Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: June 12, 2024, 02:05:45 AM »

Missile fighters with box launchers can generally do SOME damage.  They may be insufficient to destroy the entire enemy fleet, but they can selectively target ships that would give the rest of the fleet problems.

Whereas if you have insufficient beam fighters to defeat an enemy fleet, you also likely have insufficient to do meaningful damage.

However, you touch on something that I have been struggling with since I first started playing Aurora4x:

In order to deliver decisive victories with fighters you need a huge industrial commitment to fighters and huge investment in carriers as well.  But you aren't going to get such a dominance without fighters proving themselves.  So somehow fighters have to prove themselves in small numbers to justify the overwhelming commitment to them that can make them truly dominant.

The solution I went with was I built fighter factories in my conventional start games to build scouts and picket forces, and I built multislip 1,000 ton shipyards to make grav survey boats that could be converted into mass missile boats.  Capitol ships would have integral hangar bays to support their scout squadrons.  Survey fleets had hangars for maintenance, for carrying pinnaces for jump point scouting, repairing distant survey ships, with jump tenders to act as mobile gates for survey forces.

So when it would come to needing to build a quick force to deal with a suddenly emergent foe, there are all their small carriers/tenders serving the survey forces and fighter factories available to utilize the latest technology, and they could generate victories that thereby justify more overwhelming investment in fighters as a major weapon of war.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: June 10, 2024, 06:31:55 AM »

Missile fighters are also all or nothing,
If they don't fire anough missiles to kill or cripple at least one ship in their salvo they achieve nothing and waste a lot of money on expensive missiles. But thats the problem with all missile salvo's if your salvo fails to overcome defenses and shields it was not worth firing.
If you use any type of fighter you have to have enough to achive something of they are a big waste of resources, penny packets of fighters just waste money. Beam fighter used to chase down missile ships which are out of ammo or civilain ships can work in small numbers unless it turns out they still have a few missiles
Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: June 10, 2024, 03:52:15 AM »

I would argue that missile fighters can be effective in smaller numbers than beam fighters for fleet combat.

Beam fighters are really an all or nothing strategy.  You will definitely take casualties getting them into range, and if you discover once in range that you do not have enough, you are certain to lose a lot as they withdraw.  If your enemy can shoot down X fighters before they get to beam range, going from 1.5 X fighters to 2X fighters yield a very large increase in damage done.

However, there are missions where having even a small number of beam fighters are superior.  Going after enemy scouts, survey ships or civilian ships, there is simply no way that a missile ship is going to kill a ship much bigger than it.  But a beam fighter with a lot of spare parts could whittle it down.  Another mission would be hunting down the empty missile ships/FACs or whatever that shot their load and attempted to flee.

Obsolete beam fighters could therefore go to the picket forces, where being able to run down enemy survey ships doesn't require the higher performance.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 02, 2024, 06:11:19 AM »

I also might consider that missile armed fighters under the new missile system can also be "more" effective against enemy fighters. You can possibly engage enemy fighters with laser warhead missiles so they can't use their shorter ranged PD weapons to defend themselves... the lower damage of these missiles is less of an issue against enemy fighters with no real armour to speak of.

I have not tried this yet to be honest so this is only theoretical from my side.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 02, 2024, 05:19:26 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on June 02, 2024, 04:24:59 AM
I think you have to add to the above the PD benefits of beam fighters. While missile fighters can be better in the right circumstances on attack, they have no defensive benefit at all, while at least half the overall value of beam fighters is on defence.

Yes... that is true... but the issue are that you can't rely on them for PD as you use them for both offence and defence. If they leave the carrier then the carrier are very vulnerable. From a resource perspective fighters are relatively expensive PD rather than using a turreted gauss. A clever opponent can wait for the fighters to leave the carrier. Having dual purpose laser cannons in turrets means you can use them for both at the same time. Improved PD, attack fighters and enemy ships. There is very little loss in efficiency.

As for missile fighters being useless that depend on how they are designed. My heavy bombers tend to get some additional 5t fire-controls of either resolution 1 or 5 sometimes both. That means they can be used against enemy fighters or missiles in last ditch efforts. So they can be to somewhat dual purpose even if not very effective. I also could potentially use bombers to intercept enemy missile fighters if I'm desperate.

