StellarForum
May 22, 2012, 03:11:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Stellar Frontier has moved to the new forum and site at stellarfrontier.com!
Please make a new account there in preparation for SF 2.0 and to chat on the boards!
 
   Home   Help Search Groups Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Carriers and fighter command.  (Read 2015 times)
AdmiralTigerclaw
Sound Developer
Expert Member
****
Posts: 734


Naval Commander: Forum Sound Admin


« on: January 24, 2009, 03:51:25 AM »

Let's get down to business here.

The introduction in carriers to the game means of course, the introduction of fighter command.


There are three types of in game carriers.

Carriers, Battlecarriers, and SUPERCARRIERS

Which have two, one, and four squadrons of fighters respectively.


Each squadron is an independantly acting group of four fighters.  Each fighter operates on it's own BOT ai, but is tied to a central command that operates the entire group.


These command core functions are tied to a series of commands available to the carrier player.


A carrier player will have the ability to select between squadrons using his keypad (I don't THINK it does anything in-game right now.)   Using keypad 1,2,3,4 to select the respective squadrons.

Once a squadron is selected, command options are opened up:
Command selections are on the number pad as follows

Launch and escort: (Key 5)   **CMD  'ESC'
Fighter squadron selected launches and assumes escort pattern around carrier.  They will attack enemies that attack them or the carrier, but will not chase or attack anything else.  If already launched, the fighters will be queried to escort pattern should they be operating on a different command.

Recall: (Key 6)  **CMD  'RTB'
Recalls individual squadron to the carrier for repairs or rearming or just plain transport.  Will reset fighters to the escort command.

Attack/Escort target: (Key 7)  **CMD 'ATK' or 'DEF'
Depending on whether the selected target is a friendly or an enemy, the fighters will fly to engage it in combat, or escort the ship.  Fighters will retain the target established at the key press, not change targets when you change targets.

STRIKE:  (Key Cool  **CMD  'STRK'
Fighters (Or if you switch, bombers) will travel long distances and make a single pass on a target and then automatically recall to prevent getting bogged down.

CAP: (Key 9)  **CMD 'CAP'
Combat Aerospace Patrol.  Fighters will circle the carrier several screen distances out and actively seek enemy targets within a screen of them or the command ship (The carrier).  If one is found, entire squadron will converge on that target automatically to destroy it.


Non-launched status conditionals.
ALERT 5:: (* key)  **CMD 'ALRT'
Sets condition ALERT STATUS for a squadron.  Squadron will instantly launch and attack a target that comes within your screen area. 
STAND DOWN:: (/ key)  **CMD 'READY'
Sets squadron status back to normal from ALERT 5.  Default setting for docked fighter squadrons.

SCRAMBLE!!!  (Keypad ENTER)
Instantly launches every fighter onboard with orders to defend the carrier.



Squadron display screen.


Viewed in the CMD, squadrons will have an overview as follows.  (Example as a supercarrier would see it.)

B SQ 1:  *   *   *   *   READY
F SQ 2:  *   *   *   *   ALRT
F SQ 3:  ^  ^   X   ^   CAP
B SQ 4:  X   X   *   X   READY

B or F would reprisent the type of fighters occupying that squadron.  B for Bomber, F for Fighter.
SQ # would display the squadron number.
Next to it is color coded symbol reprisenting each fighter.
A * would reprisent a docked fighter.  It's color would show it's condition.  Red for damaged, yellow for no ammo, green for normal.  Yellow wouldn't technically last in dock as fighters automatically reload when they dock.

A ^ would reprisent a launched fighter.  The same color codes would apply.  Red for damaged.  Yellow for out of weapons ammo, and green for OK.

A Red X would reprisent a destroyed fighter.

In order to restock fighters that have been destroyed, or swap fighter classes, the carrier must dock with any dockyard facility capable of doing repairs or module swaps.
Swapping fighters for bombers would be like swapping modules.  Only the CARRIER system cannot be removed.
 
The general interplay is that fighters are faster and more manueverable than bombers, but can't do as much damage to large ships.  Bombers are slower and less manueverable, but have a lot of firepower to damage large ships and bases.
Between the two, fighters would do a lot of damage to bombers.


