Gameplay: Empire Specific Aircraft (Fighters)

MasterChief096 · 2011-08-08, 06:07 PM

Felt this thread should be made since Higby mentioned that each empire will have its own unique fighter craft in that G4TV video. Keep in mind these are fighter craft, for killing other aircraft, not for any other role such as ground assault, etc.

So I came up with a few ideas for ESFC (Empire Specific Fighter Craft), you can either add to them, change them, or come up with entirely new ideas.

RECENTLY EDITED: Removed special abilities and armaments, and made the speed with and without afterburn the same for all aircraft for balance issues. Also changed the names of the fighters. Removed the armaments because this will be where the balance is. I do believe that each aircraft should have one main gun and one type of "missile" weapon that it can fire, as they are fighters. These need to be decided on however.

New Conglomerate - The Hawk

Appearance: More blocky than the other aircraft, a little bit more bulky as well. It follows the traditional theme of the NC, slower firing but packing more of a punch.

Speed: Max speed 120kph (200 with afterburn)

Armaments: Needs to be further discussed

Special ability: Yet to be decided

Terran Republic - The Hunter

Appearance: Looks more like a modern day strike craft, professionally made. More sleek than the NC variant.

Max speed: 120kph (200 with afterburn)

Armaments: Needs to be further discussed

Special ability: Yet to be decided

Vanu Sovereignty - The Vespin

Appereance: The most sleek, alien looking of the three. Lots of curves (lol) and fins.

Max speed: 120kph (200 with afterburn)

Armaments: Needs to be further discussed

Now obviously weapon balance, speed of vehicles, and armor, all of have to be discussed as its all theoretical at this point.

WarChimp130 · 2011-08-08, 08:53 PM

I'm kind of so-so on the idea's, but one thing of note is the naming. It doesn't fit traditional schemes. NC pretty much have all the Bird names(and the Eagle is already in use.) TR have aggressive sounding names(Prowler, Invader, Marauder, etc.) and VS tend to have spacey/techno names(Comet, Quasar, Aphelion, etc.)

I don't see them breaking that pattern here.

As for the idea's themselves, I'm not a big fan of the special abilities. I just don't see those getting implemented. As for the empire specific AA on the jets I can see people getting super pissed about that about it's not a bad idea. I can see Liberator pilots particularly getting pissed by those sort of weapons since they fall in the middle ground of air survivability. Faster crafts should be able to evade quite a bit, and Galaxies should be able to survive quite a bit, but I could see whatever Lib style bomber the game has being super vulnerable to that sort of thing.

EASyEightyEight · 2011-08-08, 09:17 PM

Guardian

Hunter

Nebula

And just because it'd be fun:

Battleships:

Griffon Class

Predator Class

Nova Class

I'd be sorely disappointed if among the potentially future naval vessels, none of them are empire specific.

Also considered Templar, Pirate, and Cosmos. Didn't seem to fit in my opinion. Maybe with (space only) mecha (essentially bigger infantry in space) - because infantry skittering across ship surfaces would be freaking small for fighters and bombers to hit, don't you think? 1 round connects and they should pop too.

**Malorn** · 2011-08-08, 11:39 PM

Eagle is only taken in PS1 - PS2 doesn't have BFRs so the name could be reused. It fits. Hawk also fits for NC, etc.

Maybe its just me but I would think the NC being the guerrilla faction would have the sneaky pirate-ish names like Prowler and Marauder. "Enforcer" and "Vanguard" seem much more TR Evil Empire-like.

I think gunships fit better for empire specific aircraft. Traditional gunships. The kind that take two seats where the pilot might only have rockets and the gunner has AV weaponry and a turreted gun.

Air power is so critical to the balance of the game I think the AA differences are already bad enough. Adding in empire specific air dominance aircraft could end up with unbalancing results. On one hand you need them to have identical handling, otherwise the one with the best handling will be the best dogfighter. Doesn't matter how good of guns or defense you have if your enemy has position on you. Just seems incredibly risky to make empire specific aircraft.

If they do exist it should be flavorful differences and nothing really big. I like the idea of having them look different so it is easy to recognize a friendly aircraft from a hostile from further away but beyond that differences should be minor. For example the TR might have a higher rate of fire but the NC have more damage per shot and its more accurate. The VS might have a link-gun (Unreal Tournament) like weapon that does more damage the longer it holds on target, or the longer it's firing, something along those lines. They should all end up with about equivalent dps when accuracy, RoF, and damage are taken into account over a period of time and definitely have equivalent handling.

