Discussion Forum: PDSv11 For Newbs; Tactical Spam

Oh no! Where's the JavaScript?
Your Web browser does not have JavaScript enabled or does not support JavaScript. Please enable JavaScript on your Web browser to properly view this Web site, or upgrade to a Web browser that does support JavaScript.

View Thread

Point Defense Systems » Support for our Releases » Gameplay Support

PDSv11 For Newbs; Tactical Spam
Ironwatsas	#1 Posted on 15-08-2007 17:05
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005	Okay, this thread is here as basically a forum manual on how to use PDS' starships, and argue about such. This should also be a good place to discuss tactics for refrance and ask how to use such and such. This is basically the first step on the road to a PDS manual. We start with Fighters; Hiigaran Fighters in particular. Now, those new from PDSv7x would notice that the old tactical scout (Crossbow) has been replaced by the Avenger-TR as the Avenger has 1: better room for expansion, 2: Superior Combat ability, and 3: can be modified from existing Avenger models. Fluff aside, the Avenger is basically a reusable probe with better sensors. Avenger-TRs are best used to search for enemy units in situations where probes are not perferred. Their advantages over Probes are their reusability, armarment, superior sensor range, and can be used to grant SWACS (Spaceborn warning and control) benafits to other Hiigaran ships. On the downside, probes are far cheaper, expendable, and can easily seed large areas which counteract their shorter sensor range. Probes should be thrown into areas where agressive enemy forces are located and a more expensive Avenger would be easily destroyed.


SRI-Sajuuk	#2 Posted on 15-08-2007 19:06
Posts: 207 Joined: October 28 2005	hmmm...i ususally just press f4 and let em rip. Containment protocols enabled...


Ironwatsas	#3 Posted on 15-08-2007 20:24
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005	Then what's the point of 'Strategy'?


Komo val	#4 Posted on 15-08-2007 21:03
Posts: 392 Joined: September 27 2006	Quote hmmm...i ususally just press f4 and let em rip. A most impressive strategy indeed. Now seriously, I'm more keen on the Taiidani strategies then that of the Hiigaran dogs.


Tristan	#5 Posted on 16-08-2007 00:02
Posts: 304 Joined: June 28 2006	Avengers don't seem very cost-effective in my opinion. While highly survivable, their squadron of 4 can't do much when you can buy 2 LSF multirole squads for less, and have them eat away at everything they come into contact with. Vagyr are similar. Heavy fighters aren't really worth it (unless you buff their stats a bit. ahem.). You could probably do more with less if you used light intercepter massing and a few well-placed bomber torpedo volleys. Taiidani fighters are where things get technical. I'd be interested in what other people have to say, but usually I just use needleboats. I've heard people use the Taii Heavy Intercepter to confuse PDS grids with missile spams, then use needleboat nukes. But since both Needleboats and the Intercepters count towards the same unit cap, and cost the same amount of RU in base PDSv11, it seems more sensible to just whore the boats and mass anti-matter missiles on one target at a time. I usually send them and Rogue Fencers in after heavily armored Spahis and Empire Legionaires, who distract.


Komo val	#6 Posted on 16-08-2007 12:51
Posts: 392 Joined: September 27 2006	So Hiigaran fighters, I better contribute to this so we can advanced to Taiidani fighters, hehehe Blade Light Interceptor: Cheap, maneuverable and best use in anti-fighter role if any enemy fighter passes trough the picket line. LSF: Good for everything, excellent for nothing. The best multi purpose fighter Bombers: No finesse here. Direct capital or anti subsystem assault. Make sure that you deal with escorts so that have a clean run on the capitals. Avenger: Better than the Blade, can engage strikecraft closer to the enemy main force due to better armor, can also engage frigates to some extent because of it's heavier weapons. Avenger scout: what Iron said. Now, to the Taiidani fighters... Strategic interceptor: To slow to dogfight with other fighters, best use in assault or as a skirmish line. Fire missiles, retreat. Other fighters move in while the enemy PDS grid is busy thus limiting casualties. Then this fighters can engage frigates and capitals. Tactical fighter: Taiidani anti-strikecraft fighter, and best used only in this role. Needleboat. Main anti-capital attacker, has also two secondary roles. First is ant-subsystem, given it's heavy firepower and precision beam cannon. The second is standoff anti-strikecraft attack. The area-of-effect of the ant-matter missiles are deadly against fighters, but don't let them enter into a dogfight. retreat them after missile launch.


Ironwatsas	#7 Posted on 16-08-2007 15:25
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005	Now, many of the Vaygr's fighters are actually based on exported Taiidan hulls built on Vaygr technology, and a full genoration behind the Taiidan stock versions in technology. However, they are still a threat in their numbers and capabilities. I3G's are basic versions of the I3 chassis, used as cheap missile fighters with poor capabilities but are cheap and common. I commonly attach them to Fast attack frigates and Cruisers (Al-Moudamers) to act as screening and missile fire support. I2H's are, as they've always been, tactical bombers armed with nuclear rockets. Their main purpose has been attacking capital ships and frigates, but I have seen them used against Fighters, using their nukes to break up fighter squadrons while larger ships pick them off. I3H's are export grade versions of a common Taiidan Strategic Interceptor, abiet with more primitive missile and beam technology. I tend to use them as antistrikecraft fighters, but they can likely supress capitals with proper support. I3B's (Designation Fuxx0rd) are the modern incarnate of the old plasma lance fighters of the invasion era. These modern versions have several uses, primarily against strikecraft. However, I'm more familiar with Hiigarans and their order of battle.


