A thought about fighter balance.

Recently there is something that I found quite to be a problem. It's a long post so please bear with me.


It's the balance between fighter and judgenaut classes toward late game when the tech tree is almost max for each side. Here is the detail from my analysis:

- At the beginning the different is obvious enough and the bigger ship has clear advantage. Since the equipment size is generally large and the ships don't have much point without good miniturization.

- But, toward the end of the game there is a problem. Given the size of the fighter it's pretty pointless to give it any amor because even if with half of the point spent on armor the fighter most like won't survive a blast from a judgenaut anyway. But this "sounds like a disadvantage thing" actually work greatly in favor for the fighters, here's why:

+ By the end of the tech tree as I said, the fighter hull doesn't need armor point, and since it's not often used as long range it doesn't need a lot of engine or other support hardware either. So you guess it, whatever point it has it goes for guns! Since the fighters with or without armor doesn't matter at this point, but although it dies fast, it's cheap, much cheaper then a battleship.

+ Now, it doesn't mean much when a figher is blown up, but losing a jugenaut is something else. That's why I believe while the Huge and Large hulls have more points, they can not ignore the armor/engine/life support like the fighter hull. It's ok for a fighter to get blew up in one shot, the same can not say for the Huge hull. So the point is distributed.

+ And here is where the problem appears. When the tech tree is not max ala the equipment size is still big and the point available is still low, the fighter is far outclasses. However, when the tech tree is max, this difference becomes very small. I find that at this point in the game the fighters always match the Jugenauts in term of fire power. As you can imangine to that amount of fire power, a 40 - 60 armor points on the Jugenauts can only provide below average protection. And as you can see, the way the battle system work this is a great disadvantage for the Jugenauts:

* First: while it's true the Jugenault almost guarantee a death for the fighter. HOWEVER, most of its fire power is a waste because it doesn't take all the fire power to kill a fighter, but as we know each ship only attack one target at a time with all its fire power.

* Second: while the Jugenault fire power is wasted a lot for every single shot, the fire power on a fighter (about 120 at this point) certainly score big against the Jugenaut's armor and HP. With this set up a group of 2 fighters has a very good chance to eliminate a Jugenault or at least smoke it to 1HP, and a group of 3 fighters can almost guarantee the Jugenault's death.



-------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, that analysis of mine doesn't come out of the blue. It's what actually happening in my game. The thing is as I said, this is only an issue in later game when everyone are pretty high tech. If you only play short game or don't go very far on the tech tree before the game is done then you won't even notice this.


In fact, usually at this point in the game the fighter is the one that scares me the most from the A.I. Because when they use Cruiser or battleship they still have to distribute the points to armor and other systems like myself, but when they use fighters, it's all about guns (and I must say that's a smart decision on their part). So as ackward as it may sound usually when I check their formation, usually the fighter formation pack a much higher fire power value comparing to a cruiser/battleship formation, and my survival rate with fighter is much lower comparing to the rate with other ships.


So this is a little too ackward IMHO and imbalance, not to mention a little on the counter-intuitive side. And the problem lies with with max mizuration and guns, a fighter can still pack a lot of gun, and because it doesn't matter at this point they have armor or not, they will just go for guns.


My suggestion for this problem is ... in the future if the combat system is to remain the same, should we limit the fighter hull to certain tech level? I'm thinking about excluding the last 5 or 6 levels of the weapon tree to prevent the fighter simply pack a wallop like this. Plus don't you think it makes sense, a fighter shouldn't have enough power to equip the same amount of Black Hole Generator like a Huge hull.
15,317 views 23 replies
Reply #1 Top
Your argument makes sense satthukaraoke, but the inbalance of the game is what makes it so much fun!

I've developed a stratergy that works against this, sounds like you need it:

Get a Large hull say, and with your max miniturisation ability, you nearly completly pack out all of your free space (after life support, lots of senseors and your engins) with the best defences avalible, for all catagorys that the other race's use. Since a small hull has only 6hp, what you then want to do is get some really small, but powerful and cost effective gun's, anough so that you do about 10-12dmg for a max hit. You then put them into your free space.

