- impossibility of adding engines to small spacecraft - impossibility of moving small spacecraft around the map without a carrier

Now I'm no modder but I think this part could be done. If I remember (doubtful) correctly (miracles do happen) each module in the game has set stats but when you mount it to a hull its size is modified depending on the hull size you put it on. A MK1 Ion engine could be size 3 on a tiny hull but put it on a huge hull and its size is multiplied to be 5 times larger, 15. (No I'm not using actual numbers its just an example)

So, what you culd theoretically do is alter the size modifier for a hull class. Make it so engines mounted on tiny hulls require 100 times the normal space thus you make them impossible to mount.

If you can alter that value then I assume there is a value somewhere that says the base speed for the hull is 1 parsec, find it and change that to 0.

Alternatively, could you create a race ability that gives -100% speed? DA is implementing race mega abilities so maybe you could mod the effect into those if it cant go anywhere else.

EDIT - this is a stupid idea as it would affect all ships in the game not just the small ships! But then if you combine it with the size modifier idea maybe you could give other classes a size discount to engines allowing them to be fitted more easily to compensate a bit.

How you do the other things I have no idea at all, good luck to ye!

Your idea is a bit unbalancing because there will be a long time before you research larger hulls. Until then, tiny hulls are useless. You will not be able to beuild scouts or have decent warfare until medium ships, and that is a bit unbalancing. The player will just beeline to medium ships, and the AI won't stand a chance.


I think a better idea would be to have a large module which allows the ship to override the speed and range of tiny (and mayby small) ships within the same fleet. That way, you do not have to put engines or life suport on, leaving more room for weapons. In addition, the carrier module would have to be large enough so it will only fit on large and huge hulls (mayby medium hulls after a lot of miniturization research). This has two effects:

One, it makes carriers a late game edition. Also, since it requires existing logistics, the carrier would be most effective in the late-game anyway.

Two, it keeps carriers from overshadowing capital ships, for a non-carrier ship will always be much more powerful than a carrier. A carrier will depend mostly on its fleet for protecton, and will only provide some support. Non-carrier capital ships can fight on its own.

With this, carriers do not become the no-brainer choice stadock fears they will become. They become an option, and options add to the strategy.

With this, carriers do not become the no-brainer choice stadock fears they will become. They become an option, and options add to the strategy.

If only it could be so simple. I am a definite pro-carrier person myself and I have tried to resist these topics as much as possible, until now. It is great to discuss the how's and why's of carriers and everyone under the sun has a pro or con for them. Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever get them in GC2, whether as an update or an expansion item. The devs have made it clear that we won't see them. Hell, the devs seem to be more open to the MP aspect than carriers, so I don't expect them. Now if GC3 were to be more tactical, with emphasis on ships, weapons, defenses, and soldiering... we might have something there. Or maybe Stardock could go in a different direction and make a totally new game that is purely, utterly, insanely tactical, tactical, tactical. Give us F.I.S.T. (Flying Infantry Shock Troops)soldiers, planetary defenses, planet/star destroyers... I could just keep on going  
But seriously, come on Stardock... make us a whole new game with more tactics than we could shake a stick at... I think a lot of us would buy it, what do you guys think?  

When you boil down what a Carrier gives you that a Battleship/Dreadnought does not, the main difference that appears is that a Carrier can project force over a greater distance than any other ship (other than a current missile crusier) can respond to.

Since all weapon ranges in GC2 are equal to each other and have equal reloading/recharging times, there really is no difference between a huge hull that is primarily an offensive weapons platform with minor defenses and a huge hull that sends off offensive weaponry in the form of very tiny hulls (that strikes/returns and uses the same basic types of weaponry every other ship uses) and has little room for defenses.

Now, if &/or when true tactical combat is introduced in a future offering, parameters such as range of weapons [effective & maximum], restriction of weapons to certain types of ships or hull sizes (analgonous to the difference between a 5" gun max on a destroyer and a 16" gun on a battleship), recycle time for firing, target aquisition/stealthing and the like will make having a variety of ships and the battle formations of those ships a very important part of winning battles.

And yes - then Carriers would be a powerful addition to the arsenal.

Carriers rulez fooz(jk) lol

Heck yeh they do. This game needs carriers if it wants to keep it's fan base. Carriers are only the begining though we also NEED multiplayer and tactical combat and a planet destroying weapon and I could go on but others get pissed going over the same old thing.

as good of an idea as this is it has a down side

Heck yeh they do. This game needs carriers if it wants to keep it's fan base. Carriers are only the begining though we also NEED multiplayer and tactical combat and a planet destroying weapon and I could go on but others get pissed going over the same old thing.

Carriers, MP, tac combat, and planet destroyers are not going to keep or destroy a fan base.

I would like to see MP, just to play with my nephew.
All the rest, don't care one iota about.

And even MP, if it never happens it never happens, it is still a great game in its own right.

How many other game companies have listened to, and responded so well to, its customers as Stardock has?

What I see is just, give me this, give me that, I won't be happy otherwise.

Find a different game if you want a different game.

There is just so much Stardock can do, after all.



The game does not NEED carriers.

It would make a bit more variety, that's all.
But it is not needed, by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps it is because they are called fighters.

Rename them to be destroyers or sloops or carracks or clippers or junks or schooners - anything but fighters. I think that is what is confusing everyone. They see fighter and decide that fighters need carriers.

Eh! What do I know? I don't even have a nickname.