In a dynamic carrier battle.  Fighters would have to defend the carrier against bombers, as well as defend friendly bombers against enemy fighter squadrons while they attack the enemy carrier.
Strikes can also be ordered to minimize time engaged and keep fighters/bombers in good condition.  But the damage done is less sustained, and usually only good against targets that are either quickly overwhelmed and destroyed, or with the intent to drive opposition away.

A carrier is considered an effective attack or defense platform.  Allowing the player to bring eight units to bear on a situation, be it a bombing attack, or providing escort for spacecraft.

A battlecarrier is considered a feisty asset.  A ship with roughly heavy cruiser firepower capable of launching a supporting squadron to cover it.  It can be unpredictable.

A supercarrier is considered the most valuable asset of a race fleet, as you can command sixteen fighters or bombers simultaniously.



-If a carrier is killed-
If a carrier is killed, all fighters docked die as well.  Any fighters currently in flight will persue their last target until either A: they kill the target, or B: they are killed.

If the fighters have persued and killed their objective, they will then locate the nearest friendly starbase or docking facility, and fly (jump) to it and leave the game in a believable method.


**** Considerations.

Carrier with cloaking device.

A real force multiplyer, the ability to hide a strike force while sneaking up on targets and then springing surprise swarm attacks.


Q-parked carrier.
An interesting idea.  Effectively staying safe while launching incursions into enemy forces with your fighters.  Now, while in Q, you can't launch or recover, so you will have to pop in and out, and if you don't want to get jumped, you have to watch how your fighters return to an escort pattern around your 'empty' space.


Swatting at flies.
A supercarrier load of interceptor fighters may be just what people needed to finally cap that planet and win the game.  With the starbase and battlestations shooting every which way trying to hit these fast moving pests, the actual fleet had a chance to set up a heavy strike at point blank range.


Neon Sign
Fighters and bombers can't handle everythng by themselves.  Perhaps what they need to tackle that battleship this time around is something to keep the fire off them a little.  Why not dangle a little carrot in front of them and get the battleship chasing you around while your bombers go to work on it.  A carrier can soak up a LOT more damage than a fighter could.




Thoughts?
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 03:54:23 AM by AdmiralTigerclaw » Report to moderator   Logged

GCFA Naval Commander
Veteran Player - Supreme Spaceforce Agressor
Owner: Samurai Penguin Studios
Listen on Last.FM
NiteHawk
<dev></dev>
Administrator
Legendary Member
*****
Posts: 2816



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2009, 07:12:59 AM »

I like it, and the layout you gave. However theres something that worries me.

Abusing fighters and orbiting/starbase undock, fire, dock again etc. Aka, sending your fighters to kill AI while you sit happily near a starbase from far away... Fighters shouldn't have the ability to warp, as there small based ships and let's say they 'cannot' fit it in there ship, but they can travel pretty damn fast. Dunno, that worries me, just sitting out there and doing that, that is. In general after taking care of the fighters, they'd go for the player who fired those, but if they could fire anywhere on the map to anywhere else on the map, meh, might scream abuse.

As for the abuse I stated, I think the carrier would have to be within certain limit/range..

Only thing I don't agree is q-park carriers. If there going to launch they should be vunerable to attack. I'd think.

Also maybe adding 'fuel' for those ships might be a good idea, so fighters cannot just sit and bomb for 50 minutes (though theyd most likely die before a few minuts anyways.

Fighter probably would have 2 generic small torp bays, and probably an anti-ship type missile. I'd think.
Bombers might have 1 generic torp bay, and yeah, well, a bomb bay for bombs!
Maybe even an "Stealth ship"; 1 torp bay, and perhaps some emp or something like that (damages subsystems, not the turns off your ship alltogether type, but it can damage a subsystem to turn off at least.). Turn to fire, Uncloak, fire one or two vollys until your to close, cloak, go out a bit, repeat. Generally fighters will have a pretty fast cloak/uncloak.


Report to moderator   Logged

http://chrisvall.com - Coding/gaming blog in the works.
AdmiralTigerclaw
Sound Developer
Expert Member
****
Posts: 734


Naval Commander: Forum Sound Admin


« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2009, 07:41:56 AM »

If you're worried about being invulnerable on a starbase but sending fighters to do the dirty work.

Do this:

Fighters cannot RECIEVE ORDERS when you are docked. *You dock, your ship shuts down, you can't transmit, they can't get orders.