I have used some dedicated beam fighter concepts in my campaigns with multiple factions and they do work if used, especially if the other side have not taken measures to combat them. Like deploying anti-fighter corvettes. One faction had 2500t anti fighter corvettes attached to their escorts with tractor beams. These where just a few thousand km/s slower than the enemy fighters but their long range weapons and heavy armour where formidable. For some reason I like to put tractor beams on larger main combat ships, they double as tugs for damaged ships or they often can bring along stations and other equipment that is needed. Perhaps not super efficient, but can be quite useful as it make the ships more useful outside their designated role.

Another development in most campaigns are anti-fighter fighters/FAC.... like really fast fighters with a miniaturized long range laser cannon or just a long range cannon. These would rush out and attack the fighters with lower ranged weapons. The side with the best engines would often be able to neutralize the other side using beam fighters but not always. It also created a race to who had the best anti-fighter escort for the beam fighters, which was an interesting development too. If I remember correctly these anti-fighter assets just tended to get bigger and bigger... the reasons for this is quite clear. Bigger ships are just better at beam combat.

In my campaigns fighters with beam weapons have mainly always eventually been relegated to interceptor duty, that is intercept enemy scouts, fighters and other lone ships or smaller groups of ships that have little or no defences against fast beam armed fighters or FAC. They also double as PD of course. These interceptors usually are well armoured and big, mostly 500t with a big long range gun and/or really fast, depends on the faction and technology at hand. But they usually are big so they can have some armour. They have to be able to take some hits. In addition to those I also have PD fighters, their role is to protect the bombers carrying missiles from enemy missiles.... these are railgun armed fighters.

So yes I deploy a large numbers of beam fighters in my campaigns too and they can be very effective in the right circumstances.

But when you come down to the nitty gritty, the fact is that the larger the ship the better and more efficient it is at beam fighting. A fighter sized craft completely waste its main purpose of stealth when used as a beam fighter. The smaller the ship the easier they are to neutralize in beam combat.
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: June 02, 2024, 04:43:46 AM »

I want to point out my own experience in... oh, it was back in 2021, with 1.13. Here's an AAR and here's a dedicated designs thread.

Initially, I used LACs with 4x size 4 launchers, to overwhelm point defense. But with the way armor works in aurora, it was not as damaging as I would've hoped. Later in a playthrough, I tried using size 20 missiles from my light attack craft, resulting in much better anti-ship performance.

A lot of changes were made to Aurora since then, and I have not played much after that, but is there anything in direct/beam firing weapons arsenal that could outperform/achieve parity to large torpedo-style heavy anti-ship missiles when employed from fighter-sized craft in the latest Aurora version?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: June 02, 2024, 04:24:59 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on June 01, 2024, 06:50:16 PM
Beam fighters does have it's purpose as do any other weapon type and platform. Missiles are best use when you are able to overwhelm the enemy but if you can't it is going to be very costly to use missiles. Likewise would beam fighters be suicide against an enemy that knows they are part of your doctrine and have weapon systems designed to counter them. It would be much cheaper to destroy the fighters than the cost of building the ships countering them, that is almost always the case with fighters due to them having very expensive engines in comparison with their size. Just adding some of the medium calibre laser cannons on turrets rather than normal mounts would directly kill any beam fighter strategy while not really increase the opportunity cost of the fleet very much. If the enemy fleet mainly uses rail guns it would definitely be a suicide strategy.

I do think that against certain AI races and strategies then beam fighters would work fine, but you would still need to consider a relatively high attrition rate in general. Likewise are missiles not free either but it is easier to carry more missiles than fighters so a missile fleet could likely have more endurance the beam fighters if there are high attrition rate on the fighters. Having expensive carriers running around with empty hangars is generally more expensive than commercial ordnance ships with empty magazines.

I would rate fighters and missiles to be on the same level of attrition rate. It can also be a question on the type of resources you spend on either. Both will require allot of Gallicite. I say you would get around 15 size 6 for every 300t fighter... roughly. I also think fighters would cost you the most Gallicite, so that might also factor in to the calculation as missiles will have most of the cost in Tritanium.

