long as it follows three criteria.
1. It's balanced.
2. It fits the theme of the game and what the developers had in mind.
3. It works with minimal fuss or change.
--Edit--
Unfortunately, I don't think this idea fits the last two criteria. And the first one is debatable.
Interesting - someone who agreed with me. Quick. Insult them Credit. After all you are a parliamentry debater. They never do anything useful when they debate in parliment - just insult each other...
To Hack87,
I've said everything I will say on this subject and for the sake of everyone here I'm not going to continue to argue with you, and at least for my part, I've said enough.
Also, I've had this game now for 6 months, and been playing the Entrenchment beta since beta 1. Shoe fly don't bother me.
Hi Silfarion,
Hack87 is a demagogue because, its true he doesn't want political power, but he want public influence over this forum. He wants to manipulate public opinion over the validity of this idea, which is fine in general but he resorts to cheap shots and lowhanded tactics such as demagoguery and ad hominums. Its unfortunate he degraded a good thread into a shooting alley for his cheap shots.
I believe the idea furfills all but number 3 of those suggestions, but that's a point spiralbitz brought up before essentially he said some along the lines of "This is a good idea, but it'll take a lot of work to implement it"
I don't believe in sacrificing quality just because it won't be quick and easy and like you said with minimal fuss. This will take some fuss and change, but that is the point of expansions.
i think the second criteria is met but this addition would deffinatly cause alot of fuss and thered be a lot of change involved
That is true, pretty fun to watch though. [e digicons]:beer:[/e]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ&feature=related
lol
Ah, I suppose. But then, resources to introduce the feature could also be spent elsewhere. Would you rather have a new race (the care bears!), or these?
Granted, a new race is substantially more difficult, but it's just an example. It all depends on the focus of the expansions. If one is diplomacy/economy, which is likely, I don't see this being implemented in that one. Likewise if the final expansion brings in the scourge of the vasari (which I doubt) or a storyline (more likely). However, if one of the expansions is purely about aggressive combat instead of fortification, I can see something similar to this being implemented, or atleast discussed.
It all depends on what the developers want to spend their time on. What it comes down to, from what I can tell, is what the community wants the most.
It's a good idea in principle but I think we're on a slippery slope here...
In my game development experience it is much better to tweak existing units to fill multiple roles better than to just keep adding more and more types. I understand your argument about fighters needing to be in the middle ground to prevent bombers from being completely useless, but there is always more than one solution to this sort of problem.
Were I on the dev team, I'd find it. But my time would be wasted coming up with one as it is, the odds of a dev noticing is just too low, and it's too late tonight to start arguing my point properly.
Here's the fact of the matter: when you add too many units in too many roles/counter-roles, here's what happens. You build a bit of everything. You tweak a little here or there depending on your experience, but you just build a bit of everything because you don't know what each of your enemies might throw at you. There's another word for this, I call it game-cancer. The unit count grows and grows but in fact you could be building just one type of unit and you would have almost the same gameplay, just less pretty.
You'll build 20 fighters, 20 bombers, and 20 interceptors. You know what? You might as well have just built 20 "multi-role" fighters because the group as a mass is necessary in order to be effective - you said so yourself. The whole concept of this ancient rock-paper-scissors gameplay design reeks of the early 1990s. One thing is overpowered, well let's make a unit to counter it. Well now this other thing's overpowered, let's make a unit to counter it. But now the counters are overpowered, let's nerf them. It baffles me that this unit-counterunit-countercounterunit gameplay is still around. Unit-specific damage, R-P-S... We're still freaking playing Age of Empires 2, just in space. Rather than fix the root cause of the problem, you just band-aid it, and almost always in a way that just makes another problem.
Can't defend planets adequately, units run right past defenses.So add Starbases!Starbases are too powerful.Add anti-starbase ships!Anti-starbase ships are too powerful.Nerf them!Now they're more trouble than they're worth.Buff them, but make a unit REALLY GOOD at killing them. Let's say... fighters!Fighters are overpowered.Buff anti-fighter units!Fighters get smeared across flak ships' windshields.Nerf flak ships!Bombers are too powerful.Buff fighters!Nobody builds bombers anymore, just fighter swarms.Errr... Make an anti-fighter fighter?
All of this, all of this, to fix "units run right past defenses." Come July or August, maybe then I'll make a mod or something, I'll be busy until then with work.
Hey, if you want to see how a game runs without massive R-P-S, unit specific damage, and all this nonsense, get yourself a copy of Total Annihilation and I'll give you a download like for my mod I made years and years ago. The game balance is still completely unrivalled, except for the fork projects that started after I didn't have time to work on it anymore and was generally satisfied enough to call it "a finished product".
a really valid point
defnitly really vaild point
It is - and it is what I have been saying - leave it alone and live with the 2 SC we have...
