Original article written November 2016 (alpha 2.6)

A common complaint seen on the Star Citizen forums and subreddit is that the flight model is completely wrong for one reason or another. Most common complaints are that either combat involved either endless "turreting", "circle strafing" or "jousting" (these are all valid but shouldn't dominate), and the other end of the spectrum are those that fear an unrealistic "on rails" feeling. I believe all of these problems can be solved and allow players to choose their gameplay style.

As discussed below, turreting involves low skill- the player simply points their ship at the enemy ship and fires. Circle strafing can involve considerable more skill, but in it's current iteration ships continually point towards one another making combat a sort of slug fest of guns vs. shields and armor (albeit with a lot of maneuvering to try to get the other to miss). Jousting faces a similar problem of attacking head-on, passing each other, and turning around to repeat, all the while having guns pointed at each other. I have been a life-long avid flight combat sim player, space combat player, PTU tester, and real-life pilot. I believe something is missing from the Star Citizen flight model that has been present in all Chris Robert's games and every space sim hit: turning combat. Please read the following of my humble suggestion of why this should be in the game, how we can go from two types of combat (strafe and joust) and one type of fighter to four types of combat and four types of fighters (fighters good at strafe, turn, boom, or joust), how we can appease the turn fighter camp and the strafe fighting camp, and how I think it can be done while still making hard-core space simmers and casual gamers alike satisfied with gameplay.

Original 2.6 TL;DR (too long; didn't read): Make thrust roughly commensurate to thruster nozzle size, make g-forces more in line with human capabilities, and the flight model will be much more realistic AND fun, allowing for different categories of fighters (from mav-centric to main-centric): Strafe fighter, Turn fighter, Boom and Zoom, and Long-range. (also please get rid of burning fuel in un-accelerated space flight!)

Update 3.0 TL;DR: Make bottom/hover thrusters more powerful than mavs/retros on most ships, link speed limits directly with thrust-to-mass ratios in all directions: mains, retros, and mavs; the higher the thrust to mass ratio, the higher the speed limit in that direction. Gradually ramp turn rates down as speed increases instead of binary either SCM/turning or "afterburner"/not turning. Lateral G's (and all G's in general) need to achieve unconsciousness easier, as with all G forces, they should be 100% realistic. Add latency to mav thrusters. Decoupled should be “Direct Mode” to make circle strafing less dominant and require more skill. One last unrelated thing: In my opinion, hover-bikes should hover, not fly.

Update 3.3 TL;DR PART 1: The changes coming shouldn't be feared by those that like Strafe fighting (3.0 style) - there will still be ships that will excel at that, those with higher mav to main thrust ratios will be the best at such fighting styles. The changes will only have more styles of fighting and variation from ship to ship. In order for one of the four combat styles to be viable (turn fighting) however, decoupled flight must be more challenging to aim- requiring greater skill.

Update 3.3 TL;DR PART 2: Things that could help planetary hovering: Increase the mav VFX (visual effects) even more than shown on the demo to make hover flight look more natural, reduce the latency / increase "jerk" of mavs when a ship is trying to remain stationary (both in hover and stationary space flight), and IFCS could be less effective at correcting for gravity except for downward pointing / hover mavs for atmospheric/planetary flight.

Update after 2018.10.26 RTV: Looks like everything is mostly addressed from this article, except "WWII" "turn fighting" will be in atmosphere only which is reasonable; however there will most likely continue to be the problem of "guns always facing each other" without some limits on rotational rates [see "Rotational rates in *coupled flight only* (only for non 'strafe-fighters') should be decreased...a lot!" below] . Gunnery is something that still needs to be addressed in-depth (see bottom of article). Also, I do hope AI will fly in such a manner consistent with players than: Either strafe or main-centric in space and WWII in atmosphere.

[For discussion on 3.0 / 3. 3 updates see close to bottom of this article]

Currently, circle strafing (or variations of circle strafing such a spirling, legacy roll) is the dominant form of PvP combat for mainly two reasons: Turn rates are high enough to always point the dangerous end of spacecraft at the enemy, and spacecraft can slow very quickly as to not over-run the enemy.