I do think that in general beam fighters is the worse option, especially against an enemy that knows how to counter it. But they still have a use, but not as a main hitter against enemy main capital warships but more against enemy scouts, fighters and other lightly armed and armoured targets.

The main issue I have with beam fighters is that once they are committed the cost of misjudging the enemy strength are likely greater than using missile fighters. With missiles you launch one volley, if it does too little damage you can likely just withdraw the fleet in peace. You only lost the cost of those missiles launched... with the beam fighters the cost of loosing the fighters will be much greater.

I think you have to add to the above the PD benefits of beam fighters. While missile fighters can be better in the right circumstances on attack, they have no defensive benefit at all, while at least half the overall value of beam fighters is on defence.
Posted by: legemaine
« on: June 02, 2024, 12:41:03 AM »

Thanks all, I had a feeling from what I had read that it was going to be somewhat the way that Jorgen_CAB described, but it was great as ever to see all the pros and cons laid out so logically
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 01, 2024, 06:50:16 PM »

Beam fighters does have it's purpose as do any other weapon type and platform. Missiles are best use when you are able to overwhelm the enemy but if you can't it is going to be very costly to use missiles. Likewise would beam fighters be suicide against an enemy that knows they are part of your doctrine and have weapon systems designed to counter them. It would be much cheaper to destroy the fighters than the cost of building the ships countering them, that is almost always the case with fighters due to them having very expensive engines in comparison with their size. Just adding some of the medium calibre laser cannons on turrets rather than normal mounts would directly kill any beam fighter strategy while not really increase the opportunity cost of the fleet very much. If the enemy fleet mainly uses rail guns it would definitely be a suicide strategy.

I do think that against certain AI races and strategies then beam fighters would work fine, but you would still need to consider a relatively high attrition rate in general. Likewise are missiles not free either but it is easier to carry more missiles than fighters so a missile fleet could likely have more endurance the beam fighters if there are high attrition rate on the fighters. Having expensive carriers running around with empty hangars is generally more expensive than commercial ordnance ships with empty magazines.

I would rate fighters and missiles to be on the same level of attrition rate. It can also be a question on the type of resources you spend on either. Both will require allot of Gallicite. I say you would get around 15 size 6 for every 300t fighter... roughly. I also think fighters would cost you the most Gallicite, so that might also factor in to the calculation as missiles will have most of the cost in Tritanium.

I do think that in general beam fighters is the worse option, especially against an enemy that knows how to counter it. But they still have a use, but not as a main hitter against enemy main capital warships but more against enemy scouts, fighters and other lightly armed and armoured targets.

The main issue I have with beam fighters is that once they are committed the cost of misjudging the enemy strength are likely greater than using missile fighters. With missiles you launch one volley, if it does too little damage you can likely just withdraw the fleet in peace. You only lost the cost of those missiles launched... with the beam fighters the cost of loosing the fighters will be much greater.
Posted by: Droll
« on: June 01, 2024, 12:49:43 PM »

Quote from: gpt3 on June 01, 2024, 12:36:34 PM
Disadvantages of beam fighters:
  • High casualties: since warship beam weapons have longer ranges than fighter beam weapons, you will most likely lose several fighters each sortie. This means that your carriers will frequently need to return home for reinforcements.
  • Expensive to upgrade: It's not really economical to upgrade beam fighters - you basically have to rebuild your fleet each time you inaugurate a new generation.
  • More tactical micromanagement: It is tedious to coordinate dozens/hundreds of fighters' fire controls. Fire at will might not focus on priority targets.

It's worth noting that the tactical micromanagement can be mitigated somewhat with micromanagement when the carrier is first build or using "assign fleet"/"assign sub-fleet" as those assignments copy targeting assignments as well. I like to split my carrier wings into squadrons so that I can group up fighters and have them target the same thing within the squadron without having to deal with it one-by-one. Granted, this also helps with missile fighters so the overall point about the beamy bois being more micro intensive still stands, especially as enemy ships get destroyed, forcing you to go back and designate a new target.
Posted by: gpt3
« on: June 01, 2024, 12:36:34 PM »

Quote from: legemaine on June 01, 2024, 07:48:41 AM
What's the current view re beam fighters - I've noticed over the years that typically this hasnt been seen particularly effective compared with missile carrying fighters - but I thought I saw some recent posts (cant find them now) that suggested that beam boats were more viable again. Just wanted to check the consensus before I started a carrier fleet strategy.
Like every other question in Aurora, the answer is: it depends - what's your fleet doctrine?

