The Night Hawk The Night Hawk

Signature list for Carriers

▼

Signature list for Carriers

Devs who want carriers, don't be shy, just sign in.

from GalCiv2 Forums
This is a signature list for those who want carriers in galciv2 or the expansion after DA.
If you don't know what carriers are then visit this page:

My idea about what carriers should be like

Mine is just 1 of 115 posts so you can look at them if you have the time.
The total number of people who already signed themselves in is 32.
Don't write any long replies but the devs are more then welcome to. Just a few lines is enough. If you want to sign on the list just write 33 then 34 and so on. Remember to include numbers first to maintain clarity.

Don't be shy, just sign in!!  
22,523 views 38 replies
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
41 now.

Hey regicide are you signed cuz the 40 signed doesn't include you!
41 if it includes you!


Sorry, I forgot you already signed in. You're #27 to sign, right?

P.S.Parrots don't count




TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top
Frogboy:
We're not doing carriers in GalCiv II. I don't think it would be fun, I don't think it would add much to the game.

Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Kryo, can you sticky this thread?

And yes, we know Carriers won't be done, but if we scream and yell enough, you guys might change your mind. Probably not, but hey, being annoying can get what you want!
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
... not in GalCiv II. And annoying them too much may cause a decision to even not put them in GalCiv III, just out of spite.
Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'll put my vote in for carriers of some form, with mobile starbases being the preferred way to implement them. But, I'd rather have cloaking devices and other new ship modules first

If only Starbases could move and be part of fleets... then there probably wouldn't have so many requests for Carriers
Reply #32 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Nah. Just call them Tankers. It's more appropriate. They're essentially supplying a greater range to other vessels, yes? Then they are Tankers, not Carriers. Or Tenders, maybe. But I like the term Tankers.
Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
[@Cari_Elf] I don't care, I just don't have time to code anything like carriers


Ummmmmm, isn't your job programming?
And add me as signed, don't care what number I am, for I am number one!
Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top


Ummmmmm, isn't your job programming?


Yes, but she has better things to do than
to code anything like carriers
... like code Dark Avatar with more important features.
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
es, but she has better things to do thanto code anything like carriers
... like code Dark Avatar with more important features.


You got me on that one!  
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Okey,

Count me as signed.
(43)

Before this I thought carriers were a load of junk that idiots wouldn't stop posting about(no offence to all you carrier-nuts). But I have to agree Night Hawk because his idea about carriers adds a bit of complexity and gives it meaning.
So I guess I'm a carrier nut.

or not.
(most deffinetly not)
Reply #38 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
/signed

It would add strategy and realism !

If it was up to me, tiny & small ships wouldn't be able to go very far from either a planet or a big/huge ship, and huge ships would be used more like a support ship that can travel farther and repair/create smaller ships.. they would be expensive ships with very expensive modules you can add to it, like maybe give an attack bonus to the small ships next to it..

I mean the way I picture a huge ship is like an aircraft carrier in real life, you have the small aircrafts with just one or a couple guys sitting in it and then you have the huge carrier that can repair, refuel, take care of the pilots and help the aircrafts navigate and kill the enemy..