[reserved]
I find it laughable that CreditSuisse keeps accusing people of ad hominem attacks and demagoguery when it seems painfully clear that the only one making personal attacks and trying to stifle the opposition is CreditSuisse themself.
IMO, this isn't needed. With the new change in entrenchment that slows SC production in hostile wells all that is needed is a slight buff to flaks.
well, I do think that unit specific damage or damage modifiers are a good thing, because otherwise there is just stronger or weaker. otherwise there is very little room for various roles if a unit's value depends solely on health and attack power. doesn't mean that is has to be extremely extensive though.
but I'm digressing. I thought about a new fighter type too, but I couldn't find a concept that doesn't overlap too much with what is already in. and no, ignoring is not the same as disagreeing. boards are about discussion, because refinement of ideas across persons makes them better, points out weaknesses, etc. and the basis for a discussion is also accepting the fact that some people disagree and won't be swayed.
For my point of view, the only addition that could upgrade the game is SC stances...
Anyway Caydr your post is clear and I agree with it..
rather than stances id rather a moar direct way of controling target prioritization
At first the idea of a new sc seemed kind of cool. But people spam carriers enoght. Another strike craft is just going to add more carrier spam.
I think a small buff (keep it small) to the damage modifier for flak vs fighter would work better. Also a small change in a fighters modifer for everything above medium armor would work better I think. I do mean small as well. Devs always go overboard when they change something.
well once the carrier spam is worked out the intercepters would be fun to have
well as long as the solution doesnt include increasing the supply cost because 20 supply is already painful enough
There are several problems when adding intercepters:
1. People wouldn't really rely on flaks anymore because they just replace them entirely
2. Carrier vs. Carrier completely takes out the strategy in the game because adding intercepters would make more people just focus on getting them.
3. Intercepters would just be a bomber for light ships, taking out fighters completely
The game is already complex enough anyway - there is no need to add additional complexity. People can't micro the units they have, and you want to introduce interceptors? I'm guessing most people can't properly use the units they already have (including the OP, and including myself). Adding interceptors will simply be adding more micro that has to be done. Actually, you want to lose more often to "skilled" or "pro" players? Then introduce the interceptor. The average guy can barely make a decision on what ratio of bombers to fighers to field, and in what circumstances. Introduce interceptors, and he has no hope. The skilled player will of course switch back and forth between fighrers, bombers, and interceptors effortlessly and on the fly, micro'ing them all the whole entire time.
Personally, I hate the idea of adding interceptors. I hate it quite a bit.
Flak already fills the role of interceptors. They're nearly impossible for bombers and fighters to kill, they wipe out fighters pretty well, and they're terrible against any heavy armored ship. That's almost entirely like an interceptor!
Interceptors will add nothing of substance to the game. It doesn't add a new strategy. It doesn't add a new tactic. It doesn't provide an interesting new way for units to interact. Interceptors are just a lame idea for a generic rock/paper/scissors relationship. The only purpose an interceptor can POSSIBLY fulfill is to allow CARRIERS to counter CARRIERS. For this absolutely pointless addition to the game, players now have to micro a third unit type for the carrier.
Also, the role is completely outclassed by the identically purposed flak frigate. Did I mention that yet?
The only design this interceptor seems to have, is that it's a fighter with a damage nerf against medium+ armored targets. If you wanted to nerf fighter damage against heavy targets, why didn't you just say so?
hmmm well i cant say i diss agree with them not adding anything to the game if its put like that
Wow - those arguments from Agent and Bob are pretty concise and persuasive. Impressive. +1 Karma for not using red and caps to do it
Oh heres a nice peice of information. There was going to be 3 original SC squads, old timers know this from when the game first came out and people started modding and ran into old templates and stuff, one being called TEC Gunship. Why it was canceled/left out, we don't know. And to be sure, I beleive if my memory serves right that it was a SC.
Of course some of you will read this and go, oh theres proof there that IC thought it was a bad idea to have 3 SC, no thats not what it means. I means that the intial design most likely had a 3 SC selection, but the third one was left out due to time constraints or something that will be added in later.
Oh also, like I've said before, Im in favor of having a third SC class, may it be a interceptor class or somethign else entirely. And all this arguing is mute since the whole purpose of this thread was talking about adding these in the next or future mini-expansions and this thread was directed at the developers to look at not for trolls and others to sit here and bash a persons ideas using most of the time flawed statements or cropped qoutes from random sources.
So stop trolling / bashing this idea, it is not up to you, its up to the developers to decide if its worth while, the posts made by people supporting the idea or adding in constructive ideas on how it would work / be implemented, good for you.
---Cloud04
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
