Carriers - I know the debate has raged before...

I like carriers too. What if there were a ship componant FighterBay?

It could work like this: In a fleet with carrier bays available, the slowest numBays ships' speed doesn't count against the fleet's minimum speed.

The engine space saved (and it would have to be a savings, not just a transfer to the carrying ship) could then be used to extend the useful life of fighters. They would gain in weapons and defense.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Posting in support of this idea yet again.
Anything that increases the depth of battles is a good thing to me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

No point bringing it up. Stardock's heard... it'll probably be in GC3 or an upcoming expansion (I doubt it'll be in Dark Avatar).

Sorry, just the voice of realism.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think that carriers would be a great addition to this game. I just keep picturing a huge carrier dropping out of warp and a bunch of little fighters pouring out to attack a starbase.

I also think they should have tractor beams, and that every ship you defeat might not be destroyed, you could disable some of them. You could then pull defeated ships back to a planet or starbase and they could be stripped from there and you would learn some of the techs involved in their ships.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What if there were a ship componant FighterBay?

Like in master of orion u mean? I do not want to see GC turning into MOO.

Having said that however I would like to see carriers in GC, I think they would fit in very well in the game, good to watch in tactical combat too.

So I 5th the motion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think that carriers would be a great addition to this game. I just keep picturing a huge carrier dropping out of warp and a bunch of little fighters pouring out to attack a starbase.

That's a cut scene from MOO2!

Successfully updated karma reason!

with these ideas it doesnt seem like there would be any use for huge or large ships.

If you were fighting against a carrier what would the computor target first, the carrier or the ships?

if your ideas are implamented would the AI be able to work with it.

I like carriers too, but i dont think it will ever work in such a way that other ship classes would still be usefull. and 2ndly would the AI be able to use it

Successfully updated karma reason!

The most sensible way the fighters would work is you research the fighter bays. At first you can only put in only a single tiny one but with more research you can put more than one tiny one and then small ones and so on. Logically you would have to build the tiny ones then dock them in the bay of the ship. That wouldn't be a problem because anyone thats built a tiny ship for recon late in the game knows they take zero weeks to build on an average planet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What about the microfighters?I read it somewhere in Galciv2.

But about costs, a fighterbay would be alot to upkeep. Especially if you have a 100% Fighterbay ship.

What if you could design the fighters?

Successfully updated karma reason!

carrier or fighters? the comp should do a quick analysis... if it could reasonably destroy the fighters and then take out the carrier (say w/ 70% probability) then the fighters 1st, otherwise it targets the carrier in effort to strand the fighters.

ships operating out of range (having to move back w/in operational range) would suffer combat penalties for being out of supplies and parts.

but this would mean that carriers would operate like mini moveable starbases with a shorter range extension, e.g. 3.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This is probably something for Galciv 3, along those Terror Stars and Carriers. The thing is, I think smaller hull designs should be incapable of using hypdrive engines, which could bring the use of "Sub-Light" engines (the only sci-fi term I can think of for it). Carrier capacity can range from small to big (some carriers capable of holding a small squad of 12 fighters, some capable of holding hundreads) Although I think the capacity will be heavily dependant on logistics and hull size, as well as the carrier module. Not to mention if tactical combat is added in Galciv 3, carriers would fit along perfectly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree about Carriers being in GalCiv 3.

I would like to think about carriers being more like DW LAC carriers than fighter carriers, since the LAC (Light-Attack-Craft) and the regular warships move in the same medium.

That is all depend on the idea behind GalCiv warfare phelosephies and how the game would be played.

All in all, I would love to see some sort of strategic carrier in galciv2 just to load my tiny fighters and keep them with the rest of the fleet, I hardly use small fighters at all and curently my fleets are mostly battleships+ Frigates+ tiny fighters with loats of defence.

Successfully updated karma reason!

On another note, I think that we should change the name fomr fighters to gunboats since it's a more fitting name.

Main problem with gunboats in galciv is that curently they don't have any advantage on regular shups of the line.
In each popular sci-fi novel out there fighters\gunboats are used to out menuvere the enemy and cripple some importante objective before the capital ships start to slug it out.

In the [link="startfire saga"]http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0671721119/0671721119.htm">Linkstartfire saga, where you can see the best classical fighter action in military sci-fi (IMHO), fighters do hit and run attacks and get support from long range missiles, the only way to simulate this is by having a battleship fleet and carrier fleet and to send your fighters (on the strategic map) to attack the enemy fleet on hit and run attacks, since we don't have the option to tell our ships to do hit and run attacks it is most likly that our fighters will lose to the enemy fleet and so we spent a lot of money on nothing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

carrier or fighters? the comp should do a quick analysis... if it could reasonably destroy the fighters and then take out the carrier (say w/ 70% probability) then the fighters 1st, otherwise it targets the carrier in effort to strand the fighters.

Why?
Sometimes you know you would lose the fight but could kill the carrier ending up in mutual destruction.

No one has commentted on how this would still keep exsisting hulls usefull other then it have an enormous upkeep.

And still no way the AI would be able to choose what to do.

