The only uselful role I see carriers playing in this game are to extend the range and speed of tiny hulls outside of actual combat. That way the swarm of fighters armed with 4 doomrays and an engine can be packed into a carrier with a range of 7 sct, speed of 25, and sensors of 15. That sounds like a huge amount of cheese to me.

Carriers have no place in combat. Their role is outside the immediate combat zone anyway. The navy treats it carriers like an offensive line treats its quarterback. They don't let it get anywhere near the badguys if they can at all help it. Besides, the tiny hulls don't seem like fighters to me, more like DD or frigate level hulls, considering how much they can mass compared to a huge hull.

That having been said, along with the lack of tactical combat, I see no role for carriers that would actually improve gameplay from my perspective.

It is just my perspective, though.

hate to point it out but the game already has fighters and carriers(sort of)

hate to point it out but the game already has fighters and carriers(sort of)

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain that particular statement. esp. the bit about carriers.

That having been said, along with the lack of tactical combat, I see no role for carriers that would actually improve gameplay from my perspective.

Carriers would add a layer of strategy to game as it stands, but with Tak combat carriers would truly shine.

what i refer to is the starbase mod for the mini-fighters and that is what a carrie would carry not ships capable of getting there on their own but shuttles that can't fly through space that far ie no warp or life support at all not the tiny ships becouse they can carry both

a fighter would carry weapons only and suffencient means to fly around the carrier in combat

unlike mordern navies where the fighters can fight long distance from carrier do to the fact that if they are shot down the pilot can survive maybe

if you want to put more weaps on the tiny ships then don't put engines on them

i expermented once a tiny ship with no engine can carry the same paylaod as a small with engines of course you can't use these for anything but defense but that means you can use them for base defense too sense they can get there just not fast

doing this as separate so that it can be read better

if i was able to i would take the mini-fighter mod off the base and make it ship capable with three sizes

1=3 fighters small enough to put on a small ship say size 10
2=6 fighters size 13
3=12 fighters size 15

and remember you could put more than one on a ship if ship is big enough of course and remember that the carrier is going to get involved in the fight

and for those of you who want to see the fighters remember that once the huge ships come out and involved in a fight you can barely see the tiny ships

Carriers are in Space Empires 5. Youll just have to get that if you want to to use them until GC develops further to enable this kind of gameplay.

Actually I find GC to be a jumble of ideas myself. On the one hand it seems to be trying to treat space warfare in a broadbrush type of way but then it zooms into the detail with individual designed spaceships.

Teh developers need to make up their mind which way the game is going and stick to it. Space Empires seems to have a monopoly on small scale tactics and strategy. IF I was Stardock I would be concentrating on really large scale warfare with literally hthousands of ships and loads of different gameplay concepts all done is a broadbrush fashion to really get an idea of huge galactic warfare. Otherwise you are getting two games doing almost the same thing in two almost identical ways.

Nats

Obviously the devs don't think a space strategy game shouldn't have carriers. Im sure it was a question of tiem and resources.

Actually, carriers would be quite useful. But, are we talking fighter carriers or fleet carriers? If you go with space combat, those would be two separate times. And, realistically, there's no reason why you wouldn't use them. A small fighter can do precision strikes against capital ships and manage to disable important systems. Want an example? Try StarGate: Atlantis sometime, specifically where an Earth fighter takes out the FTL drive of a Wraith hiveship.

Fleet carriers would also be a tactical advantage. Why spend money to put FLT engines on ships when you can load them with weapons and armor and stick the FTL engines on what carriers them? And unless you're talking cloaking tech, there's pretty much no way an enemy ship would sneak up on you before you've begone to launch the actual combat ships.

true but in the above case i would want to target the carrier first however i don't know what the ai would do

Why oh why did you rez this thread from the cripts of deceased conversations? There are 2 more carriers threads active.

I like carriers too, but i dont think it will ever work in such a way that other ship classes would still be usefull

Then why does our Navy commission different models of ships? Something weird in the air today.

In a way, there is a point... We stopped commissioning battleships...

At any rate, why DID someone hunt this thread out of the depths? lol.

You know, building a massive fleet of tiny fighters each with a doom-ray or blackhole generator, with a hyperwarpd-3 engine, and one defense device for whatever your main enemies weapons are, they would easily destroy any other force.


