The future: DW Fighters? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

lordxorn -> The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 3:12:41 AM)

Could this be the future of DW as far as fighters are concerned?

Youtube Video Distant Worlds Fighters

Forgot to mention , 2guncohen has helped me develop the upcoming improvements to my Star Wars mod including the new fighter models. V 1.1 coming soon, including the Death Star debuting as the planet destroyer.



Erik Rutins -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 4:33:09 AM)

Nice video!

Yes, I think representing squadrons of fighters would be the most likely way to implement them in DW, though that is not in any way the final word.



2guncohen -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 10:42:17 AM)

[sm=Cool-049.gif] The trailer is kick ass !!!







Bartje -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 2:53:32 PM)

Does that movie look like it stutters occasionally to anyone else?

Is that because of FRAPS?

I like starfighters!!

Space carrier warfare would be a nice added dynamic, perhaps we could model naval military history. The early and middle periods focus on guns while later on fighters and bombers become more dominant (but do not replace a traditional navy completely)

Perhaps some races can even have a unique early focus on carrier based warfare ?



2guncohen -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 3:32:30 PM)

[:D] Bartje I notice you have allot of questions.
The force is strong in this one.[sm=character0169.gif]

For the stutter its best to check the support page.
Its something that happens regulary i saw some posts about this subject.
Dont recall the exact where...







lordxorn -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 3:54:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

Does that movie look like it stutters occasionally to anyone else?

Is that because of FRAPS?

I like starfighters!!

Space carrier warfare would be a nice added dynamic, perhaps we could model naval military history. The early and middle periods focus on guns while later on fighters and bombers become more dominant (but do not replace a traditional navy completely)

Perhaps some races can even have a unique early focus on carrier based warfare ?


You bring up great points, once fighters are implemented fully we can really start working on what your proposing. I actually am trying to get my Wings3d skills up and thought about what would a US Navy battleship really look like. Plus if you think about it in space, once you fire a projectile it doesn't ever stop until it hits something. So Battleships with huge railguns would be something I think is coming.



lordxorn -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 4:13:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Nice video!

Yes, I think representing squadrons of fighters would be the most likely way to implement them in DW, though that is not in any way the final word.


Elliot thanks for the somewhat hint of the future, can we make some suggestions as a community.

A couple of Star Wars strategy games implemented fighters very well, like Empire at War and the oft underrated Rebellion.

In Rebellion the ships of the line had two values basically where one was their main guns (turbo lasers), and the second value was anti-fighter cannon (laser turrets) which had faster tracking but were weaker. So a Capital ship had a high Main Gun value and little to no anti fighter coverage.

This type of system can be applied to WW2 era ships, and hence a more realistic feel to fleet warfare. Which if DW is able to capture would become an even better game. Also if we can get some formation support for our fleets.



Bartje -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 4:18:57 PM)

Yes your completely right!

Starwars modelled these things pretty well, based on actual naval warfare.

If we can combine fighters with some sort of intelligent ship formations (if there are fighters try staying in groups, near ships with anti-fighter armament)
then the game would advance leaps.

I'd love to see the individual fighters scurrying about the battle!




ASHBERY76 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 5:36:35 PM)

Yes more suicide darts would be good.Not.



Aurelian -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 6:31:24 PM)

If you're going to talk realistic, than a fighter couldn't do anything more than be annoying.

Not big enough to carry what would be necessary to generate enough power to do more than scratch the paint of a capital ship.

LACs from Weber's Harrington series would make more sense.



lordxorn -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 7:23:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

If you're going to talk realistic, than a fighter couldn't do anything more than be annoying.

Not big enough to carry what would be necessary to generate enough power to do more than scratch the paint of a capital ship.

LACs from Weber's Harrington series would make more sense.


The opposite was true in WW2 whose bombs could hit the weakest part of a battleship, it's deck. Plus a battleships main cannon could no way hit a fighter. This is why I am requesting a overhaul of the combat system otherwise just a smaller version of an escort would not be fun like Ashberry says.