Same with Q-park.  That should keep abuse to a minimum.

If you try to direct your fighters constantly from Q park, you have to pop in and out like crazy.  That's a big blinking event...

Perhaps we can make a Q-drive inhibiting system that makes it so you jump in, but can't jump out, of a certain radius of a ship with it activated.  This way, a Q-parker could be blinking in and out, and the Q-inhib user comes along to get them, and traps them, forcing a firefight.

Now, as for fighters...
Personally I hate budgeting fuel, and adding that to fighters would make them seem odd compared to the player-allowed baseline fighters in the game.
So, I guess the limit will be the Q drive.  Carrier based fighters are designed to carry more ordinance than solo fighters, so they don't have a Q drive onboard.  That limits their striking range to 'how far away is the player patient enough to attack?'

I think that would work.  Q-parking is a bit of an abuse issue anyway... and so long as we're incorporating the effect of being unable to Q-jump within distances of large stargates, the code can be applied elsewhere.


As for fighter types...

Well, the fighters would be based upon whatever becomes out baseline fighter.

However, in exchange for the Q drive, these fighters pack ordinance or gear.

Interceptor:  Basic fighter, but bigger engine instead of the Q drive.  Armed with fighter to fighter weapons and light anti-ship weapons.
Bomber: Extra internal weapons bay in place of Q drive dedicated to heavy anti-ship torpedos.

Scouts:  A scout group has two pairs of fighters that have a different sensor suite each.  Asside from the carrier's sensor gear.  The scouts have a pair with Cloak sensors, and a pair with Q sensors.  Giving the player a comprehensive wide area scan at the cost of the performance gains of other fighters.  Flying with  this group set to CAP can REALLY make it hard for people to sneak up on you.

(This would effectively duplicate a carrier running AWACS and ASW operations.)


How's that sound?
Report to moderator   Logged

GCFA Naval Commander
Veteran Player - Supreme Spaceforce Agressor
Owner: Samurai Penguin Studios
Listen on Last.FM
Sandtrooper
Vice CinC of TRIBE
Administrator
Expert Member
*****
Posts: 504



WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2009, 12:05:28 PM »

Quote
A carrier player will have the ability to select between squadrons using his keypad (I don't THINK it does anything in-game right now.)   Using keypad 1,2,3,4 to select the respective squadrons.

You have a serious flaw here: The keypad is used for flight controls.

As for your other stuff, I have to read it later...
Report to moderator   Logged



Fleet Admiral Sandtrooper
2nd in Command of TRIBE

TRIBE-SD)    オークエボリューション
(Oak Evolution)
AdmiralTigerclaw
Sound Developer
Expert Member
****
Posts: 734


Naval Commander: Forum Sound Admin


« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2009, 02:01:08 PM »

Arrow keys dude.

Arrow keys, and page up/down
THAT is flight controls.
Report to moderator   Logged

GCFA Naval Commander
Veteran Player - Supreme Spaceforce Agressor
Owner: Samurai Penguin Studios
Listen on Last.FM
CloakedKiller
Moderator
Advanced Member
****
Posts: 168



« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2009, 03:34:01 PM »

I for one do not have a keypad (Lap Top).
Report to moderator   Logged
NiteHawk
<dev></dev>
Administrator
Legendary Member
*****
Posts: 2816



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2009, 03:38:26 PM »

And I agree, neither do I, most people own at least one laptop, had to get rid of my desktop while travelling.

Perhaps we can use the gun system 1-9 or whatever it is, and just use it as fighters then, since carriers probably shouldn't have as much weapons as a dread, which is 7, I believe. For example:
Carrier: 2 weapons, 1 squad. 3 keys: 1,2 weapons, 3 squad.
Battle Carrier: 3 weapons, 2 squads, 5 keys, 1,2,3 weapons, 4,5 squad
Super Carrier: 5 weapons, 4 squads, 9 keys, 1,2,34,5 weapons, 6,7,8,9 squad

Still, while docked, perhaps fighters should abort what there doing and come back actually. That would solve that.

