Alright, it seems like this thread is the place to post the suggestions that will end up making it into the voting options, so here we go.
Issue: Fighters are the weakest of the 3 triangle units and don't really have a place in the game at the moment.
Or, a better way to put it is that the design role of the fighters, that of being a all around general fleet ship killer is a role filled, and filled better, by many other units.
Numbers on paper: On paper, the Fighter has very strong numbers with a high base DPS, good armor piercing and high health. However, the way the game mechanics currently work, they all conspire to weaken the fighter so that even with its above average stats it is a weak unit.
I bring this up because with the numbers on paper already above average, a flat buff of the numbers will take that into 'high numbers' territory and numbers like that should be reserved for the bonus ships.
Personal Experience: In my games, fighters are a unit I pair up with bombers for making an attack into an AI system, the frigates stay home because of their slow speed. Now, frigates are one of the units that overshadow the fighter in the fleet ship killer role so people who bring frigates along on attack runs see the frigates doing all the work and the fighters doing nothing. Compared to my attacks where it is only fighters and bombers and so I see my fighters doing the killing of enemy fleet ships and I don't see bringing the fighter along being a waste. Especially once you consider it's cost.
Cost: One thing to keep in mind is the fighter costs 1/3 as much as a frigate and 1/4 as much as a bomber does to build. I'm seeing lots of comments to the point that cost is not an issue with the current economic setup but for me it is. I pretty much spend the early game bottomed out on resources and by the time I've got a bit of a buffer built up, it's time to start on fort construction.
If my attack force of fighters and bombers comes home with all the fighters dead and only 1/2 of the bombers lost, I still come out ahead on resources as compared to a bomber only strike that took out its target but was totally destroyed on the way home despite the fact that I lost 50% more ships in terms of numbers.
In other words, I like having a cheap unit that I don't have to care about losing. And for balance purposes a cheap unit has to be on the weaker end of the effectiveness spectrum otherwise you would never build anything else.
Game mechanics making the fighter weak: So, the numbers on fighters are decent and it's game mechanics making fighters weak? So, what mechanics are doing this then?
The presence of turrets: This is perhaps the biggest thing that overshadows the fighter. Because turrets are stationary their combat effectiveness is magnitudes larger then mobile units to make up for being stuck in one place. However, turrets fill the same role as fighters, that of killing fleet ships, so it is more efficient for players to bait the AI's forces into range of the turrets then it is to send fighters out to kill the fleet ships.
Offense favors bombers: With the presence of turrets, mobile ships have to have a purpose in AI controlled systems on the attack. However, with how skewed the game is towards large, stationary defensive structures it is the bomber that has the starring role when attacking the AI. You bring other ships along to keep the bombers alive but the bombers are all you care about.
That reduces the fighter to an escort role on the attack. It is a vital and necessary role but it is not glamorous at all and with the fighters short range it is not really quite as good as it should be at the escort role.
Weapon Range: The only real issue I have with the fighter's numbers. The fighter has one of the shortest attack ranges in the game, shorter even then the unit it is supposed to counter (the bomber). Due to how battle auto-follow works where a unit closes the range, it attacks, and then stays stationary while it reloads, then tries to moves into weapon range again. Because of this fighters quite often only get a single salvo off and then never get another shot off as they try to catch up to there target while other units kill said target.
So, I would suggest buffing the fighters range to at least equal that of the bomber, if not to about 110% that of the bombers range. I expect this change alone would give the fighter all the help it needs, but to really take advantage the fighter needs a small speed boost.
Move Speed: The other issue I have with the fighter is that while its speed is slightly above average, it is still only really average. And it is the same as the bombers speed. Due to the attack-chase mechanic I just mentioned this means the fighter can't catch the bomber in a tail chase. So, boost the fighters speed slightly, to about 110% that of the bombers speed.
Conclusion: I agree the fighter is an underwhelming unit that current game mechanics prevent it from really being used as designed. I disagree that it is a broken unit and feel only small tweaks are needed to compensate for the fact that even with it's good numbers, current game mechanics sideline it as an underwhelming unit.
Alternative Fix: If the general community consensus disagrees with me and feels that the fighter is a broken unit, my alternative suggestion would be to give the fighter a massive speed boost, to 75 or 80% that of a raid starship to really highlight it's interceptor role to allow the fighter to get into a position where it's 150% base dps that it has on paper could be more effectively used. I personally don't see the fighter needing a boost this big but any fix I might support will have to account for the fact that the fighters numbers on paper are above average, it is other game mechanics that make the fighter underwhelming.
D.