Look underpowerd? It is! This means that this ship has the small amount of firepower to take out the tiny HP of there fighter's, while not going overbored and completly raping it with destructive energy. At the same time, the ship is big anough that it has the hit points (hull potential) to deal with the fighters imense firepower, if they can actualy get threw the imense amount of armour you have on your new Anti-Starfigter "Lancer" Class ship, as I call it.


That ship has worked well for me in every fighter vs big ship scenareo that I have been in, one too five of them (if they have a full fighter fleet of 24 or so supper fighters) is one kick ass Anti-Starfighter squadron, mine havnt lost a battle against starfighters yet

If you wanted to go really overbored with your anti starfighter protection, you can do the same thing on a Huge hull. They really are Insain...


Fate,
Reply #2 Top
I don't like your idea.

I think that the best solution would be for the big ships to be able to fire at more than one target at a time. To be honest, I have no idea why they can't do this - it goes against common sense.

Lets just start copying Space Empires IV where:

Each weapon on a ship fires once at the start.

Thereafter the can fire as soon as they are "recharged".

Lasers can fire most of less at every turn, while missiles every three or more turns.

By researching Multi-tracking computers, ships can add in a Multi-tracking computer allowing them to fire on more ships at the same time. The more that this technology is researched, the more ships you can attack at once.

In practical terms every ship would would fire at the same time.. then the damage would be caculated. Obviously armour/shields would need to come into play more than they currently do. I also like SPIV's defensive weapons - all they do is fire at incoming missiles etc.

I'd also like to see a Draw situation being allowed - i.e. when all ships on both sides get destroyed then its a draw.
Reply #3 Top
I think satthukaraoke misses one point: the combat system is implemented in a stone-scissor-paper manner, not only as far as weapons/defences are concerned but ALSO with regard to the size of hulls. In other words, there is no ultimate hull or weapon system that dominates, instead there is always a combination of weapons and hulls to counter any threat. I think the devs did a great job with this rather uncomplicated system that allows for great balance in the game.
Reply #4 Top
I have been dabbling with a strat similar to Fate. Instead of thinking, ok, my big ships need 100+ firepower, I maybe only have 48 (4 of the evil psyonic beams) which guarantees me (almost) smashing most small to medium sized ships in one go. This is great as then I cram in as much appropriate defences as possible (often 100+ defence), meaning 9 times out of 10 the little fighters dont even make a scratch, if they do, they cause a couple of hp maximum.

Adding to that, I normaly have a few older ships or lesser ships traveling with it which act as cannon fodder (as I replace them with new better ships). It is not perfect as the more "anti capital ship" type ships the AI built (huge hulls) were able to do some serious damage. That is why I never had just one ultimate design, but a selection of ships for doing different tasks.

I think the game is great how it is, maybe defences are slightly underpowered but I still like the challange of producing a variety of ships to deal with what my enemy has thrown at me.
Reply #5 Top
So there's a birch tree and a beech tree standing in the woods. One day the birch tree looks down between them and notices a little sappling pushing his way through the foliage. "Hmmm", said the birch tree, "do you know who he is?" asking the beech tree.
"No, I don't" replied the beech. "Well is he a son of a beech or a son of a birch?" asked the birch tree. "I can't tell" said the beech tree. Just then the old and wise woodpecker flew in and began searching around the base of the trees for food. "Hey Woody," the birch tree called out, "can you tell us if that sap's a son of a beech or a son of a birch?". "Sure" replied Woody and he proceeded to stick his beak in and out of the sapling trying to discern if it was a son of a beech or a son of a birch. After a few moments of this Woody hopped back and looked up at both trees. "Well, I can tell you for sure, this little fellow isn't a son of a beech or a son of a birch but he's the best piece of ash I've ever stuck my pecker into!" Have a good weekend of gameplaying festivities all!
Reply #6 Top
I'm surprised to hear of putting life support and sensors on fleet ships. Getting Eyes of the Universe is always a priority for me, and that removes the need for sensors. Most warfare takes place within normal range of a ship without extra life support. In cases where I must get further away, I plop down a military starbase to extend range, until I capture a planet. I use life support and sensors only for specialty ships, and usually only near the beginning of the game.