I still disagree about q-park sitting in general though, would want others input on it, too (people should read + post!) Tongue
Report to moderator   Logged

http://chrisvall.com - Coding/gaming blog in the works.
Sandtrooper
Vice CinC of TRIBE
Administrator
Expert Member
*****
Posts: 504



WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2009, 03:46:56 PM »

Alright, well if most of you do not have a keypad (two of you posted while I was typing), the gun system could substitute.

On the other hand, your whole idea is damn good, custom mods could benefit from this.

Quote
Q-drive inhibiting system
Gravity well generator?

Quote
-If a carrier is killed-
If a carrier is killed, all fighters docked die as well.  Any fighters currently in flight will persue their last target until either A: they kill the target, or B: they are killed.

If the fighters have persued and killed their objective, they will then locate the nearest friendly starbase or docking facility, and fly (jump) to it and leave the game in a believable method.
Nice way to get rid of them by kicking them off the game until a new carrier gets in. Could there be a self-destruct option for them too if carrier dies?
Report to moderator   Logged



Fleet Admiral Sandtrooper
2nd in Command of TRIBE

TRIBE-SD)    オークエボリューション
(Oak Evolution)
NiteHawk
<dev></dev>
Administrator
Legendary Member
*****
Posts: 2816



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2009, 04:53:25 PM »

They could act like drones rather then players, so they self destruct when the carrier dies to prevent lets say information about there ships or weapons scavaging from being leaked.. Or something.
Report to moderator   Logged

http://chrisvall.com - Coding/gaming blog in the works.
AdmiralTigerclaw
Sound Developer
Expert Member
****
Posts: 734


Naval Commander: Forum Sound Admin


« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2009, 05:04:48 PM »

Well, let's not have them overwrite the weapons commands.  I like the idea for the keypad...

So how about this.

If you don't have a keypad  SHIFT + #
Then for mods that have carriers armed to the teeth, you don't have conflicting controls.

The last thing you want in a freeform modding environment, is a hard code for situational setups.


Now, as for Q-Park.  I *AM* concerned about keeping carriers from exploiting it.  But I'm also concerned about accidently limiting the carrier's launch and scoot capability.  (Drop in, unload fighters, pop out)
If anyone's ever played the old X-Wing games, it is a scripted event in some missions and thus a valid tactic that a capital ship would drop in, unload a swarm of TIEs, and then GTFO of dodge.

I don't want to limit creative use of FTL jumps, but I do want to prevent 'safe spot' exploitation.

Well, if we're making Q-Park a functional option in the game rather than a glitch, perhaps we should expand upon it's function.

Q-parking places you safely in quantum space.   It cannot be interrupted because the purpose of Q-Park is if you have to drop what your doing for some reason and go AFK.  (Which seems to be frequent for us SF players.)
So perhaps Qpark should be a function of Q drive that instantly shuts off sensors and renders you 'impotent' in gameplay.  And if you have fighters deployed, you CAN'T Q park.
"We can't do that while strike craft are deployed sir."

Now, as for a Grav Well generator.  I think not.  Wrong principle for the Q-drive.  Considering planets and their gravity wells don't do it.

I was thinking more of some kind of wave generator that produces a field that collapses Q-tunneling effects and forces a ship back to realspace.  Like what the wormhole of a stargate does.


Now, as for self destructing.  I don't like that.  It makes it too much of a 'goal' for people to try and purposefully go for the decapitation attacks.  Sure, I would like the decapitation to shut down the fighter threat, but I want the fighters to remain a threat at least for a little bit after the carrier dies.  It just seems like a cheap way for someone small to knock out a 16 fighter threat from a supercarrier.
Report to moderator   Logged

GCFA Naval Commander
Veteran Player - Supreme Spaceforce Agressor
Owner: Samurai Penguin Studios
Listen on Last.FM
Sandtrooper
Vice CinC of TRIBE
Administrator
Expert Member
*****
Posts: 504



WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2009, 05:53:31 PM »

Quote from: AdmiralTigerclaw
If anyone's ever played the old X-Wing games, it is a scripted event in some missions and thus a valid tactic that a capital ship would drop in, unload a swarm of TIEs, and then GTFO of dodge.

You bring up memories of the Nebulon-B Frigate "Warspite", gawd that was a hell of a mission. Still, its a devastating tactic, but unleashing ALL fighters in 1 second is a little TOO much to swallow (if there was a exploit to emerge from this), at least put a Q-drive cooldown for carriers, as it took like at least a minute and a half for Warspite to GTFO after deploying its first batch and come back to drop it's other squadron on the other side of the map.