Senyu · 2011-08-09, 01:45 AM

Dont know how to make the different colored font but here goes

Falcon : NC (dont know if this name is used yet)

Striker: TR (Again dont know if used yet as I dont play these factions)

Vespin: (Ya its similar if not the same as in Starcraft but still sounds cool)

Talek Krell · 2011-08-09, 05:09 AM

Well Eagle was a biffer name, so that's freed up now. I always thought Aurora was more fitting for an aircraft than a ground transport anyway, maybe that would work for the Vanu one. I wanted to use it for my empire specific liberator idea, but I wouldn't dare hope for something so wonderful. >.>

WarChimp130 · 2011-08-09, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Senyu

Dont know how to make the different colored font but here goes

Falcon : NC (dont know if this name is used yet)

Striker: TR (Again dont know if used yet as I dont play these factions)

Vespin: (Ya its similar if not the same as in Starcraft but still sounds cool)

How long have you played the game that you don't know the Falcon is an NC Max and Striker is TR ESAV? Even if you don't play either empire, how do people not know the names of these things?

Trolltaxi · 2011-08-09, 01:30 PM

NC sounds overpowered compared to the TR and VS variants.

As always!

But to be serious, I would like to see those air superiority fighters makeing fantastic dogfights on the skies. Therefore, no homing missiles, just machineguns (maybe with some aim assist, that would grow with skill points invested, like 1-2 degrees/skill point).

MasterChief096 · 2011-08-09, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Eagle is only taken in PS1 - PS2 doesn't have BFRs so the name could be reused. It fits. Hawk also fits for NC, etc.

Maybe its just me but I would think the NC being the guerrilla faction would have the sneaky pirate-ish names like Prowler and Marauder. "Enforcer" and "Vanguard" seem much more TR Evil Empire-like.

I think gunships fit better for empire specific aircraft. Traditional gunships. The kind that take two seats where the pilot might only have rockets and the gunner has AV weaponry and a turreted gun.

Air power is so critical to the balance of the game I think the AA differences are already bad enough. Adding in empire specific air dominance aircraft could end up with unbalancing results. On one hand you need them to have identical handling, otherwise the one with the best handling will be the best dogfighter. Doesn't matter how good of guns or defense you have if your enemy has position on you. Just seems incredibly risky to make empire specific aircraft.

If they do exist it should be flavorful differences and nothing really big. I like the idea of having them look different so it is easy to recognize a friendly aircraft from a hostile from further away but beyond that differences should be minor. For example the TR might have a higher rate of fire but the NC have more damage per shot and its more accurate. The VS might have a link-gun (Unreal Tournament) like weapon that does more damage the longer it holds on target, or the longer it's firing, something along those lines. They should all end up with about equivalent dps when accuracy, RoF, and damage are taken into account over a period of time and definitely have equivalent handling.

Well I agree that it would be tricky to balance, but Higby 'alluded' to each empire having their own specific fighters, so if you want that changed you can either use this thread or make your own stating reasons for it. Maybe just have each fighter have the same handling/maneuverability like you said, but different appearances/weapons with different properties.

@Warchimp - Galaxies and bombers should be vulnerable to a pack of fighters IMO. That's how its always historically been and will be. If you didn't send in fighters to protect your bombers in WWII chances were a lot of them were going to get shot down. I do think that the ball/tail gunners should be able to fend off a couple fighters though, and not really have to worry, unless the fighter pilots are reaaallly good. It will promote more teamwork to having fighter escorts for your galaxy/bombing missions, which would be pretty bad ass IMO.

@Everyone - I'm going to revise the ideas based on feedback as of now. I'll post an edit when its done.

**Malorn** · 2011-08-09, 02:31 PM

Where did Higby 'allude' to empire specific fighters?

Edit: Nevermind I see it now in the OP. Disregard.

Edit 2: Oh wow, he didn't allude to it; he flat out stated it for main battle tanks and fighters! I missed that the first time, thanks for pointing that out MasterChief.

Raymac · 2011-08-09, 04:24 PM

I'm not a fan of the Wasp in PS1, so while I thought air-to-air lock on weapons would be something I liked and would make dogfights even better, when it came out, I really hated it. I think part of my problem with it is that now when I see "lock-on" I immediately go into evasive manuevers. So just the lock-on has effectively become a weapon itself...at least against me. Even when I use the Wasp and I score a kill, it just feels cheap.