Successfully updated karma reason!

naval carriers are moveable bases

current us carriers carry fighters, fuel for fighters, fuel for the rest of the fleet, ammo for the fighters, ammo for the fleet, food for the fleet if that isn't a mobile base tell me what is

Successfully updated karma reason!

why don't the fighters be able to attack the planet defences them selves as well as protect the fleet

Successfully updated karma reason!

No one has commentted on how this would still keep exsisting hulls usefull other then it have an enormous upkeep.

How would adding carriers reduce the effectiveness of existing hulls?

Tiny hulls still only have 6 HP...

Successfully updated karma reason!

I see the biggest problem with carrier limitations in the combat system of GalCivII is that each ship is an independant entity in terms of actual combat. This brings about the we so puny race battle against the dread lords. While they have the best tech's it can also be a major disadvantage as your infrastructure needs to be built from ground up with most expensive tools. In the campaign and from the looks of it here tiny ships with big guns are stupidly cheap and in a single combat phase, how much damage can 5 fighter's with 2 Phasors VII do? Simply put if a small fighter compliment fitted with weapons against ships that have no optimal defence's will decimate any ship.

I would like to see a huge overhaul of the shipyard. Where ship size is internal components onl;, life support, reactors, escape pods, troop and crew qaurters, cargo for ammunition and supplies, emergency batteries, targetting computers. All the delicate stuff. And externally of course you can make your ship as ugly as you want, but weapons need certain levels of power now lets see ya battle that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

as for carriers and fighters if you have a carrier with fighters the fighters will not need engines to get anywhere

other thing i have noticed is that the ship components change size ie an engine on a tiny hull takes less space than one on a huge hull

i think all ship components except armor and maybe shields should be one size becouse frankly a five inch gun on a destorer is going to be the same size as a five inch gun on a carrier

but a small hull will not take as much armour as a huge hull does

Successfully updated karma reason!

oh the infamous realism arguement. Which applies in a game where there is FTL flight. Muliple humanoid races, and shitloads of planets to live on.

how about this, if components don't get larger, huge ships could make themselves immune to 1000's of small ships pretty freaking easily. Why cant they divide their firepower, modern ships can.

Successfully updated karma reason!

the huge ships are immune to the small ships now an example (no screen shot) is the defender sporting 50 plus in beam weapons defender is small hull the best i can do is 25 to 30

Successfully updated karma reason!

quote from Escorts and Carriers: A Suggestion for Dark Avatar

This module should be very large and even more expensive, so a carrier will be a large, valuable, vulnerable asset to the fleet, since a carrier equipped ship should not be able to hold enough weapons to fight off a real attack.

If fighter bays are too expensive, if it is cheaper to just put weapons on a large ship rather than investing production in fighters, then fighter bays won't get used. In order for carriers to work, they have to be at least competetive to the damage output of a regular ship.

An advantage within this game for having fighters is that they can target several ships in a round, instead of wasting all firepower on a small target. They also force large ships into targetting a small vessel and wasting their firepower.

A disadvantage of fighters is having to produce and then gather a wing of fighters from several shipyards. Hull cost and time spent for each fighter raises the cost per damage output.

Carriers could serve a useful role if they reduced fighter production overhead by eliminating the need to add engines to carried vessels. The result could be Defender class ships escourting fleets, instead of the less powerful Heavy Fighter class ships.

Another possibility would be to require Tiny hulls only as carried vessels. However that route eliminates tug boats and towed weapon platforms, and warp harnesses for freighters/dropships/colonizers/etc. Also, as Danielost pointed out, such low damage output is easily outclassed by defenses, rendering a wing of Tiny fighters ineffective.

Successfully updated karma reason!

u play 2 much starcraft!Plus, it'll have to be a huge ship. might not be worthwhile.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think maybe a kind of supership that would have massive firepower and defenses, and could carry fighters it could be the civs flagship.

Successfully updated karma reason!

with these ideas it doesnt seem like there would be any use for huge or large ships.

If you were fighting against a carrier what would the computor target first, the carrier or the ships?

You again. Well its up to you how to play this one. If the carrier is still heavily armed then it should be attacked first, if not then the battle Ai should go for the offensive ships. this is simple, why even question it? if you do not place engines on a ship you can pack in more weapons, those fighters are going to hit like a hammer, so it is best to take them out first

I like carriers too, but i dont think it will ever work in such a way that other ship classes would still be usefull. and 2ndly would the AI be able to use it

I think you are lying, You've always bashed the carrier idea at every opportunity, aren't you getting bored of this? the other ships will always have their uses if you're inventive enough in your strategies. A lot of us can win everytime now and its becoming a case of how you want to win being the most important. Tring out new ship configurations, fleet types...whatever. Diversity and the increase in options is what carriers would allow. As for whether the AI can cope with using or fighting them? The combat AI is just not very good at anything, its okay, but that is all it is ever going to be, so why not add another layer of strategy to the mix?

Why?
Sometimes you know you would lose the fight but could kill the carrier ending up in mutual destruction.

If you do not put engines on a spacecraft in gc2, it moves one place every turn. Those fighters will be moving at the minimum speed. I always put engines on my ships so i don't know if the minimum speed changes as engine tech increases, I'm going to assume it does. If so , then the remaining fighters can limp home or get picked up, en route or a space monster could have a go.

yeah we need to bring space sharks back into the game. they were fun and annoying, but mostly fun.

Successfully updated karma reason!