Report to moderator   Logged



Fleet Admiral Sandtrooper
2nd in Command of TRIBE

TRIBE-SD)    オークエボリューション
(Oak Evolution)
AdmiralTigerclaw
Sound Developer
Expert Member
****
Posts: 734


Naval Commander: Forum Sound Admin


« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2009, 06:46:48 PM »

God damn I hated that mission.

EDIT:
Okay, here's a thought.

Since you're concerned about dumping them all at once... how about a delay on fighter launching like this.

Launch two fighters side by side, wait two seconds, launch second pair.

It would cycle through the first squadron to the last in this pattern. 

Likewise recovery would take some time.  But use a pair of tractors.  Only they don't count as normal tractors because they'd be be part of the carrier control code.  So when you're recovering, you litterally have to let the tractor 'bring the fighter in'.  If you're recovering all sixteen fighters for a supercarrier... it would take a LONG time.

Oh, two more commands.

RECOVER ALL  Keypad zero, or SHIFT ZERO.
All currently launched fighters drop what they are doing and RTB.

Launch patrol.  Keypad  .    or SHIFT ~ 
Launch fighters with orders to circle target and provide sensor sweeps for the carrier.  (Mainly for use with scouts)  Fighters will not engage unless attacked first.
If you select yourself, they fly a CAP but won't attack.  If you select a specified target, they will follow it.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 08:05:10 PM by AdmiralTigerclaw » Report to moderator   Logged

GCFA Naval Commander
Veteran Player - Supreme Spaceforce Agressor
Owner: Samurai Penguin Studios
Listen on Last.FM
Blackdog
Moderator
Advanced Member
****
Posts: 114


« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2009, 04:05:39 PM »

Interesting idea here,

How smart are these AI fighters?  If they are like the current drones flying around, I'm not sure they will do much good for defense of the carrier against human opponents.  Can you refit the fighters for a certain setup you want them to have?

Also, what kind of weaponry and armor/shielding can these carriers have?

In response to the q parking carrier, why not simply have all fighters deployed die if the carrier goes into q.  I think that would prevent anyone from using them while safely in q.  The same could work if the carrier docked at a base.

I like this idea for a new type of ship.  Keep up the good work!

Edit- Just thought of this, tie in the launching of fighters to the power of the carrier.  If you want to limit how fast you want them launched have it use say, half the power per launch for p6 or something.  That will do two things at once.  1) it will keep anyone from launching them all at once and 2) it will leave the carrier vulnerable to attacks while its deploying.  If you want it really at risk while deploying make it so the shields are down for a short period for each deployment.  Almost like being in cloak, but the carrier would not be in cloak  Grin.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2009, 04:20:31 PM by Blackdog » Report to moderator   Logged
NiteHawk
<dev></dev>
Administrator
Legendary Member
*****
Posts: 2816



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2009, 04:34:16 PM »

Proabbly will require some coding of there own. I'm aiming for flyby fighting, and circling or something for attacking, and for defence, probably staying close and moving about. Gotta figure it out/test.

As for that limiting, yeah I agree. Can have its own modules actually called Fighter Bay #, so when it launches, it uses up the 'energy' to fire, and needs to be to 100% to fire, much like grenades, i think.
Report to moderator   Logged

http://chrisvall.com - Coding/gaming blog in the works.
AdmiralTigerclaw
Sound Developer
Expert Member
****
Posts: 734


Naval Commander: Forum Sound Admin


« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2009, 04:39:44 PM »



In response to the q parking carrier, why not simply have all fighters deployed die if the carrier goes into q.  I think that would prevent anyone from using them while safely in q.  The same could work if the carrier docked at a base.


Which is extremely stupid.   Want to Q jump your way out of a fight?  BOOM, your fighters die, now you gotta' go home and get new ones.

I addressed that.  You want to slow the player down and prevent abuse, not cripple their tactical manuevering.
Report to moderator   Logged

GCFA Naval Commander
Veteran Player - Supreme Spaceforce Agressor
Owner: Samurai Penguin Studios
Listen on Last.FM
Pages: [1] 2
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.12 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!