Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition

[Droll]

The importance of armour is that your fighters might get damaged instead of destroyed so you can pull them back to the assault carrier you have parked above the planet. I have done that in some fights but it does involve a bit of micromanagement and if that is not your thing then I understand it seems a bit pointless with armour. It also depend on your armour technology if it is worth it or not.

In general I think that fighter combat on planets need a bit of an overhaul on how it work... some of the special missions are just a waste of time on the way they work, such as AA suppression for example. Except for LAA most AA will be concentrated in their own formations anyway so the order is in that sense almost pointless the way it work. If you play multiple factions you can build units and sprinkle in the AA in all levels of formations so this order make any sense.

Micro load for CAS is important though, since it prevents you from using ground support at a scale that matters. The most I was able to use without tearing my hair out has been 60 so far. That's good for certain spoiler garrisons but for any substantial ground invasion you get a massive problem as you are dealing with 1000s of AA units firing on dozens of fighters, at which point no level of armor and shielding is going to help. Especially thanks to shock damage mechanics making armor on fighters almost completely irrelevant.

In essence all I need is a button/movement order that distributes CAS support missions across all available FFDs, dragging each fighter one by one on to the hierarchy every ground combat is insane.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The importance of armour is that your fighters might get damaged instead of destroyed so you can pull them back to the assault carrier you have parked above the planet. I have done that in some fights but it does involve a bit of micromanagement and if that is not your thing then I understand it seems a bit pointless with armour. It also depend on your armour technology if it is worth it or not.

In general I think that fighter combat on planets need a bit of an overhaul on how it work... some of the special missions are just a waste of time on the way they work, such as AA suppression for example. Except for LAA most AA will be concentrated in their own formations anyway so the order is in that sense almost pointless the way it work. If you play multiple factions you can build units and sprinkle in the AA in all levels of formations so this order make any sense.

Micro load for CAS is important though, since it prevents you from using ground support at a scale that matters. The most I was able to use without tearing my hair out has been 60 so far. That's good for certain spoiler garrisons but for any substantial ground invasion you get a massive problem as you are dealing with 1000s of AA units firing on dozens of fighters, at which point no level of armor and shielding is going to help. Especially thanks to shock damage mechanics making armor on fighters almost completely irrelevant.

In essence all I need is a button/movement order that distributes CAS support missions across all available FFDs, dragging each fighter one by one on to the hierarchy every ground combat is insane.

I agree that there is unnecessary micro in regards to fighters... why I also said I think it needs an overhaul. I also think that shock damage should not apply with AA and fighters at all because it is not balanced well at all.

I just think that fighters should be a ground based unit and not mixed in with the space ship mechanic at all. We could still have assault carriers that could house and operate "ground fighters" for invasions in some form as it is nice from a role-play perspective. This way fighters could work differently and be more integrated into the ground combat mechanic and play a bigger role.

[serger]

What is the sequence of weapon hits in space combat for any individual target during 5-sec tick?
Is there any means to ensure, say, that my microwave shockers will hit as latest (maxing probability of target's shields will be knocked down at the moment), armour-piercing hits - just before microwaves, and all shield-and-armour-shearing weapons as foremost?

[Garfunkel]

If it's like movement, it's based on initiative of the commanding officer. But I don't know for sure.

[Theoatmeal2]

Do shields still use fuel? It does not say so in the design window.

[Garfunkel]

Do shields still use fuel? It does not say so in the design window.

No, they are now fuel-free. Go wild!

[serger]

If it's like movement, it's based on initiative of the commanding officer. But I don't know for sure.

It's even more important for me to predict and/or adjust fire sequence of individual mixed-armoured ship, because it's the most frequent and potentially heroic situation, where an order of hits of some independent ship is able to change battle result drastically.

[nuclearslurpee]

If it's like movement, it's based on initiative of the commanding officer. But I don't know for sure.

This is correct. However, "initiative" is simply the Reaction score of each ship. As far as I know, the game calculates all of the fleet movements first, starting with the lowest-Reaction fleets, and then resolves weapons fire from highest-Reaction to lowest. I'm admittedly not sure how missiles fit into this order, but I believe they come last so that all ships can fire beam weapons first.

So if you want a "heroic" ship, give it a high-Reaction commander. Of course an alternative term for "heroism" is "kill-stealing"... 

[serger]

So if you want a "heroic" ship, give it a high-Reaction commander. Of course an alternative term for "heroism" is "kill-stealing"... 

Again, both my initial question and my comment about heroism was not about sequence of hits from different ships - it was about sequence of hits from different weapons, mounted on the same ship - independent ship, that is operating independently with a perspective of possible fight by oneself against superior opponents.

[nuclearslurpee]

So if you want a "heroic" ship, give it a high-Reaction commander. Of course an alternative term for "heroism" is "kill-stealing"... 

Again, both my initial question and my comment about heroism was not about sequence of hits from different ships - it was about sequence of hits from different weapons, mounted on the same ship - independent ship, that is operating independently with a perspective of possible fight by oneself against superior opponents.

All weapons will fire at once and then damage is applied after this. Due to the way damage works there's no real effect from the sequence of weapons firing (with the possible exception of mesons? And no one cares about those anymore... R.I.P.). There is no functionality right now where a ship will only fire as many weapons as needed to destroy the target, presently all weapons fire and then damage is calculated. The only part that is affected by Reaction score is firing from multiple ships.

[Borealis4x]

What are peoples opinions of using larger vessels as carrier-borne 'fighters'?

I have a carrier design with 100k capacity and I'm beginning to think that it would be more efficient to use tens of 1000-3000 ton ships instead of hundreds of 250-500 ton fighters. Hell, I might even pack 10,000 ton ships in there and have a 'Fleet in a Box'.

[Droll]

What are peoples opinions of using larger vessels as carrier-borne 'fighters'?

I have a carrier design with 100k capacity and I'm beginning to think that it would be more efficient to use tens of 1000-3000 ton ships instead of hundreds of 250-500 ton fighters. Hell, I might even pack 10,000 ton ships in there and have a 'Fleet in a Box'.

I have heard of people making commercial jump ships that just dock the fleet inside and jump across, but I think for actual combat people prefer "capital" ships to have decent autonomy and not rely on a carrier.

[Borealis4x]

What are peoples opinions of using larger vessels as carrier-borne 'fighters'?

I have a carrier design with 100k capacity and I'm beginning to think that it would be more efficient to use tens of 1000-3000 ton ships instead of hundreds of 250-500 ton fighters. Hell, I might even pack 10,000 ton ships in there and have a 'Fleet in a Box'.

I have heard of people making commercial jump ships that just dock the fleet inside and jump across, but I think for actual combat people prefer "capital" ships to have decent autonomy and not rely on a carrier.

Well a Carrier wouldn't act alone and certainly wouldn't be a glorified tender; its a proper warships with PD, AMMs, and even a spinal beam. It operates with long-range cruisers that can provide either more hangar capacity or heavy missile bombardment. What appeals to me most about a (mostly) carrier-borne fleet is how potent you can make smaller ships by giving them overtuned engines without needing a ton of fuel capacity to compensate, to say nothing on the savings to maintence and crew endurance you'd enjoy.

[Theoatmeal2]

How do I choose a specific target to fire at? I seem to pick a fire control and then pick a target and then press what exactly?
https://imgur.com/a/JOnOwEd

[Droll]

How do I choose a specific target to fire at? I seem to pick a fire control and then pick a target and then press what exactly?
https://imgur.com/a/JOnOwEd

You don't press a button, click and drag the target on top of the FC and that'll assign the target.