Although circle strafing has it's place, and should be a viable combat tactic in space, it has the following disadvantages for tactical gameplay:

• Guns are always pointed towards each other, make it a slug-out of whom has the larger guns/shields/armor
• In circle strafing it is difficult for an attacker to have a significant advantage over the other
• The variety in combat tactics in circle strafing are limited

II. Boom and zoom, AKA “Jousting”/ "Asteroids Style"

Boom and zoom was the WWII aerial combat alternative to “getting on the enemy's’ tail” style dogfighting. It was the preferred method of combat for aircraft that were faster than the enemy and/or could not out-turn the enemy aircraft. The P-38 lightning was a famous boom-and-zoomer. With it’s twin-boom huge engines (and large thrust to weight ratio), it was extremely fast but couldn’t out-turn the lighter aircraft. The aircraft would make firing passes at the enemy and could pick when to engage/disengage the enemy. Again, the gaming community shouldn’t shun this style of gameplay and dismiss it as “jousting”, it was a valid combat technique in WWII and it should be here. What would be bad is if this was the only or dominate gameplay style with little room for other combat styles or if it was pure "jousting" (always pointed nose to nose when attacking). It would be preferable to have different spacecraft and different situations that boom and zoom style combat applied to best. Larger, heavier fighters with disproportionately large engines (and therefore large thrust to mass ratios) with relatively smaller maneuvering thrusters should be the type of spacecraft to utilize this style of combat. In WWII, a P-38 would lose the ability to boom and zoom if it was forced into a turning fight. Countering a boom and zoomer would entail seeing the boom and zoomer as they start their attack, and quickly turning just when they are almost inside firing range. In Star Citizen, the boom and zoomer could go straight by you without landing any shots (and possibly shot by missiles), or turn and lose the advantage. Currently in Star Citizen, if you aren’t doing a variation of circle strafing you are probably booming and zooming (really “jousting” since flying head-on). Afterburner, and the use of boost fuel to use it, is a great mechanic to limit this style as well, as the player will eventually run out of boost from booming and zooming - which is analogous to a WWII-fighter losing energy (altitude) from booming and zooming.

The problem with boom and zoom in Star Citizen:

Currently, since ships rotate so fast, boom and zooming becomes more like jousting head on to each other over and over. This is again the same problem with circle strafing rotational rates. Rotational rates being so high doesn't allow a spacecraft to try to gain an advantage by being behind the other ship. If ship rotational rates where limited and retro thrusters much weaker in most ships, the flight paths would be more curved allowing an attacker to try to gain an advantage. Jousting should be a valid gameplay option too (especially in decoupled flight and/or in a highly maneuverable ship), but it shouldn't dominate the only alternative to circle-strafing.

Boom and zoom / Jousting:

• High rotational rates and high deceleration lead to jousting instead WWII style, curved flight path boom and zoom
• Jousting leads to head-on attacks where an attacker cannot gain much advantage
• Lower rotational rates and lower deceleration would lead to curved flight paths where a boom and zoomer could try to attack from behind

III. Long range/ Missile

This is pretty self explanatory except for the fact that missiles and missile evasion needs work. It shouldn’t be enough to fire flare or chaff to evade a missile. It should require firing flare/chaff AND out-turning the missile. Missiles should be a long range weapon, and should be superior to non-turning (boom and zoomers) or stationary(“turreting”) spacecraft, but weak to tight-turning spacecraft.

Now the ships cannot continually point towards each other so much and must go towards each other’s tail, more in line with aircraft combat. However, they have to come to a stop first and then must go back into forward flight to try to get on each other’s tail. Furthermore, a ship could just stay stationary and slowly point towards the other ship- a sort of slow turret. How do these ships slow so fast when their retro thrusters are so much smaller than the main thrusters? There is definitely some handwavium going on here. It wouldn’t be realistic for ships with disproportionately smaller retro thrusters than mains to slow so quickly, the retro thrusters should be much less powerful! (See below on retro thrusters- I think in general the spacecraft's performance should more or less match it's aesthetics)