However I feel this type of feature I either a separate add on or sequel.



Wade1000 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 9:14:39 PM)

Your implementation of fighters seems to just be another form of a ship with a fighter group icon. I think fighters should be more of a weapon component.
quote:

ORIGINAL:  Wade1000
Yes, I agree to have carriers and fighters represented in some form.

-Maybe fighter bays as another ship component and the fighters that come with(or are added to) it as another generalized/abstarcted weapon system. That would be great.

-Maybe each fighter bay could launch a group of fighters(5 maybe) that seeks to target like the missile weapon. The graphic, instead of hitting and exploding, would stay/"stick" to the target and fly around close to it shooting it and slowly damaging it.
THUS, a fighter bay "shot" would act as a "damage over time"(DOT) effect.

-These "fighter bays" might also be added to stations and planets.

-There would need to be a point defense component for ships and bases.

-There would need to be a way to have or portray fighters intercepting each other.
Perhaps, if each fighter bay "shot"(group of fighters) pass close by each other then they would stay/"stick" to each other and slowly damage over time(DOT) each other.
These "shot" interceptions, perhaps, could be unlimited in their battles and thus a concentrated mass of fighters could be slowly destroying each other.

-Replenishing the fighter numbers at bases would be good. Also, though, maybe a very advanced component to place on very large ships could produce fighters to replenish them away from bases.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2418281 (Master Wishlist Thread)

Other fighter/carrier threads:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2417796&mpage=1&key=fighters%2Ccarriers� (Carrier and fighter ideas.)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2428757&mpage=1&key=fighters%2Ccarriers� (Carriers)



Aurelian -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 9:25:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lordxorn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

If you're going to talk realistic, than a fighter couldn't do anything more than be annoying.

Not big enough to carry what would be necessary to generate enough power to do more than scratch the paint of a capital ship.

LACs from Weber's Harrington series would make more sense.


The opposite was true in WW2 whose bombs could hit the weakest part of a battleship, it's deck. Plus a battleships main cannon could no way hit a fighter. This is why I am requesting a overhaul of the combat system otherwise just a smaller version of an escort would not be fun like Ashberry says.

However I feel this type of feature I either a separate add on or sequel.


There's the deck, and then there's the armored deck below that. While a main gun could't hit a fighter, no fighter ever sank a battleship either. Then we have the armored flight deck of the Brit CVs that pretty much brushed off kamikaze hits.

But this isn't WW2.

Hey, I'm a TIE Fighter fan myself. I took out a Star Destroyer with lasers alone while listening to Vader yell in my ear to get back to the ship. Fun? Yes. Realistic? Hardly.

What I'm saying is that, realisticly, since that word was mentioned, a fighter isn't big enough to carry a capital ship size weapon, let alone what's needed to charge it over and over. And, unlike WW2, your target very likely will have shields as well as armor.

With that said, do I think fighters ala Star Wars is a bad idea? Yes. Do I think something like LACs would make more sense realism wise? Yes. Would I play the game if the the former was put in and not the latter? Yes indeed.

BTW, I use your mod[:)] Is the Imperial March in the music? I haven't heard it yet.



lordxorn -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 9:48:43 PM)

I like Wade's idea of possibly having them act like components, where they are a function of a carrier. I didn't really mean for this to be a wishlist thread either, lol.

Just wanted to give DW fans an immediate look at fighters which is very limited at the moment, and 2guncohen was the brilliant mind to present them in a way shown in my youtube video.

