Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Tech Support >> Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding - 6/18/2013 4:10:28 PM

MarQan

Posts: 70
Joined: 6/15/2012
Status: offline

I was searching for a way to make all-bomber carriers,
then a way to turn off automatic rebuilding for certain ships,
then a way to turn off automatic rebuilding for even all Fighter Bays.

I was told (by a player for whom it worked) that only the last one is possible:
unchecking the "automatically upgrade fighters to latest" (in Empire Policy, under Research & Design) should do the trick. It didn't.
Even if I manually destroy interceptors and build bombers, after they get destroyed during fights, the automatic rebuild kicks in and aims for 50/50 ratio.

Is this a bug? Is his game bugged or mine?
Is there any way to make all-interceptor or all-bomber carriers which stay that way?

Post #: 1

RE: Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding - 6/18/2013 5:21:38 PM

Bebop Cola

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline

I'm not aware of a way to do that, but if I may ask, what would be the purpose of doing so?

I mean, the obvious point would be to give you the ability to deploy an all-bomber(or all interceptor) carrier with a fleet, but I'm curious if, in your experience, the two fighter roles do not necessarily need to be paired. Where I'm going with this is thinking that one could deploy two carriers, each with a 50/50 ratio, or two carriers each with only one or the other type of fighter. Either way the same number of each type of fighter is present with the fleet, so that seems like a little bit of arbitrary micro-management.

(in reply to MarQan)

Post #: 2

RE: Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding - 6/18/2013 5:45:36 PM

MarQan

Posts: 70
Joined: 6/15/2012
Status: offline

Well, if given the option, I'd use 10-20% interceptors to draw enemy fire, and let the bombers do their jobs.
It's not a perfect world, so I'd use bombers to attack only, on carriers only
and fighters to defend on stationary bases (if the enemy uses carriers).

Also if I outrun others in research, or just slingshot to carriers, I wouldn't even need interceptors for a while.

Interceptors, as the name suggests mostly intercept bombers and other fighters, but don't mean squat against ships.

(in reply to Bebop Cola)

Post #: 3

RE: Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding - 6/18/2013 5:53:17 PM

Bebop Cola

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline

I've seen interceptors attack ships when they have nothing to intercept, so I wouldn't say they're totally useless in an attack role. I mean, sure, they don't exactly pack a big punch, but they can serve to keep the target's shields from recharging in between shots from the big guns.

Still, I agree it would be nice to have the ability to adjust the balance of interceptors to bombers so we can experiment with different combinations. Also, just to be clear, I'm not opposed to what you're asking here, just curious. I actually find I don't use carriers all that often, myself. I try to design towards quick hit-and-run tactics and carriers just take too long to launch, then retrieve, fighters.

I tend to stick fighters on bases and mostly stationary ships like fleet resupply vessels. From my experience, fleet resupply vessels don't seem to fire main weaponry while deployed, so I reduce their main weaponry to something minimal and load them up on fighters.

(in reply to MarQan)

Post #: 4

RE: Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding - 6/18/2013 6:05:42 PM

MarQan

Posts: 70
Joined: 6/15/2012
Status: offline

Yes, they do some damage, but have much lower DPS than bombers.
Also there's no cooldown to shield recharge after damage, so faster firing is not a plus.

When sieging bases and conquering colonies hit 'n' run is not an option.
I use carriers behind beam/railgun escorts(size: 160) and heavily shielded+armored frigates(230) at first.
Then as my tech improves, carriers become higher value, I can assign bigger classes.

(in reply to Bebop Cola)

Post #: 5

RE: Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding - 6/18/2013 6:20:42 PM

Bebop Cola

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the point I'm making about interceptors attacking ships is that they're zippy and fire relatively often. It's not about shield recharge cooldown, it's about as near to constant damage as possible to prevent the shield from recharging at all in between shots from the big guns on ships(or bombers). If your ship fire rate is slow, and especially if your opponent shield recharge rate is fast, then interceptors can fill the gap. Bombers can too, but they're a bit slower than interceptors so don't hit quite as often. It's not about cutting through the shields, it's keeping the shields where they were at when the big ships last hit them.

Hit and run works to clear the system of bases and defenders. You can quickly jump in and out of system to dodge defenders, or within system to hit isolated defenders. For example, I tend to focus a bit more on long range weapons and especially missiles/torpedoes. I'll queue my attack vessels to launch a volley at one ship, then target the next ship, and so on to spread the destruction as widely as possible. If it starts turning in to a slog, I retreat and regroup. Once that's done, even a hit and run fleet is sufficient to blockade a planet with no star port to fire back, and is quick to escape if a more powerful fleet comes in to dislodge them. If you're not at war, you don't have anything to fire at or to fire back at you, so you can blockade a planet or base with anything. I don't see a point in designing to besiege a base or planet.

(in reply to MarQan)

Post #: 6

RE: Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding - 6/18/2013 6:41:11 PM

MarQan

Posts: 70
Joined: 6/15/2012
Status: offline

(I get what you meant about interceptors, and just wanted to avoid misunderstandings with recharge cooldown)
Because of how the shields work, only damage per second counts in the end, not how rapidly you can shoot.
I'd rather have a 3-damage shot per second, than a 1-damage per 0,5 second.

As for the second part I think we're playing differently.
I spare you the details, but basically I like to play challenging, slow games against many pirates, pre-warp.
Now this means that I have to destroy pirates much before than they're easy to kill, otherwise they protect the sh*t out my income.
Indirectly the settings also mean that I can't concentrate on long range weapons research and my ship size is very limited.
If I go against bases with short range weapons, my ships get destroyed along with the base.
Carriers are the obvious choice, because they are VERY long range, and 50% bigger.

(in reply to Bebop Cola)

Post #: 7

RE: Carriers - automatic Fighter rebuilding - 6/19/2013 11:17:05 AM

feelotraveller

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

Ah, that's your problem.* To clarify, I see the same behaviour.

It is necessary to manually order replacements after battle losses. I do not find this too much of a problem usually. The ring-ins are easy to spot if you aim for a 100% mix (with losses over 50% you need to do it twice). It can even be done during battle if you like micro but unless the battle is long with heavy losses I don't bother. Having a couple of fighters instead of bombers, or vice versa, is not realistically going to effect the outcome of the battle and I prefer to have a fighter replace a bomber than not get mid-battle reinforcements. Still if it is easy to make it so a bomber can spawn automatically to replace a bomber lost (and fighter for fighter, missile bomber for missile bomber) I would support that improvement.

(As an aside on the fighte vs bomber comparison I tend to go with more fighters when I am ahead in tech and more bombers when I am behind. This is purely a seat of the pants preference...)

*Re-reading the discussion thread I did not read your first response carefully enough. When you talked about fighter destruction I jumped to the conclusion that you were talking about the overriding of manual build orders you get if you have not countermanded both parts of the automation.

(in reply to MarQan)