But reducing rotational rates on ships *coupled flight only* with increasing speed (and *no decrease* in rotational speeds for decoupled) is very important for adding turn style combat. In 2.6 PTU, CIG was working on slowing reducing rotational rates with higher speed, but when it went live that didn’t get included for one reason or another. I’m not sure if it is a bug or intended, but it was a great idea and goes along perfectly with the notion of reduced rotation for turn fighting. I would propose that higher SCM speeds (above 100m/s) begin to reduce the rate of rotation as well along with higher SCM speeds so that higher speed turn fighting is encouraged without penalizing the player with reduced boost fuel (or alternatively overheating as below). Lower SCM speeds, say 100m/s or below should keep the current high speed rotational rates to continue to allow for circle strafing style gameplay. In addition, decoupled flight and slower SCM speeds should still allow the current high rate rotational rates, but rotational accuracy in decoupled should be diminished slightly to make turn fighting and circle strafing more or less equally viable (see uncoupled direct mode below). I am proposing you could still fly completely unlike an airplane in decoupled, OR choose a strafing fighter, OR fly at medium SCM speeds with full rotational ability.

To be clear, ships that would favor turn-fighting would have lower turn radii due to less powerful mavs, so therefore IFCS would limit rate of rotation more on these ships to roughly match the more limited turn radius - so the radius of turn is physics based (mav thrust to weight ratio), while the IFCS is artificial, in the sense that fly by wire is artificial, in that it would limit rotational rates to more or less match the same rate of turn (vector change). The IFCS in coupled mode would keep the nose of the spacecraft within say 45 degrees of the changing vector, but *not* exactly the vector, which would lead to an "on rails"/Elite Dangerous feeling. In other words, the nose of the spaceship should be allowed to deviate some from the path/vector of the craft in coupled mode. As always, uncoupled would allow the spacecraft to point in any direction unrestricted and at unlimited rotational rates.

IFCS has been explained in the past as a system that makes the ship easier to control for pilots, pointing the nose of the spacecraft in the direction you are going and limiting rates and speeds to keep you under control. It's a brilliant way that CIG has to make both WWII style combat and "Newtonian" combat viable in the same game.

Retro thrusters should be much less powerful and slower than forward thrusters!

(except for ships with larger retro thrusters...and in general, thrust should match thruster size)

Retro thrusters giving retro thrust that coincides with their ships physical appearance has the following advantages:

• Encourages more aircraft-like flight in most ships, more emulating WWII aircraft.
• Gives a large variety in ships. Some ships decelerate slowly, others like the Sabre or Cutlass slow very quickly
• Discourages circle-strafing as the dominate gameplay in most ships
• Still allows circle-strafing, especially in ships with large retro and maneuvering thrusters

With the exception of some ships, (such as the Sabre with its massive retro thrusters) most ships should have pretty low deceleration values. The Hornet, for example, has virtually no retro thrusters to speak of- using only maneuvering thrusters to slow down. Lowering retro thrust on most ships would make circle strafing less desirable and would emulate the fact that WWII fighter aircraft could accelerate quickly but decelerate much less slowly- encouraging forward aircraft-like flight. Accelerating toward a target in a ship to attempt to circle strafe with low thrust retros would result in overshooting the target, essentially negating the ability to circle strafe in such craft. Without the ability to slam on the brakes from high speed, circle strafing would no longer be the dominant form of combat in most spacecraft. Of course ships like the cutlass would still be great a circle strafing due to the ability to fly quickly towards a target, slow quickly due to reversing the main engines, and circle the enemy ship.

With less retro thrust AND less rotational rate, the ships wouldn’t just fly past each other pointing at each other...they would fly past each other and not be able to point at each other- just like an aircraft. Lowering retro thrust on ships without large retro thrusters is a win-win, it makes those ships more WWII-fighter like, and more realistic.