Sorry Aurelian Imperial March is not, which is funny I would of thought it was included. Maybe I can add it in the next update. =-)

This weekend I will work on the Rebel Alliance. =-)



Fishman -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 9:58:01 PM)

Space fighters really don't make a lot of sense. Airplanes work because they travel in an entirely different medium from the ships they attack. As you can see in the video, the fighters offered no real advantages to the fighting. They didn't extend your range, they didn't attack any vulnerabilities that you couldn't hit, and they blew up easily and cost you the effort and resources of replacing them. Also, they looked entirely ineffectual. In most other space games, fighters are either capable of exploiting some weakness (such as bypassing shields in GSB/LEI), doing completely disproportionate damage relative to their size and cost, or outranging other weapons, and must be significantly more difficult to shoot down than regular ships. Being freely-spawned by carrier craft helps a lot, especially if they tend to get shot down. If the player has to manually intervene to replace them, this gets old and annoying fast. However, if they don't satisfy the points above, their usage becomes a lot more bizarre and esoteric: In Armada 2526, for example, fighters are no more difficult to shoot down than regular ships and do not inflict significantly disproportionate damage, so their main use is to exploit their total lack of replacement cost as disposable antimissile chaff. Not really the fighters you expected. In other cases they are simply fancier, slower-acting missiles that can occasionally double as point-defense against similar "missiles".



Wade1000 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/29/2010 11:18:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

In other cases they are simply fancier, slower-acting missiles that can occasionally double as point-defense against similar "missiles".


And, they are missiles that shoot other targets. I like that description you give. That theme with the fighter/carrier module idea I mention is my desire.



Fishman -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 1:44:41 AM)

Plus, fighters are simply not as GOOD as missiles: They carry 4x the delta-V needed to perform the same mission, and do less damage because they refrain from employing their most effective weapon: Themselves. What's more, they're not really all that much more reusable because as you saw in the video, they are easily killed: A single FRIED wave will incinerate the entire lot of them, making them just as dead as the missiles would have been. Fighters just don't have a lot of survivability in DW.



lostsm -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 3:47:51 AM)

ships are all big guns is there really a need to have fighters? i understand for the mod it's very cool, although i mean in a space fight scenario where ships are mainly classed by firepower where do fighters fit in. i suppose a good analogy would be DW space fights are akin to what WWI naval battles was envisioned to be

now if weapon systems were very expensive and limited to deploy, space carrier warfare might make sense



Fishman -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 4:29:57 AM)

The flaw in space carrier warfare is that with NAVAL carriers, planes FLY while ships DON'T. In SPACE, there is nothing that makes fighters intrinsically better off than ships, so a more accurate analogy would be motor gunboats.

Of course, in modern naval warfare, carriers are actually obsolete and small boats with antiship missiles dominate the field, so...



lostsm -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 4:41:43 AM)

so maybe the need for big ships, for this theoretical space warfare, would be for planet invasions? big ships to transport the troops, mount big guns for massive bombardment? 



Astorax -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 4:55:06 AM)

Do anti-ship missiles out range the air power projected from carriers by so much? From what I understood, air power was still King and, if thats true, then the carrier is still King of the seas.



Wade1000 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 5:34:22 AM)

In Distant Worlds, the distinctive characteristic of a fighter module weapon should be an extreme range and one form of point defense against same fighters and missiles.



Fishman -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 5:52:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Astorax

Do anti-ship missiles out range the air power projected from carriers by so much? From what I understood, air power was still King and, if thats true, then the carrier is still King of the seas.
Yes, and while airpower itself is still relevant, as a naval unit, the carrier itself is obsolete: In modern warfare, a carrier taskforce must contend with completely unidentifiable targets numbering in the hundreds, and the political consequences of slagging a bunch of harmless civilian craft would be severe. Meanwhile, hostiles are pretty much indistinguishable from harmless civilian craft, there could be hundreds of them, and missiles are pretty cheap. Even if you kill a hundred attacking ships, the remaining hundred will kill you. Basically, carriers are obsolete sitting ducks that no longer function in a relevant role in a modern naval battle. We blow bazillions on them and we use them to launch planes off of, but as actual NAVAL ships, they are obsolete.

Similarly, space fighters never had any meaning in the first place. In DW, a ship can teleport itself to a point on the other side of the system in a matter of seconds. Fighters would not really compare favorably against the existing variety of missile-like weapons unless their range was much better, given how easily they would be shot down en-masse, and if their range was THAT much better, your target would simply warp in closer. You could treat them as "not really units", but simply a kind of missile with a different attack graphic, but then...that wouldn't really MEAN anything.



