[The E]

I'd have to agree, as comm menus go, it's pretty easy to operate, and the shortcuts easy to memorize.

[Spoon]

I'd have to agree, as comm menus go, it's pretty easy to operate, and the shortcuts easy to memorize.

Indeed this.
You can tap C-3-1 or C-3-9 within a second. I don't see how you could make the comms menu 'less cumbersome' without doing a dragon age 2 'streamline' on it.

[Qent]

Did you forget about heavy fighter/bomber attacks?  Despite flak and AAA, capital ships are still very vulnerable to fightercraft, and given that intersystem drives for fighters are still extremely expensive at the time of FS2, the fightercraft you need to counter the enemy's need to get to the right system somehow.  Enter the destroyer.

I didn't, but I don't know how expensive "extremely" is. I might still rather risk several intersystem drives than a destroyer. If the destroyer jumps in, then it probably won't get to jump again. Even if it does, it definitely won't get to jump a third time before getting attacked by bombers from the enemy destroyer. It could launch more fighters, but on the other hand it would be a giant target. So the destroyer could only enter the system at the end of the offensive, fire everything, and secure the node.

But, uh, that's all speculation right now.

[headdie]

Did you forget about heavy fighter/bomber attacks?  Despite flak and AAA, capital ships are still very vulnerable to fightercraft, and given that intersystem drives for fighters are still extremely expensive at the time of FS2, the fightercraft you need to counter the enemy's need to get to the right system somehow.  Enter the destroyer.

I didn't, but I don't know how expensive "extremely" is. I might still rather risk several intersystem drives than a destroyer. If the destroyer jumps in, then it probably won't get to jump again. Even if it does, it definitely won't get to jump a third time before getting attacked by bombers from the enemy destroyer. It could launch more fighters, but on the other hand it would be a giant target. So the destroyer could only enter the system at the end of the offensive, fire everything, and secure the node.

But, uh, that's all speculation right now.

Destroyers provide more than just a fighter launch pad.  they are also:

mobile repair and resupply centres for fighters,
provide tactical mission support with the resupply ships,
having a destroyer in system shortens turn around time for fighters by making jumps shorter and removing the lengthy inter system jump stage between missions,
in system command and control for friendly activities means faster command response to changing situations.
large area target location and tracking, even in hostile territory.

In FS fighters and bombers are best used as force multipliers rather than the backbone of your efforts, they are short term force projection.  If you want to hold territory you need a capship and we know how vulnerable they are without fighter support.

[Qent]

But that's why all your efforts would be building up to getting a destroyer into the system. The only difference is whether or not to let the destroyer duke it out with other warships.

[Unknown Target]

I really hate the way the comms menu works. It's pretty cumbersome.

How would you go about improving it?

I don't know, maybe some sort of radial menu or something. I find a lot of times that I want to assign individual fighters to individual duties, but the way it's currently arranged is pretty awkward for doing that - I have to go through like three or four layers of number menus before getting to the fighter I want. It'd be nice if there were some shortcuts or something. One thing I've always missed is being able to tell one wing to attack another wing, and I'd like to have some way of either the comm menu or (preferably) the wing health display icons to display which craft are fighters and which are bombers; I always worry that I'm telling bombers to attack a wing of fighters. Basically for anything except ordering all fighters to do something at once, I've found the menu to be awkward to use.

On another note, it'd be cool if "depart" was actually useful; like for instance if you tell a damaged fighter to depart, it'll come back in some X amount of time repaired and ready to go. I know it can be done with SEXPs but it'd be nice if it was an automatic thing through all missions, IMO.

[Spoon]

On another note, it'd be cool if "depart" was actually useful; like for instance if you tell a damaged fighter to depart, it'll come back in some X amount of time repaired and ready to go. I know it can be done with SEXPs but it'd be nice if it was an automatic thing through all missions, IMO.

I like this idea.

[IronBeer]

On another note, it'd be cool if "depart" was actually useful; like for instance if you tell a damaged fighter to depart, it'll come back in some X amount of time repaired and ready to go. I know it can be done with SEXPs but it'd be nice if it was an automatic thing through all missions, IMO.

Perhaps settable on a mission-by-mission basis. There could be a variety of things that would happen to a craft that's departed, and a canny FREDder could come up with a lot of ideas.

Off-screen repair is one idea.

Off the top of my head, you could also have a campaign with a limited number of allied pilots- telling damaged ships to retreat saves manpower for future missions. In a similar vein, you might have a campaign with a limited number of total assignable strikecraft; sending beat-up ships home would preserve them for later.

There'd be a lot of things you could do, but I don't think any new features would be needed to take advantage of the idea. It'd just be limited by one's creativity, and while it would be tedious to set it mission-by-mission, the specificity of this demi-feature is such that it should stay tedious, IMO. I don't think there's gonna be a rush of campaigns featuring pilot and craft reserve management any time soon.

[jr2]

Be nice if there was some sort of script to take care of the tedium for you..