Combat Fighter spaceship family (plus general ideas about spaceships)

So yeah, yet another spaceship suggestion. You can leave right now, or stay and hate me for all this.

Previous idea
First of all, I need to suggest a hardpoint mountable item: Special weapon selector
It isn’t new the fact that we would love to be able to select our desired special weapon for when we need it. Having to waste two missiles to finally use a dimensional warp, for example, is something just bad.
So, my idea is to have an item mounted on one of spaceship’s hardpoint, to (with a new keybind that would be wheel up/down on mouse) select our desired special weapon. I feel it makes more sense as a ship’s mountable rather than a perishable, also perishables are kind of overloaded while hardpoints don’t have much use.

Combat Fighter family- the ships

This already clashes with the preset family system where ships only differ from each other on stats. But, their shape and wing configuration is what gave them the names so I had to go this way. I first made ‘Kilibri’ and then I thought on the three different ships resembling different animals

Combat fighters - their physics
Figther’s movement differs from both movemets systems we already have. They do have speed limit, but it’s instead tackled as lesser sensibility factor instead of just speed cap. This is affected positively by engine thrust and a ship’s own factor. Ship mass, has a direct impact on ship’s inertia. So that is, it affects negatively on ship’s acceleration and desacceleration. I came to this thought on the CI4 days, how different would it be to have some inertia to the ship. Given that Universe has a lot of stats on the ships, they can work together with this idea.

Combat fighters - their general capabilities
Here’s the sweet part of it. They can carry two different weapons with two independant heatsinks slots for weapon slot #1 and #2. They are not compatible with the previously mentioned special weapon selector, as this keybind is used to select weapons instead. The two weapons have a totally independant power level, and the present/atomic power-up collected is assigned to the currently selected weapon.
Having two heatsinks brings a quite high energy consumption and also a very large mass increase, so this is somewhat balancing the ship. Also, rarer ships would have less mass instead of more mass like rarer ships we have now do. This is to make rarer ships actually worth having it.
As there would be three renders of different ships instead of just one, they will be quite limited on paintjobs options, having the lesser options.

Stingray is the entry tier ship. It has the lesser mass, the lesser sensibility penalty, but it can host only two satellites behind the wings. It is the only combat fighter to have only one heatsink slot, so you have to manage between changing and using weapons if the heat is high enough, as switching weapons won’t inmediatly clear the heat bar as if it was a power-up (pretty obvious). But having two weapons is already a very good thing, since it allows you to use a spread weapon on asteroids and suchs, but quicky change to a focused fire weapon; so this ship isn’t useless. A side note, as the weapon pods are all 4 in front position, the projectiles come from front end of the ship instead of the usual back. It has two hardpoints.

The mid tier ship is heavier, so it has a bigger inertia factor, but it still keeps a low enough sensibility penalty. This ship can host 4 satellites in straight line configuration to provide a wider surface of attack, and is the first one to have two heatsinks slots. The reasoning on this is simple, as each weapon slot will have a dedicated heat bar, one for each heatsink of course. Having just one heatsink will behave exactly as in the Stingray, so you would be sacrificing movility for two extra satellites slots. Also, now projectiles from weapon slot #1 come from the back end of the ship, since two of the pods are located there. It has 3 hardpoints.

This is the high end ship, the heaviest of them and therefore the slowest. It has the highest inertia and the highest sensibility penalty, but in overall it will still be faster than a BX-9 bomber. This ship will host 3 satellite spots, one on each side and one on front. But, it is the only ship that allows to simultaneously fire both weapons. Having the two heatsinks mounted is not mandatory but highly recomended for this, as otherwise the heat would rapidly exceed any heatsink’s capabilities. Again, projectiles from weapon #1 comes from the back, while projectiles from weapon #2 comes from the front. If a present is collected while having both weapons selected, it will be assigned to weapon #1; if an atomic power-up is collected, it will be assigned to the weaker weapon. It has 4 hardpoints.

Overall notes
So, another family, another gameplay. Kind of a more natural feeling on the movement limitations than bombers and fasters on light load conditions, but lesser total damage output (well, Kolibri can be a hard challenge for it to balance, but for reaching this point you would have to get both weapons at level 20 unlike BX’s 26) and can get actually slower than BX9 when fully loaded with really heavy heatsinks, reactors and engines, while you have to also closely manage your heat levels if you prefer instead the higher movility of a ligther ship with just one heatsink; so I don’t think it can be considered a broken ship type.
Of course that things can be adjusted if they actually are, but anyway this is just a suggestion plan and we most probably would not ever see something like this in the game.


I like this!
Without knowing you made the old movement a balanced thing.

(What program did you use for designing the ship blueprints?)

I pick this one.

I’m pretty ſure this is planned to be ſtandard, without needing hardpoints; that beïng ſaid, this is juſt a gueſs.