Dadekster -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 6:29:00 AM)

I would love to see fighters in this game. It's simple rock, paper, scissors and would just add another tactical piece to the puzzle regardless of what people think modern day carriers are worth. In this game I'd like to see major capital ships be helpless against squadrons of bombers (aka guided missles with pilots). This would make sure people who like to fly around in a fleet of 50 super expensive extra large world crushing capitals still be vulnerable to a 3rd rate empire that fields tons of these 'bombers' in smaller/cheaper ships of the line. This makes mr. Ilubmycaps have to at least provide dedicated anti-bomber protection...which would then make the other guy have to react to his screening force, and thus strategy and tactics was born. It's all about coming up with a better combined arms/fleet approach which makes ship battles so much fun imo.

As far as people thinking carriers are obsolete, I disagree respectfully. The whole concept of a plane flying off a carrier deck may be old school in the day of guided missles and so forth, but nothing else can bring force projection like a carrier task force. For some reason people seem to forget the kind of firepower a carrier possess not to mention all the ships it brings with it. Guided missles are great and all...but you still have to get close enough to use them and not to many navies I know that we need to worry about have 'hundreds' of ships with guided missle technology that's gonna penetrate the screen that a carrier task force can throw up between its own CAP, escorting destroyers and frigs not to mention the close in zip guns etc. Same thing for people who have subs. Now how effective and useful our floating cities are in this day and age are a different subject completely. But the way some folks are talking, you'd think some dude in Bubba Gump's shrimp boat with a bit of yarn, bubble gum and a LAW rocket could sink one of our carriers.



Fishman -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 6:38:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dadekster

I would love to see fighters in this game. It's simple rock, paper, scissors and would just add another tactical piece to the puzzle regardless of what people think modern day carriers are worth. In this game I'd like to see major capital ships be helpless against squadrons of bombers (aka guided missles with pilots).
There's a flaw in this idea: This is DW, and there is no arbitrary rule enforcing any particular weakness. If I pack a major capital ship with PD, it will fare just as well as any smaller ship, if not better, as it can withstand more hits before going out of commission. In fact, in the standard description, capital ships carry FRIED, which means your fighters explode like popcorn in a single wave. You COULD make fighters, by creating tiny micro-escorts that have a single weapon and an engine. They would also die instantly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dadekster

Guided missles are great and all...but you still have to get close enough to use them and not to many navies I know that we need to worry about have 'hundreds' of ships with guided missle technology that's gonna penetrate the screen that a carrier task force can throw up between its own CAP, escorting destroyers and frigs not to mention the close in zip guns etc.
Pretty much of all of them, actually. The Iranians, the Chinese, they all have the ability to perform missile spam. Back in 2002, we did a wargames exercise to "prove" how superior our new shiny ships were.

They got their asses handed to them by Iranistan. It was a major embarrassment that got mostly hushed up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dadekster

Same thing for people who have subs.
Subs are alive and well and will continue to be relevant in the future. There aren't really any good methods we have of reliably finding and killing them before they can pop up in within torpedo range of your fleet, like the Chinese did a few years back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dadekster

But the way some folks are talking, you'd think some dude in Bubba Gump's shrimp boat with a bit of yarn, bubble gum and a LAW rocket could sink one of our carriers.
Well, it's something like an Exocet or a Harpoon, but yeah, pretty much. That's exactly what happened. A mass of small boats indistinguishable from "Bubba Gump's shrimp boat" sent a carrier task force to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in a simulated exercise which had been blatantly rigged to favor "our" side. Carriers are floating metal coffins. If you're thinking of joining the navy, sign up for a submarine instead.



jam3 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 7:11:23 AM)

The more mass something has the more energy it takes to move it. Thats the main reason for fighters in space. And I think the other standard "technical" reason would be that fighter craft would be too small too contain a hyperdrive system and it if not a drone an organism cant live in a confined space for too long, thus the reason for carriers.

