I downloaded the old Starshatter demo just the other day, and was convinced to buy the new Starshatter:TGS right away (and since it's priced at the same MSRP as non-indie games, this is quite a break in character for me
).[spoiler alerts for those people who haven't even finished Highland yet
]During my initial forays into Operation Highland, I was a bit reckless and wound up losing more fighters than the AI -- usually because I wound up drifting too close to a frigate or managed to have sour enough luck to lose my drive, thrusters, and guns in one swell foop, where the enemy could just plant missiles into my tailpipe at their leisure. (I would, however, shower them with a barrage of foul language in lieu of more effective weaponry. I think I made one of their stabilisers blush, but that could've been a trick of the light.)
I found it quite remarkable how many of the fleet assets stayed out of one another's way, just like real life -- where extremely expensive ships are only committed to a pure mano-y-mano engagement if Command believes that the friendly losses will be decisively lower than those of the enemy. Of course, the battle at Jalah was extremely bloody (and darned entertaining), which was a refreshing/heartbeat-skipping break from the original strategy.
In the latter stages of the Operation, however, the Thunderbolts in my wing were tasked with attacking the Gladius destroyer, and this was completely counter to the former strategy, as I'll explain:
Without fail, I would go into that mission carrying two pods of SRMs and four ASMs, and move to engage the enemy destroyer at maximum effective range: I would then squeeze off the ASMs at about 45 km, break course, and retreat before the Gladius could turn or catch me in PDB range. This is the tactic that all fighter assets should employ when attacking a well-armed capital ship without cover or assistance -- minimising exposure. I felt helpless, however, to do anything about my wingmen... I needed them to take their shots against the destroyer, but at the same time they were rock stupid in how they went about doing it: they would fire one ASM at range, and at maximum burn they would continue to home in on the destroyer, waiting to fire their next ASM after the previous one struck. Inevitably, they would correct their course at about 15 km and sail right over top of the destroyer with only a few km to spare, and the obvious fate of a lone, unagile heavy fighter right over top of an armed PDB battery need not be repeated here.
Aside from venting, I was mainly wondering about a couple of things:
1) Is it possible to program Starshatter so assault missions that involve taking out large assets actually launch enough craft and supporting capships to get the job done? Perhaps there could even be a new mission type added, Attack (space) or Raid (surface), whose objectives are only to cause damage to the asset and not eliminate it outright? Though most of our capships were destroyed in the Jalah struggle (the Separatists were hit just as hard, if it makes you feel better), the Radix and Gershon destroyers were intact and had minimal damage, and their assistance destroying the Gladius would have been appreciated.
2) Could points be awarded for inflicting damage on an expensive asset even if that damage doesn't result in its immediate destruction? Say, every 10% damage inflicted on a capital ship or military installation in a given mission gives you 5% of the asset's total value in points: the final destruction of the asset gives you the remaining 50% of the asset's total value. For instance, if the Gladius is sitting at 63% hull status, it has lost 30% of its hull status and we've already been given 15% of its total value in points. I could launch on another mission and eliminate 3% of its hull with a pair of ASMs. As this would bring it down to 60%, I would gain another 5% of its value during that mission, such that I would be rewarded for causing attrition in the enemy even though I didn't destroy her outright.
3) Could fighters learn some tactics that don't involve flying into the effective range of point-defence batteries?
.