Potential objections to lower rotational rates and less retro thrust on ships with small retro thrusters

Lower rotational rates are probably the least desired thing by many players...maybe most of the players! Star Citizen fighter pilots have become accustomed to their many skillful variations of circle strafing style combat. I’m not here to take that away! They are spaceships, and fully 3 dimensional fighting should stay, be viable, and be fun. In order to give us that missing style of turning combat, rotational rates should be decreased in coupled mode only. Decoupled mode would still allow fast rotation, but would be slightly harder to aim at targets (see “direct mode” below). Lower SCM speeds would still enjoy full rotational speeds as 2.6.0. In addition, some highly maneuverable ships -perhaps such as the Cutlass- would retain high rotational rates in coupled as designated circle-strafe style ships. That should mean decoupled and circle-strafe players are happy. The idea is to make decoupled mode require more skill but still make decoupled circle strafing a fun viable option. Of bigger concern by game developers might be the proposed slower deceleration. This could cause problems when flying around space stations, for example, and running into things. PRE mode should do a bit of handwavium and divert extra power to retro thrusters for this reason so new players don't go crashing into landing pads. Also, it's okay if some skill is needed in maneuvering and landing- you can't land a plane going 300 mph until the last second without some forethought.

SCM speeds should be increased moderately and should vary more between types of ships*

SCM speeds should be increased more to be inline with their WWII analogous counterparts (around 150% of 2.6.0 values, more for boom and zoomers*). It is important to have enough forward speed to encourage more turning gameplay, and to have more variation in speed between ships to allow different gameplay styles. Slow, light fighters should be circle strafers, medium speed fighters turners, and fast heavy fighters boom and zoomers. I propose that higher SCM speeds (above 100m/s) begin to reduce the rate of rotation. For the model I am proposing, it is essential to have higher SCM speeds and at those higher SCM speeds have rate of rotation reduced to allow continuous turning combat without the punishment of using afterburner or boost.

*Alternatively, increased massively across the board see above alternative increased speeds and rates chart

Afterburner (if we must have it) should deplete quickly and recharge moderately fast to emulate energy management in WWII dogfighting

Afterburner (if we must have it) use should more or less be the equivalent of diving an aircraft in WWII. An aircraft can easily dive at 6000 feet per minute and a P-51 fighter can climb at around 3,500 feet per minute. Most aerial combat was below 10,000 feet (averaged 8,500 feet) in altitude so afterburner use should last around 1 minute 30 seconds and should recharge in around 3 minutes (afterburner off emulating climbing). With the use of afterburner in bursts of this length combat maneuvers such boom and zoom can be emulated.

Let’s rename boost fuel “thruster heat”, reverse the gauge and get rid of questionable boost scoops

Credit u/ragaroy on r/starcitizen on this one (this is where I saw the idea anyway), it would make much more sense from a realism standpoint (and change the gameplay none) if the boosters and engines simply overheated when using boost and afterburner from prolonged use. Non-use allows them to cool down. It’s a very simple fix, rename boost fuel to thruster heat and make the gauge go up instead of down when being used. As an aside, I can live with the word “afterburner” when no such thing would exist on a spacecraft because I choose to believe that the word has changed meaning in the future- much like the word “laser” might be used colloquially in the future.

How the various ships could behave (these are just examples of how different ships could have different handling techniques)

In general, there should be at least four types of ships, different ships would favor different styles of combat : [ordered from low main thrust to mass ratio to high main thrust to mass ratios…. “Small, light, medium, heavy, poor, average, good” are all in reference in comparison of thrust to mass ratios].

Circle strafer: Lightweight, slower, excellent turning radius. Small main engines, excellent retro, excellent mav thrusters [analogous to a helicopter]

Turning combat ship: Med. weight, avg speed, good turning radius. Average main engines, poor retro, good mav thrusters [analogous to a Spitfire]

Jack-of-all trades: Med. weight, avg speed, medium turning radius. Average main engines, average retro, average mav thrusters [analogous to P-51]

Boom and zoomer: Heavy weight, high speed, poor turning radius. V. Large main engines, poor retro, poor mav thrusters [analogous to a P-38]

Put another way:

• Low thrust to weight mavs, high thrust to weight mains- boom and zoomer
• Med thrust to weight mavs, med thrust to weight mains- turn fighter
• High thrust to weight mavs- low thrust to weight mains- strafer

Boom and zoomer would have the highest thrust to weight mains to be the fastest, and down to the the strafer with it's lowest thrust to weight mains- this balances things out so that the strafer isn't ALSO capable of being a boomer- and just happens to fall nicely into WWII style combat.