Of course by that part of the game, you could probably just build a massive force of huge warships at the same speed.

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

You know what, I regret that idea, carriers are a dumb idea to me now.

i think that everyone has it wrong or maybe i do

a fighter is a one person or two person craft

the tiny ship in this game i see as having at least 10 in the crew

so a fighter would be a lot smaller than that just big enough to carry one offensive weapon and maybe a shield or armor

deffesively the bigger ships could use the missile defense system against them

i like the idea of teching for more fighters in each bay that can be added to any ship large enough to carry the pod

say that first lvl pod carries 3 fighters 2nd lvl carries 6 and 3rd lvl carriers 9

so if a ship has 3 fighters it has three extra guns up to the 9 for each pod it carries

what the fighters would do for the playablity of the game is make the otherside have to put missile defense on their ships

and i would think that each group of fighter could target a different ship

and as for other classes of ships in the end game since i use my largest hull to put my transport on i end up only using one ship class anyways and at moment my largest hull is a gigantic hull which is 2x the size of a huge but before i got the gigantic to work i was the huge hull the same way

a fighter is a one person or two person craft the tiny ship in this game i see as having at least 10 in the crew

Problem with this is that the Terran/Human-style (which the Arceans use, as well) shows Tiny hulls being just that- one-person craft. You look at those Tiny hulls, and it's pretty obvious its a fighter. The AI even CALLS Tiny and Small hulls fighters (and Heavy Fighters), and refers to Medium hulls as Frigates and Cruisers. Larges are classified as Battleships, and Huges are Dreadnoughts. This is what the AI designates them as. I'm not just pulling names out of my ass to match with them. I'd prefer Tiny to be Frigate, Small for Destroyer, Medium for Cruiser, and the last two as they are, but this is the way the game's class defining system has it setup.

In a way, there is a point... We stopped commissioning battleships...

We could potentially revive battleships if we use missiles as their 'main guns', like the 'Advanced Battleships' from Rise of Nations. Those things would be a very effective Battleship-class vessel if they existed. They'd be like Ticonderoga-class Missile Cruisers, only even deadlier.

But the USN has essentially slimmed down to just Ticons and carriers, with smaller ships acting in picket roles.

But the USN has essentially slimmed down to just Ticons and carriers, with smaller ships acting in picket roles

True PaladinStorm, true. Somehow I think that in the end this will have been a mistake though, kind of like putting all of your eggs in one basket. But that's just my op!

the morden day us destroyer wieghs the same as a world war 2 battleship but cost a lot less all of the small ships exception submarianes are built to defend the carrier which only has offensive weapons ie the aircraft not saying it can't defend itself against a single combatent but it cant

Punctuation, paragraphs and capitalization are your friends, daniel. I can hardly make out a meaning in that jumble of seemingly random words.
And no, a modern day destroyer is NOT the same one as in WWII. Not even close. And the next generation, with the Zumwalt class missile destroyer is bordering sci-fi in it's design and weaponry.

sorry i didn't say it was the same i said it wieghed the same


i would go edit but for some reason they won't let me


but the subject was size of the tiny ships in this game


a ship can have a cockpit and still not be a fighter ie bombers and the space shuttle for instance

i think that the shuttle is about the size of the tiny ships in this game it can carry 10 poeple with life support

if you remember all of the sci-fi movies and shows that have fighters in them non of them have life support what i mean is that the pilot is in an enviroment suit

all a fighter is is an engine with a gun/guns tied to it with room for a pilot

i picture a space fighter to be only slightly larger than an f-15 becouse of the need of thrusters but then again a take of and land vertical fighter has thrusters doesn't it

and in the case of this game you could say that all of my crews travel in suits becouse since i don't have to put life support on the ships i don't