Fighters would need to be added by the developers and given a special status in the combat engine so there not affected by area weapons, with the exception of them adding some specific anti fighter weaponry. Fighters should be like other ships and have their own icons and move at maybe 4x 150-200 ish that of other ships. They should be the fight thats going on while the big ships are closing in on one another. You should be able to design them and make fighters and bombers and other variant types. I would expect all of this to be in an expansion as its a bunch of work.

And just thinking of the amount of defenses a modern carrier has on board I don't care what a simulation says as long as the officers and crew aren't aslepp it would be hard as heck to sink one. Not to mention every other ship in the task force knows that its job is to protect the carrier at all costs.



lordxorn -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 7:58:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Astorax

Do anti-ship missiles out range the air power projected from carriers by so much? From what I understood, air power was still King and, if thats true, then the carrier is still King of the seas.
Yes, and while airpower itself is still relevant, as a naval unit, the carrier itself is obsolete: In modern warfare, a carrier taskforce must contend with completely unidentifiable targets numbering in the hundreds, and the political consequences of slagging a bunch of harmless civilian craft would be severe. Meanwhile, hostiles are pretty much indistinguishable from harmless civilian craft, there could be hundreds of them, and missiles are pretty cheap. Even if you kill a hundred attacking ships, the remaining hundred will kill you. Basically, carriers are obsolete sitting ducks that no longer function in a relevant role in a modern naval battle. We blow bazillions on them and we use them to launch planes off of, but as actual NAVAL ships, they are obsolete.




I know this is kind of off topic, but I disagree with you. You make a valid point about hundreds of targets coming at your from all angles, but a little bit over exaggerated. The carrier is still king of the seas precisely because of the aircraft it carries, which can project power much further and put eyes on before hostiles get to close. Plus a civilian liner would be retarded to ignore the numerous warnings it would receive by flying to close to a Carrier Battle Group's area of influence.

In a full on war where some lesser naval country would love to sink a flat top, all civilian traffic will be re-routed and all the hostile targets will be weeded out by the numerous screening ships in the CVBG. The navy is also upgrading it's carriers to metal storm missile defense systems that can fire a million rounds a sec, youtube it.

While you are 100% correct that missile cruisers/frigates have surmounted even the time honored battleships from modern navies, carriers remain a integral part of any 1st world's navy. Otherwise if you are correct, then myself and all the smart navy brass that have studied nothing but naval warfare are completely wrong.



vils -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 8:49:30 AM)

Sorry pals, absolutely zero interest in having fighters and, thus even more micromanaging on useless units to handle, moreover very unrealistic.. We already have escorts.. even those i find pretty much useless..

Fighters belongs to another game, this isnt Star Wars this is Distant Worlds!



lordxorn -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 8:52:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vils

Sorry pals, absolutely zero interest in having fighters and, thus even more micromanaging on useless units to handle, moreover very unrealistic.. We already have escorts.. even those i find pretty much useless..

Fighters belongs to another game, this isnt Star Wars this is Distant Worlds!



I respect that opinion, and you may be right. DW would need considerable changes to do fighters right. If this turns out to be the case, I wouldn't mind seeing them in a sequel. [:'(] star wars or not there is still a huge interest in them.



jam3 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 8:55:51 AM)

I couldn't disagree with him more myself Xorn, with pretty much everything he has said. Missle systems have their own place as well as there own unique problems. He kind of sound like the guys who thought there would be no need for cannons on fighter jets in the vietnam era cause missles would prevent combat from ever getting that close plus the speeds would be to great. Gotta wonder if he has ever met a pilot, those guys are freaks of nature. A human being cut from a particular cloth in charge of a highly manueverable vehicle is capable of some pretty astounding things. In space you could come up with several scenarios where this would be applicable as well, its all fantasy anyway. Thats one of the reasons pilots will probably always be better than a drone. A pilot has an innate sense of mortality and like any other organism a unique desire to survive.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.640625