I rather like Anton's idea of adding more variety to fighter craft than turn speed and agility. Varied strafing and possibly even reverse speeds would help to keep things interesting. In my mind, I'd like to see sluggish ships capable of surprising enemies with heightened strafe and reverse speeds when compared to their more speedy counterparts.
Re-classifying fighters is one thing, but my biggest question is: Can we have a little more difference in the currently available Heavy Fighters' power cores/loadouts? Most HFs have the same power core and lack being able to mount codes, with very few ships standing out. Such examples are the Hammerhead (7 codes!), Marauder (RT core), the Sunrider (absurd agility and turn speed w/ 7 guns), and the Jackdaw (CD/T + CD w/ code slots). It would be nice to see some HFs further standing out with say, 2 Class 6 gun slots, which would allow them to cater to a burst-and-dodge play style.
While we're at it, I wouldn't mind seeing varied power core/equipment variety in LFs, either. Perhaps a few LFs could be given class 8 or even class 9 slots to offer even more variety in play style.
Just, so strong dependency of agility and speed from size and armor that in really just arcade assumption. If we stay with it, we to be honestly no need so big gap between fighters as class, they can be balanced inside one big fighters class. At least for HF and VHF, because faster cruise for smallest fighters make difference.
If going from more simulator space dofight side, size will affect only on ship inertia (response in freel balance), while in same size, armor and powerplant, engineer will choose between two variants - concentrate most thrust to forward vector and turning systems, or split it on sides and allow more strafe. That system exists in some games, and work okey enough.
There already exists fighters which more good for strafe and which more good for out-turning. So it possible make bigger accent on this characteristics, instead of playing with armor and core for VHF, while other classes have small sense.
Anton hits the nail on the head. There's no need for a huge gap between HFs and VHFs. Just throw them into the same class, and have varying strengths and weaknesses between each.
That won't change the current meta that much. It also won't allow various people to win easier.
Why touching what is already working? Implementations of that kind are risky and take lots of responsibility.
Current system could be tweaked a bit better, but don't expect much.
However, I'm a newb myself and would like to hear some venerable vets' opinions on this.
I still think a quick-n-dirty fix to HFs could be to give all of them across the board access to 2xClass 6 weapon slots.
Alternatively, they could instead have a 400m/s cruise speed to allow them to pursue most ship types.
(Or maybe give one or two the 400m/s cruise speed in exchange for not getting Class 6 slots. Edit: I'm thinking the Kingfisher, Switchblade, and Moonbeam. Civ/Bw/GaCiv, to allow all factions access to such an option.)
![[Image: ISZ6Ws9.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ISZ6Ws9.png)