As far as the way ship combat is working, I agree with farkas that the balance is pretty good as it is.
Reply #7 Top
A slinky is like an annoying person. It's not too much fun until you throw it down the steps! That's my last one all. Enjoy.
Reply #8 Top
My take on the sensors/lifesupport is that they are so small and cheap that there is no reason not to add them. It seems like after I design a ship and add all the weapons and defenses I want that there is a little space remaining where these mods just fit perfectly. It seems like they "belong" there... just my 2 bc worth.
Reply #9 Top
IMO, the balance issue is there but not quite to the point that it seems

i agree that it makes sense for capitol ships to be able to fire on multiple ships, but perhaps this would unbalance the game... think about it like this in star wars, capitol ships (AKA star destroyers) were big lumbering beasts that no fighter wanted to take on themselves, but you get a squad together, and the capitol ships don't have the guns to take them out because the fighters are so dang small, in the star wars universe 4 X-wings could rape a corvette if the pilots even had a clue. maybe the seeming imbalance of this situation in GC is actually kind of a levelling agent for the fact that most capitol ships can't tag a fighter with their huge guns because the fighters move too fast and the guns move too slow
Reply #11 Top
Yes, fighters are small and fast and can usually avoid one of the cap ship's large guns. The problem is that the cap ships don't have to aim directly at a fighter, because they have so many guns. All they have to do is shoot all/most/many of their guns in that fighter's general direction, and chances are they'll be able to fill that section of sky with enough projectiles that something is going to hit. It's a shotgun effect; one bullet may miss, but if you send a spread of pellets, there's nowhere to go.

This does mean, though, that in a multi-fighter attack run, a cap ship is probably only going to hit one, maybe two fighters (unless they're flying in a very close formation), which fits with the current one ship, one shot rule. A cap ship could split it's fire, but then it would have a good chance of not hitting anything. This way, you concentrate your fire so you're guaranteed to hit something.
Reply #12 Top
I play all the way up the tech tree, and to be honest in the end 1 of my Dreadnaughts can normaly take out a hoarde of high tech fighters with out a problem. 6 on 1, and I don't sweat it, (I had a game where the Korx had a fighter that could do 127 points of laser damage. But a fleet of those against 1 of my Massive size ship with an attack of 50 defense 120+ shields, 120+ point armor straight from the shipyard with out the bonuses from my mines- (In the end it was something like 100 attack/240 shields/240 armor) And I smoked 'em. And when I didn't think I could I simply threw my disposable fighters in there with the Dreadnaught to take the shot for me. I think the game is pretty well balanced, thou I agree that multi-targeting on the ships medium sized and up would be pretty nice...
Reply #13 Top
I can see both sides to the argument... and when I see somthing that i could go either way on, I tend to vote to keep things the same.

My prefered stratedgy is to fight fire with fire, I throw small, cheap fighters against theirs... I dont know if this saves me money in the long run, but it works just fine.
Reply #14 Top
I already posted a couple of threads on this topic a while back and i'm sure others have as well. Look, the point is that you will almost always "loose" if you use defenses. There are situations when it can be valuable but only because you are already winning against the AI by a huge margin, whether in your technology or economy.

A couple of things to keep in mind. Although anecdotal evidence does have its place in arguments, it is also very subjective. Just because defenses worked in one game you played does not mean something else would not have worked better, or that it will always work, or work for another player, or against the same AI or settings, or different situations or against different ships or against different numbers of said ships or on and on. If you really want to prove a point, use something concrete, something that is fact and will not change from game to game.

Here is something pretty quick that you can do. Create a huge defensive ship and a small offensive ship in the editor. Write down their costs and have them fight in the fleet simulator on this forum. Increase the # of fighters until they will win the majority of the time. Compare the prices of the fighters vs. the price of the big ship. Trust me, you will always lose on a cost-to-cost basis.