Far as I know, the pilots are in enviromental suits for protection, but the cockpits are pressurised and have atmosphere. That's the way it was in Freespace 1&2, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate and Space: Above and Beyond, as well as countless others I can't really remember now. And in Star Wars, they didn't even have enviromental suits.
So, with a Freespace universe comparison, you have:
Tiny Ships - Interceptors(Perseus, Pegasus, Valkyrie), Fighters(Erinyes, Hercules), escape pods(Hermes), up to 26 meters
Small Ships - Bombers(Ursa, Boanergzes), Support(Centaur), up to 52 meters
Medium Ships - Cruisers(Deimos), Corvettes(Leviathan), up to 450 meters
Large Ships - Destroyers(Orion, Hecate), up to 1.55 kilometers
Huge - Capital Ships(Colossus), up to 6 kilometers
Cargo - Freighter Ships(Argo, Elysium, Triton)

a ship can have a cockpit and still not be a fighter ie bombers and the space shuttle for instance

Did I say cockpit? I said no such thing. I continue to stand by the argument that the Human-style Tiny craft are just too small for anything but one pilot. You look at the Terran scout. It has nothing but a cockpit and wings and a little tiny engine. It is very obviously only large enough for one person.

And bombers and the space shuttle have alot more to them than just the cockpit, which allows for the larger crew capacity. A traditional bomber's cockpit (as opposed to a B-2 'Spirit' Stealth Bomber, which is a 2-man craft) is large enough for a pilot, a co-pilot, and the navigator, while the bombardier is in a further-back compartment, and gunners utilize the remaining crewspace along the rest of the craft. At least, this is with respect to old craft such as the Stratofortress- which is still in use, I believe. I'm currently not sure how the B-1 'Lancer' is setup internally - the Lancer being the third type of bomber that the US military wields, and is often viewed as our prime 'carpet bomber' ...

And, technically, bombers don't need much beyond the cockpit, the payload, and the engines. The B-2 Spirit does a decent job with just two guys running the show, the electronics on the assist. And the second guy is really just a backup.

Look to the A-10 'Warthog'. This thing is technically a form of bomber. It's primary role is ground support. It is loaded down with ASMs (Air-to-Surface Missiles) and bombs, and one big tank-buster gatling gun. And all it needs to fly is one guy.

as well as countless others I can't really remember now.

Such as the all-time classic Wing Commander (forget the stupid movie - the whole Pilgrim thing was just so idiotic. The Christopher Blair played by Mark 'Luke Skywalker' Hamill didn't need some special genetic 'gift' to be a talented pilot). Hmm... I need to make some Scimitar fighters, now...

EDIT: Also... I tend to be of the mind that Destroyers are supposed to be smaller than Cruisers. The order of 'craft' with respect to size in my mind is:

Fighter (including Heavy Fighters and Bombers)
Corvette
Frigate
Destroyer
Cruiser (and all varying types of Cruiser- Light and Battle)
Battleship
Dreadnought

guess you'll have to yell at the bab 5 guys becouse in that show the destroyer is bigger than the cruiser although i think the cruiser still has more firepower

i am not trying to argue about it just putting in my two cents worth

but my arguement about the engine and weapon still stands again i refer you to the f-15 has a one man crew where as the f-14 has two

by the way the secound man is the navigater both in the f-14 and the b-2

with the exception of two fighters in the usa aircraft all usa aircraft are in reallity fighter/bombers the two exception is the f-16 and the f-18 oh and of course the ones that have a b in their number/name ie the disegnation of an f-15 is really fb-15 same with all the other fighters including the warthog as you stated its job is close support for land troops including killing tanks

with the exception of two fighters in the usa aircraft all usa aircraft are in reallity fighter/bombers the two exception is the f-16 and the f-18 oh and of course the ones that have a b in their number/name ie the disegnation of an f-15 is really fb-15 same with all the other fighters including the warthog as you stated its job is close support for land troops including killing tanks

Not really, though. Many fighters are capable of carrying air-to-ground weapons but aren't fighter-bombers in any meaningful sense of the word. That term refers to planes like the F-111 or F-117 (which is admittedly mischaracterized as a "fighter" in offical documentation). F-15Es might be classified as fighter-bombers; not sure on that one. Other F-15s are plain fighters.

Actually, I'm not sure why you're drawing a distinction with the F-16 and the F-18. Both are fighter-bombers, IIRC.

sorry i was only going by what the us airforce says forgive me for believing the only ones who would know

the f-16 was designed to be a fighter otherwise they wouldn't have been built

the f-16 is the fastest and only aircraft that go from the ground straight up to its celling even the shuttle on launch isn't designed to go straight up it curves slightly from take off