For example, these could hypothetically be:

Cutlass: More “spaceship”-like circle-strafing combat, excellent stopping, excellent strafing ability [large retro and side thrusters]

Hornet: Jack-of-all trades combat, moderate stopping ability, moderate strafing ability [medium retro and mav thrusters]

Avenger: Forward plane-like turning combat, poor stopping , moderate strafing ability [small retro, medium mav thrusters]

Redeemer: Boom and zoomer combat, poor stopping, poor strafing ability [large main engine, small retro and mav thrusters]

These are just examples of how different ships could be balanced, not picking on particular ships. Note that a Vanguard currently wouldn’t fit the mold of a boom and zoomer with it’s current lower speed and and large retro thrusters.

Other ships would of course not fall neatly within these categories. Initially, the Vangaurd would seem to fit a boom-and-zoomer perfectly. However, the Vanguard has large retro thrusters meaning is can slow quickly meaning it could in theory rapidly approach a target, come to a near stop while aiming guns at the target the whole time. It could also zoom attack a target, quickly stop, turn around on a dime, and then attack again- making it more of a jouster than a boom-and-zoomer. So even if the Vangaurd had weak mavs, it would be more of a jousting-and-turret (and that might be ok- this is not to belittle that style, it'd be another unique fighting style among many but it would have to be balanced as this would be a very powerful ship).

Another issue may be there are many smaller ships that are very maneuverable AND fast (great mavs, mains, and retros) ...like the 300 series. These would be able to do it all- strafe, turn, AND boom/joust, so they would need to be balanced with lesser weapons, shields and armor - which makes sense since they are small. A medium size ship with great mavs, mains, and retros would need more aggressive balancing since they would be very overpowered with things such as purchase/operating cost, no ejection seats, lack of bed, over-rated engines/mavs overheat/run out of boost quickly, poor IR and radar signature (missiles lock on much more easily at longer distances) etc.

Why (Most) heavy transport ships shouldn’t be faster

If Star Citizen was to emulate 100% real physics, and remove speed limits, then acceleration would be the only thing that mattered. A lighter ship with a higher thrust to mass ratio, and thus higher acceleration, would outrun a larger heavier ship with a lower thrust to mass ratio (and lower acceleration) every time. A ship with lower acceleration would never catch up to a ship with higher acceleration in 100% realistic space physics. Therefore this entire discussion asserts that all speed limits should be proportional to acceleration rates, acceleration rates should be based on thrust to mass ratios, and thrust should be proportional to the size of the thrusters on a ship.

Why heavy transports should continue to be slower than fighters:

• Faster, lighter, small fighters are analogous to WWII fighters, and larger ships analogous to WWII bombers, cargo, or transport. Large ships being slower is in keeping with the WWII in space feel.
• If we were to come at it from a fully-realistic, no-speed-limit approach ships that accelerate slower would never catch up to a ship that accelerates faster. Having heavy ships be slower than (most) light ships keeps speed limits makes as much sense as possible from a realism standpoint. Therefore faster accelerating ships (higher thrust-to-mass ratio) should have higher top speeds if there must be speed limits.
• The explanation for ship speed limits was based on the ability to stop in a certain amount of time for safety. This was the lore explanation. Large heavy ships with lower thrust-to-mass ratios would need more time to slow down, therefore for "safety" would need lower speed limits.
• If large heavy ships could just afterburn out of combat, escorts would be of little use. Large ship owners needing escorts adds to gameplay.
• Large heavy ships being faster than light small ships would make interdiction fighters much less useful. Yes, they could drop them out of quantum but and get a few shots off but large heavy ship accelerations would have to be on the order of many minutes to make this a useful mechanic and that is just way too slow.
• Large heavy ships already have a balance with small light fighters by having turrets and being able to take many more hits. This can be balanced even more by making large heavy ship turrets and armor stronger.
• The escape mechanic that many are arguing won't exist will exist with quantum travel. CIG can balance the amount of time or skill it takes to re-enter quantum travel easily and as much as they want...anywhere from immediately to many minutes.