Anyway, I really don't feel like repeating everything that i said over again, so i'll just link and copy my posts in case anyone has the patience to read it.

------------------------------------

"Reducing Luck in Ship Combat"
https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=346&aid=126491#983546

------------------------------------

Looking back at my original post, I realize now that I ended up arguing the wrong thing. The main problem that I see in ship combat goes along with the example I posted previously. Fleets of high attack ships will easily win against larger ships, with more balanced attack and defense. Although the variation and randomness of defense, aka. “the luck factor” does participate in giving the capital ships a disadvantage; I feel now that my original solution will not fix the heart of the problem.

So first of all, what exactly is the issue?

The problem is that a decent number of smaller ships will consistently beat any capital ships on a price to price basis. As long as their attack rating is almost on par with whatever-ship-your-attacking's defense, you will get the advantage. In other words, there isn't any point in building larger ships or using defense. They will only get beaten by a smaller number of much cheaper, stronger fighters. I really just can't see anyway where "no defense, all offense fighters" will lose in any situation, whether the opposing ships are balanced or all defense or otherwise. Once again, use the fleet simulator to prove this to yourself.

Why does this happen?

Because defense sucks. Honestly, just looking at the stats, I can’t help but feel it is gimped. The only advantage is that you can research it quicker and it usually takes up less space. Everything else seems to be against it. Armor is not only much more expensive but it also does not match weapons in effectiveness at higher levels.

Ultimate Invulnerability
Cost: 140 MP
Size: 3
Absorption: 9

Doom Ray
Cost: 150 MP
Size: 10
Damage: 22

I just don’t see how this is fair, I’m sorry. It will take at least 3x Invulnerability to be of any use against the Doom Ray, but it will cost nearly 3x as much. Keep in mind that armor does not even really do its job well. It’s simply too random when against multiple opponents. Even with double the defense, you still will likely lose. Also keep in mind that it really does not matter if that capital ship is in a fleet in not. You will still lose on a price basis. Also keep in mind that a researched armor is only effective against one weapon in the game, while a researched weapon is effective against two. Also keep in mind that armor will not kill an enemy, you need to invest in weapons too.

I believe that a lot of tech balancing changes were made in 1.1. Some of them were good (Nano Rippers). However, some were bad (Armor). It was completely nerfed all across the board; defense used to be much, much cheaper and was actually a good investment back then. I don’t understand why these changes were made. Was armor that overpowered that it required a tripling of cost? Perhaps some of you that played 1.0 can comment.

Honestly, I can understand that armor still has its niche uses. But it is not doing its job effectively and is not anywhere on par with weapons. I believe this really needs to be changed. Once again, armor was a lot better back in 1.0 and I simply don’t understand why 1.1 messed it up.

------------------------------------

"Simple Way to Fix Defenses"
https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=247&aid=127872#989710

------------------------------------

Defense is gimped. I hope this point does not need to be argued. Take a look at the stats of any weapon and its corresponding armor. Try out some ships in the fleet simulator. You will be inclined to agree. Yes, it does have its uses, but it is not doing its job at the moment. It needs improvement.

The solution also needs to be as easy as possible to implement. Although i would like to see huge, sweeping changes in ship combat, it probably is not going to happen in a patch. Not only will it take time, but it will also probably raise its own balancing issues and concerns. My point? Lets focus on what can be done.

My suggestion is pretty simple. Actually, its someone else's. I found it to be very effective: add a small HP bonus to armor. Lets take Ultimate Invlunerability for example.

Cost: 70 MP
Size: 3
Absorption: 9
HP Bonus: 3

For every installed module, it would add an extra +3 HP for the ship. Of course, this number can be anything balanced, but +3 sounds pretty good. Lower techs will have less of a bonus, perhaps counting in decimals like .5. Also, the cost of all armor should be cut in half. Defense now is just far too expensive, even with the HP bonus. I've mentioned this before but if you take a look at 1.0 numbers for armor, they were 4x cheaper while weapons remained completely unchanged. That means armor cost was quadrupled for absolutely no reason.