Maybe I would like it better if the lock on was just a little easier to break, or have some sort of counter-measure. I think back to some of the old school flying games I used to play like the X-Wing / Tie Fighter series where with good timing and the right tactics, you could increase your chances of actually making a missile miss. I would actually like it if the missles were "fire and forget" as long as I had an opportunity to avoid it other than just praying that the trees I'm flying through actually work.

NewSith · 2011-08-09, 05:09 PM

I'm not sure about the necessity of abilities, but about guns, i'd say let's make it overly specific.

1. Is must have - autogun of some sort that fires bullets/beams, whaterver...
2. Some sort of refferal to those "abilities":

NC:

AV Bombs. Just a set of two or four short radius AV bombs for an "ammo box" (assuming there will be such thing as vehicle ammo resupply).
AA Sparrow rockets, that follow the out-of-sight target. (Assuming there will be countermeasures)

TR:

2nd pilot with a 360 degree gun. This concept will never fail for TR. Extra gun that turns the vehicle into a light gunship of some sort.
Striker missiles. AA and AV, but your target should be in your field of view. Not exactly in your sights, but just infront of you. (Assuming there will be countermeasures)

VS:

Changeable flight vector, that adds more flexability in flight direction change (Assuming there will be no hovering for aircraft)
Starfire AA rockets, that act as VS bfr mortar, igniting the ground they hit, if not used in AA. Some sort of napalm rockets, like seen with C&C Generals MiGs. Can lock on aircraft only. Your target should be in your field of view. (Assuming there will be countermeasures)

SKYeXile · 2011-08-09, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

I'm not sure about the necessity of abilities, but about guns, i'd say let's make it overly specific.

1. Is must have - autogun of some sort that fires bullets/beams, whaterver...
2. Some sort of refferal to those "abilities":

NC:

AV Bombs. Just a set of two or four short radius AV bombs for an "ammo box" (assuming there will be such thing as vehicle ammo resupply).
AA Sparrow rockets, that follow the out-of-sight target. (Assuming there will be countermeasures)

TR:

2nd pilot with a 360 degree gun. This concept will never fail for TR. Extra gun that turns the vehicle into a light gunship of some sort.
Striker missiles. AA and AV, but your target should be in your field of view. Not exactly in your sights, but just infront of you. (Assuming there will be countermeasures)

VS:

Changeable flight vector, that adds more flexability in flight direction change (Assuming there will be no hovering for aircraft)
Starfire AA rockets, that act as VS bfr mortar, igniting the ground they hit, if not used in AA. Some sort of napalm rockets, like seen with C&C Generals MiGs. Can lock on aircraft only. Your target should be in your field of view. (Assuming there will be countermeasures)

err thought this was about fighters...eg skeeter & wasp not about gunships and bombers aka reaver and lib

But yea, i dunno about major differences in aircraft, its the one thng thats always been balanced in PS1. it would be awesome if they all had a different look, but their weapons should be identical and IMO be nothing more than duel 20-35mm alternate firing guns, if they can make lockon weapons take some sort of skill then im willing to see it, but if its remotly like any of the lockon weapons in PS1, especily the falcon, then HELL NO.

NewSith · 2011-08-09, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

err thought this was about fighters...eg skeeter & wasp not about gunships and bombers aka reaver and lib

Normal fighters, like the pop F-22, can carry bombs. Tailgun can also be attached to a fighter.
Also SUV is not a buggy. But that doesn't prevent the Marauder to be classed as one.

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

But yea, i dunno about major differences in aircraft, its the one thng thats always been balanced in PS1. it would be awesome if they all had a different look, but their weapons should be identical and IMO be nothing more than duel 20-35mm alternate firing guns, if they can make lockon weapons take some sort of skill then im willing to see it, but if its remotly like any of the lockon weapons in PS1, especily the falcon, then HELL NO.

You refuse to read what's in brackets, don't you?

Also side note - they're adding customization for all vehicle weaponry, why does everyone fail to see that?

MasterChief096 · 2011-08-09, 08:55 PM

Well I don't think he said there will be empire specific fighters if those fighters have powerful ground weapons too. Just my opinion, but I think "fighter pilot" is probably going to be something someone can spec down and PS2, and get really good at, and not really have an air to ground capability at all.

So lets try to brainstorm ideas for a fighter that attacks other aircraft but is ineffective in ground assaults.