Tristan	#8 Posted on 16-08-2007 21:37
Posts: 304 Joined: June 28 2006	I disagree in regards to the tactical fighter. In my opinion they're designed for anti frigate/capship DPS. Their fixed ions in combination with their need to perfectly align with the enemy before firing their beams make them rather pathetic in a dog fight. Their kinetic guns might offer something, but since their hull integrity isn't exactly close to phenominal, and they have no fast tracking missiles, any group of intercepters from the other races will annihilate them pretty quickly.


Elukka	#9 Posted on 16-08-2007 22:09
Posts: 103 Joined: February 13 2006	I find bombers are rather good for killing the hostile fire support frigates. (Ion Cannon Frigates, Missile Frigates) They won't get toasted by them, and can get there and get the job done quickly.


Ironwatsas	#10 Posted on 18-08-2007 01:43
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005	I tend to have bombers operating behind frigates or capitals, acting as a second strike force. Either that, or having them far above, below, or at some odd angle to create a multi-vectored strike force to split enemy fire up. Once battle is joined, bombers can quickly hit and supress problem ships like fire support frigates and whatnot like Elukka stated.


Komo val	#11 Posted on 18-08-2007 10:39
Posts: 392 Joined: September 27 2006	Well as I said, you use either needleboats or strategic interceptors for missile stand-off in fighter engagements and Ion cannons are murder to fighters. I agree that they could be also used as anti-frigate. Besides you don't have any Taiidani fighter that is good in dogfights except this one. Speaking of which, I forgot something. The scout: The scout is an unmanned drone designed for scouting, however they are also useful in: Braking up enemy formations-before your assault, order the drones to attack the enemy, distracting their forces while yours storm them. and Missile support-a cheep missile fighter. It can also be used as a dogfighter in some circumstances, when facing bombers or other assault craft in small numbers that harass your capital ships. It's speed and low build time means a quick reaction.


TelQuessir	#12 Posted on 19-08-2007 11:04
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005	Great discussion! This is what I've been waiting for, for a very long time indeed (Since V7 I think). The validity of the below information is up to the reader, but: From the dev. perspective the heavy fighter class in PDS is the sci fi incarnate of the (in)famous German Bf-110 Zerstorer twin-engine fighter of WW2. It was designed as the ultimate fighter aircraft but actual operational use proved them to be too vulnerable against more maneuverable (and practical?) single-engine fighters of the RAF. Now, that's only statistics. I've read that if the Germans employed the Zerstorers (trans: Destroyers) in their designed role as hunter-killers on free roam at high altitude using boom and zoom tactics (best using the big fighters' advantages of firepower and high top speed), instead of flying close escort to ponderous friendly bombers, the Bf-110 could have been a success. In other words, something that doesn't work in direct confrontation against the best enemy machine doesn't mean it can't perform well in a strategic perspective given proper tactics and doctrine. That's why the Taiidani strategic interceptor can't dogfight (and neither can the Vaygr export version) but the former presents a viable saturation rocket attack platform, and the latter is highly dangerous because of a combination of off-axis engagement ability and its huge arsenal of short range weapons. In HW2 and more specifically - PDS terms though, its quite difficult to separate fighters into different classes be a chore as only a few weapon systems really are effective due to our discipline against "uberweapons" that commonly spoil the immersion of a given SF universe. PDS pays homage to grunts doing the hard work in the field, employing a given level of technology and knowledge to its best potential. It isn't designed, unlike other games, to give instant gratification to the player through total victory. But back on topic, it does appear that present strikecraft and light capitals in PDS are based on identical principles regarding Newtonian-physics limited, high-acceleration, heavy weapon armed light ships. So the only equation that matters in the end is: If you have your strike boat too small, it lacks capacity to carry both weapons and fuel for more than a one-way short range interception. Too big and you can't afford more than a handful (good against a single cruiser but useless against cheaper and more plentiful aforementioned short range interceptors). But being big allows you to carry bigger weapons, pack more powerful (and efficient) starship reactors which in turn, in Newtonian logic, can mean higher power to mass ratio. This means an assault frigate is actually a better strikecraft than a light bomber because the bloody light bomber is overloaded with weapons and it can't pack a more powerful/longer ranged drive system to increase its potential, and so loses to the big frigate in acceleration and tactical utility... well, provided you can afford enough "Bf-110s" to make a difference, and employ them in boom and zoom where they're truly effective! (Iron! Make this into a wiki or reference article! It's like that fleet strategy argument in the HW1 manual - great material to convert into a multinational debate on our universe's military affairs, well an excerpt.)


Ironwatsas	#13 Posted on 19-08-2007 16:49
Posts: 856 Joined: October 21 2005	Okay, I'll do that whenever we get the Wiki going, I figure out how to operate said wiki, and I can find some way of formatting it to fit the Wiki's style. But I will do so aslong as my computer isn't smited with popup ads or processor meltdowns.


Gattsu	#14 Posted on 14-09-2007 08:09
Posts: 4 Joined: September 14 2007	In regards to Tel's comments about the german Bf-110... Every time that something new is added to combat, the whole book has to be re-written. Before aircraft came to be, science fiction writers envisioned aerial combat to be something like naval combat. (Ponderous flying battleships 'crossing the T' and sending broadsides at enemy combat groups, for example.) But when the real thing came around, it turned out to be so incredibly different that they had to learn everything from scratch. All of the things they thought they knew turned out to be wrong. There is actually some reasonable arguments for eliminating fighters from space combat, as the main function of a fighter in naval warfare is to travel over the horizon and see what the fleet can't. But there is no horizon in space, is there? And the only thing limiting firing range in space is the lag time between when you fire and when your shot reaches the target. When you get right down to it, there is very little a small craft in space can do that a missile taxi couldn't do better. But that wouldn't be as fun, would it?

Jump to Forum