Although returning the numbers back to 1.0 would definitely help, i believe this solution would be much better. More HP means a ship can take a bad roll and keep on trucking, instead of being completely annihilated. Defense is far too random for its own good, but that was another post. I'll leave with some numbers in case anyone wants to play with the fleet simulator.
Reply #15 Top
Interesting. I like that idea. I know that the cost of late stage defenses often make me think twice about using them, so I think that would be a step in the right direction. It would probably make fighter-on-fighter combat more interesting, too.

On a related note, it's interesting to contemplate what modules that convert free space to HP would do for combat.

It's not like it matters, but in real life this is true as well. It's generally easier to make more effective weapons than it is to design an armor package to defeat them.
Reply #16 Top
If you have a vast economy, cost shouldn't matter and concentration of irepower can matter. In which case, defense should have the edge as you can throw more onto a ship.

Also for a cpital ship, all the damage that it takes won't kill it unless the hp is reduced to zero and a cpital ship as quite a bit of hp. For a fighter the hp is low. That means, a fighter can suffer casualty in a fight where capital ship can walk away from.

Cost for cost, offense wins of which there is no doubt but if you take in account of firpower concentration, experience gain because of ship survival, etc. Capital ship has its place.
Reply #17 Top
About making an Anti-Fighter Battleship, I did, but that doesn't mean I'm Ok with that. Because again, it's very ackward the way it is now. The thing is, with Medium or even Large Hull, the A.I as I said still distribute points for all equipments, they only don't do that for the fighter. So at this point the ship class that really dominate the battlefield in term of fire power is not cruisers, frigates, or even battleships, but fighters! Now does that sound strange?


To the person who talk about Rock-Paper-Siccors between ship hull, I disagree. It would be ok if it's meant to be a hard R-P-S system like Cruiser beats fighter, Battleship beats Cruiser and fighter beats Battleship. Usually in a system like this the different is not great, but rather certain class has a bonus against another class. However in this case the model is more like the way of "the more one pays the bigger gun one gets"[/B]. However the problem here is one can pay less and still get an as big gun . Say like Empire Earth (if you played that game) we have the model Battleship beats Destroyer, Destroyer beats Sub and Sub beats Battleship. While there are differences in price (the battleship is still the most expensive) it's not great enough to compromise anything. But here we're talking about a Juggenault that takes 18-25 turns to build in comparision with a fighter that can be build in 3 turns. That's not balance, that's imbalance. And I'm using Juggenault as the example and that's how it fair against fighter, how much chance you think a Cruiser or Frigate fair against that kind of fire power from a fighter?



As I said this is a problem at the end of the tech tree when things - mostly the weapon take a very high leap in term of firepower/weight ratio which just [b]suddenly
works out extremely well for the fighter, and the fighter only.


I think the proposal to allow Battleship to fire on multiple targets is fire, maybe some kind of formular to calculate things, here is a model I can think of:


+ Step1: Using max lock of 3.
+ Step2: Before each round, a ship will look at the value of its potential targets up to 3, and then sum up the value of their armor and HP.
+ Step3: If the sum of the armor and HP of one target is lower then 15% of the ship's total fire power, it will only fire at 30% maximum capacity at that target.
+ Step4: Then it will look at the next potential target, again if it's lower then 15% of the ship's total fire power, it will fire at 30% maximum capcity. Then it will dump the rest of its fire power on the next target without any calculating.
+ Step5: However if it detects at any time a target's sum of armor and HP is greater then 15% but smaller then 30% of its firing capacity, then it will fire at 50% capacity at that target
+ Step6: if it detects a target with a total Armor and HP greater then 30% of its maxium capacity, then it will just fire at 100% at a single target.



I think this model will work for all cases (not sure) without imbalancing anything, the max lock make sure the Battleship won't be able to blow up more then 3 ships even when it has the fire power to blow up 10, but at least, this should limit the amount of fire power wasting and most importantly to give it a better chance again fighter. And with the check system, a battleship will make sure it won't distripute its fire power when it run into say ... another battleship. And I don't think it gonna imbalance anything.