Advantages of missile fighters:
  • Lower casualties: just like missile warships, they can unleash devastating salvoes from beyond enemy detection range (especially if you have dedicated scouts).
  • Cheap to upgrade: You can easily upgrade a missile fighter by swapping out its payload. Obsolete fighters can be used for planetary defense.
  • Less tactical micromanagement: You don't have to pay any attention to the targeting screen after missile launch.
  • Useable for ground combat: You can load box launchers with fighter pods to support your ground forces in an emergency.
Disadvantages of missile fighters:
  • Poor tactical flexibility: if your "devastating" salvo fails to devastate the enemy, then you're out of luck. Hopefully your strike group has time to reload at the carrier.
  • Expensive to use: 20x size-6 missiles is at least as expensive as sacrificing a 300-ton boat. Often much more expensive since missiles are densely packed with expensive components like boosted engines.
  • More strategic micromanagement: You have to establish ammunition manufacturing hubs, supply chains, and local stockpiles.
Advantages of beam fighters:
  • Good tactical flexibility: they can attack enemies, reprioritize targets based on the situation, and even serve as backup point-defense.
  • Overwhelm enemy targeting systems: Point-defense fire controls can target multiple missiles per round. On the other hand, each offensive fire control can only target one fighter per round. 50 fighters will always take longer to kill than 50 missiles or a 50-gun warship, even if the enemy has endgame weapons.
  • Less strategic micromanagement: Beam weapons only consume a small amount of MSP; logistics are probably negligible compared to the rest of your fleet.
Disadvantages of beam fighters:
  • High casualties: since warship beam weapons have longer ranges than fighter beam weapons, you will most likely lose several fighters each sortie. This means that your carriers will frequently need to return home for reinforcements.
  • Expensive to upgrade: It's not really economical to upgrade beam fighters - you basically have to rebuild your fleet each time you inaugurate a new generation.
  • More tactical micromanagement: It is tedious to coordinate dozens of fighters' fire controls. Fire at will might not focus on priority targets.

Quote from: legemaine on June 01, 2024, 07:48:41 AM
Also, when designing missiles for fighters to carry, would I be right in assuming that people generally designed them to be shorter range than ship borne variants - taking account of the distance a fighter would approach the target, or do people generally use the separation generated by the fighters to protect the main fleet
I think that depends on if the fighters are carrying their own active sensors (in which case you'd want a shorter-range missile) or if they're relying on forward scouts (in which case you'd want a longer-range missile).

In general it's best to use the separation generated by the fighters to protect the main fleet. Carriers and battlestars typically aren't as effective combatants as specialized beam warships, so you should keep them safe unless you have a creative tactic in mind.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: June 01, 2024, 08:13:45 AM »

Missile fighters get killed less often, as they fight from a distance, but they can only fire once and they have to get through point defence. They will do more damage with a single attack, but it also costs money and resources every time they fire.

Beam fighters can fire for as long as their MSP last, so they can do a lot more damage overall in the right situation. They also usually fire every 5 second so can be devastating in swarms. They will take more losses than missile fighters, but replacing those losses is often cheaper than replacing the missiles expended by the missile fighters. Finally, beam fighters are very good at defending fleets against hostile missile attack.

A mix of both is probably best, but if I had to take one or the other, I would take beam fighters every time.

Check out this campaign for an example of beam fighters in action.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=12909.0

Posted by: legemaine
« on: June 01, 2024, 07:48:41 AM »

Hi all, another question

What's the current view re beam fighters - I've noticed over the years that typically this hasnt been seen particularly effective compared with missile carrying fighters - but I thought I saw some recent posts (cant find them now) that suggested that beam boats were more viable again. Just wanted to check the consensus before I started a carrier fleet strategy.

Also, when designing missiles for fighters to carry, would I be right in assuming that people generally designed them to be shorter range than ship borne variants - taking account of the distance a fighter would approach the target, or do people generally use the separation generated by the fighters to protect the main fleet

Thanks again for all your help