This uſed to be part of the v1.0 ſhip movement limitations.

So, queſtion: Why ſhould the combat fighter be leſs maneuverable than the ſtandard ſpacecraft?

And, you know, there aren’t that many keys on the keyboard.

Huh. I thought they had leſs.

I’m not 100% convinced that this follows, but I’ll let IA decide on this one.

Yippee. I can’t wait.

So, like a heavy bomber but overpowered and ſlightly more maneuverable. Remind me again why this is claſſified as a combat fighter?

This is ſomewhat open to debate.

Yet ſomehow with leſs controllability than the good ol’ Müller.

Yeah, I’ve already covered the problem with this.

I do.


Sadly, you’d ſeem to be wrong there:

I mean, the ſhips are alright, but in no way do they deſcribe combat fighters: hard to control, and more damaging than heavy bombers.


First of all, I’m pretty sure “combat fighter” is a pleonasm. As far as I know, fighters are, by definition, designed for combat.
If it does have a speed cap, “heavy fighter” would probably be more fitting, though to be honest that’s basically what the BX series is, despite its “bomber” classification.

True, though we can’t forget about the mobile versions. There’s only so many buttons you can shove onto a phone screen and still have the game be playable.

As for the whole balancing aspect - as much as I am interested in this idea, I’d like to remind everyone that the weapons are still unbalanced and the bombers are still rubbish. We probably should have that sorted out before we even start thinking about ways to further complicate the system like these fighters would.


Well, those were my thoughts and I can absolutly be wrong. The idea of the suggestions on the forums is, tell me how would you attempt to balance the general ideas to fix them, I am not afraid of accepting suggestions or being corrected if I’m wrong. ^^

The idea of the movement and comparission with BX-9 bomber (that looks confusing as first I say it’s faster but then it gets slower :laughing:) is, well, the more you load it, the slower it gets. So if you manage to get it in a state of brutal firepower without overheating issues (it could certainly be capped, perhaps a level 10 cap when both weapons are simultaneously shooting?), it will most probably be a slow ship. But, you can choose on having, let’s say smaller heatsinks, so you can save a lot of weight there at the cost of increased heat accumulation.
Also, considering the power output of reactors, I don’t think you can actually get two very powerful heatsinks, so it is one of the things to consider before fantasying with neutron gun and plasma rifles at full power. One of the penalties would be the reduced brust duration before overheat because of this, that the bombers won’t have if you get a massive heatsink on it. That is why I wouldn’t consider them just ‘more powerful’ than bombers.

Yes, I am very aware of it, as an inertial drive differs a lot from what we have. It would require getting used to it and liking it, but that’s why new movements were introduced on Bomber family. I get back to my reliable and trustworthy Cusinier when I can’t do something with the bomber. Andnotice an absurd feeling of speed

About the name, well, I was thinking on how much difference has a jet fighter like F-35 on it’s three variations, one of them (B I think?) that it is significantly slower because it’s massive weight increase due to the extra turbines for vertical take-off, and their combat capabilities difference between them. Of course we are in chicken invaders so things can be more exaggerated than real life, but as both of you said, another name could be better fitting. On a side note, stingray would have a great movility, with not much difference with ordinary ships besides the inertia factor and a very subtle sensibility reduction; and it is better prepared for combat because the two weapons slots.
Also, speed reduction would’t be a plain speed cap like bombers with a pointer showing where it it’s going. Instead, the way I’m thinking of ‘reduced sensibility’ is just that, you would have to move more your mouse (or faster if you’re using Windows’s mouse acceleration, whatever). I can agree it looks messy right now, as having the thoughts in the air and put them together isn’t an easy task, at least for me.

We can fix this mess together boys.

What is the name of the application you used to design aircraft

I just used, as it is a nice (and most important, FREE!) image editing aplication that has lots of capabilities, and it has an easy interface like old MS Paint. There is no 3D model of this, it was all brush painted on the canvas. Since you can have fixed angles and the program shows you the lenght of the segments you make, I used guidelines to make the monge view as accuarate as I could to the isometric view, and also to try the best accuaracy on the isometric itself.


Okay, this is even better than the idea itself.


You know, I was thinking about overpowerness and further diferentiation with bombers and such, and I think that something could be made for it.
When shooting both weapons simultaneously with the Kolibri, each heatsink would give an extra 25% of heat to the other heatsink. Therefore, the dual weapon shooting can not be sustained for a really long period of time and it has to be managed.
This way, it doesn’t step on BX’s primary characteristic that is dual shooting pylons, than on this kind of ships are limited in power levels.

And when doing the Steal a ship thread, something crossed my mind. What if heavy bombers had two hitpoints, given that they are massive ships that look much more robust than other spacecrafts? This would work as a bonus for the massive hitbox, but considerating that you still keep the risk of getting hit again, doesn’t sound like a disaster to me.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.