Or as I said, just exclude the last 5 to 6 tech level for the fighters, again it doesn't make sense a fighter has the same firing power as a Juggenault.
Reply #18 Top
One properly designed battleship can by itself take out any squadron of fighters. Bigger ships comes in two varieties- either all-defensive tanks, or more balanced ships that can damage the other guys capital ships. I usually stick my megadamage weappons on medium hulls that can carry enough to pierce 50-60 def without being too expensive...

Also, one other advantage of larger hulls- speed. A fighter usually can only afford to stick one engine on a ship, a bigger hull can have 3-4. I occasionally make large hull strike craft designed to have 25+ moves to sneak up on someone.

Reply #19 Top
Another reason why small fighters dominate is because the overwhelming advantage granted to the attacker.

What does it matter if you only have 6 hit points if your enemies never get to shoot you? A small ship uses much less logistics, so you can have a much larger fleet. A larger fleet means that you're more likely to have enough firepower to actually take down a capital ship in one round (before it gets to retaliate), and it has enough ships to take down a fleet before it gets a chance to retaliate.

I had a smallish fleet of small ships that ended up with over 1000 hp on each ship by the time they took their first points of damage.
Reply #20 Top
Another reason why small fighters dominate is because the overwhelming advantage granted to the attacker.


That hasn't been the case since before 1.2. Ships are now destroyed *after* both sides have fired a volley, so the attacker only has an advantage in choosing the battleground and in the event of a tie.
Reply #21 Top
The arguements above make a lot of sense, and obviously have been well researched but I have had some situations that seem to contradict them.

1) My enemy was building vast numbers of fighters with only mass-driver type weapons. Crazy powerfull but no defence. In the frantic arms race that followed, my strat was to put as much armour as possible on the largest ship possible. A battle would usually be a couple of my bigger ships vs a horde of small deadly fighter that usually could not punch through my armour, while I would peck away with my limited firepower. Long, tense battles as those lucky shots were killers. This war lasted most of the game, from miniballs to the dreaded Black Hole Gun, but I was victorious. Good Game!

2) Another enemy went all out for beams/shields on heavy fighters so I went the mass driver/shield route on big ships with nearly all shields and some guns. This worked out much the same as the above example. Those expensive shields were hard on my economy but I won the war.

So what has worked for me is to make my ships as "surviveable" as possible regardless of the expense. Just one of many strategies I'm sure. I may try the cheap fighter approach next game, it would be nice not to be broke all the time.
Reply #22 Top
I'm a huge fan of defense. Seems there's a lot of people who are against it though. A lot of em' commented on this post.

Here's how I see it:

- On the larger ships at advanced tech levels, it just doesn't make sense to devote
all your space to weaponary. Really an attack rating over 80 is overkill. So it
makes sense to build a lot of defense, just so you won't have any wasted space.

- Defensive techs are much cheaper to research early/mid-game then offensive techs.
By spending more time on defensive techs, I find I'm usually able to overwhelm the
AI 's offensive ability. You can top out your defenses in the time it takes to hit
the mid-level offensive techs.

- Ok... you could put something like four black hole eruptors on a fighter. But
then you're spending around 500cr on a 6 hp ship. That isn't exactly cheap.
You're fighter is gonna get killed.

Any comments? I'm actually sort of curious to hear a pro offense only argument. I just don't get it.

PS/ I'm generalizing in this post. You gotta be flexable. If your opponents have some sort of crazy all-defense ship, you're gonna need some firepower to get through it.

PPS/ Multiple targeting would be great.
Reply #23 Top
Hi!
I may try the cheap fighter approach next game, it would be nice not to be broke all the time.

You may be disapointed. Cheap fighters die en-mass. I'd use them only in defense as a counter to opponent's big warships with REALLY BIG firepower. But until I can mount a reasonably effective defenses on my ships, I'll rather use them (as you already did).

BR, Iztok