5 Carriers versus 2 Starbases

I have been doing tradeoffs for starbases versus heavy carriers for defending warp points to launch 400 heavy fighters in one turn onto the strategic map. Here is the design I plan to use - number of the component to include, name, size, damage, cost in minerals/ organics/ radioactives, then total size/ damage/ costs.

1 - Starbase hull when selected 2500/0/0
1 - Master Computer III 20/20 4000/1000/1000 same
1 - ECM III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Scattering Armor III 50/150 500/0/100 same
6 - Stealth Armor III 30/100 700/0/200 - 180/600 4200/0/1200
8 - Phased Shield Generator V 40/40 800/0/0 - 320/320 6400/0/0
9 - Shield Regenerator IV (not V) 20/20 850/0/260 180/180 7650/0/2340
The same as the base I posted in "ripper beams" without the Combat Sensors and Multiplex tracking.
Total non fighter 760/1280 25650/1000/4640
50 - Fighter Bay III 30/30 200/0/0 1500/1500 10000/0/0
Each is 90 cargo launch 1/combat and 4/game. So total is 4500 cargo 50/combat 200/game
12 - Cargo Bay III 20/20 200/0/0 240/240 2400/0/0 total 3000 cargo
Total fighter components 1740/1740 12400/0/0 and 7500 cargo
Grand total 88 components at 2500/3020 38050/1000/4640
Ratio nonfighter to fighter 0.43/0.73 - 2.1/all/all
With heavy fighters at 25 cargo each the base can hold 300 - spare space for attritition.
Shields are 3000 and regenerate 180 per combat turn.

1 - Heavy Carrier hull when selected 600/0/0
1 - Master Computer III 20/20 4000/1000/1000 same
1 - ECM III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Scattering Armor III 50/150 500/0/100 same
3 - Stealth Armor III 30/100 700/0/200 - 90/300 2100/0/600
4 - Phased Shield Generator V 40/40 800/0/0 - 160/160 3200/0/0
3 - Shield Regenerator IV (not V) 20/20 850/0/260 60/60 2550/0/780
5 - Quantum Engine III 10/20 460/0/80 50/100 2300/0/400
1 - Solar Sail III 20/20 400/0/100 same
1 - Cloaking Device III 40/40 2000/0/700 same
Total non fighter 500/860 18050/1000/3680
20 - Fighter Bay III 30/30 200/0/0 600/600 4000/0/0
Each is 90 cargo launch 1/combat and 4/game. So total is 1800 cargo 20/combat 80/game
5 - Cargo Bay III 20/20 200/0/0 100/100 1000/0/0 total 1250 cargo
Total fighter component 700/700 5000/0/0 and 3050 cargo
Grand total 45 components at 1200/1560 23050/1000/3680
Ratio nonfighter to fighter 0.71/1.23 - 3.6/all/all
With heavy fighters at 25 cargo each the carrier can hold 122 - spare space for attritition.
Shields are 1500 and regenerate 60 per combat turn.

Two bases launch 100/combat 400/game hold 600 fighters and have 176 components
Five carriers launch 100/combat 400/game hold 610 fighters and have 225 components
Two bases are 6000 shields and 6040 damage. Two bases cost 76100/2000/9280
Five carriers are 7500 shields and 7800 damage. Five carriers cost 115250/5000/18400

Carriers move 11 on the strategic map. Bases cannot move unless you put an Emergency Propulsion V pod on them, in which case they can move 5.
Carriers cost 151%/250%/198% compared to bases for the same fighter capability.
Total unit cost per hits to kill for carriers is 120%/190%/156% compared to bases.
If damaged but not destroyed, there are 27% more components on the carriers to be repaired.

My conclusions - for defending a warp point bases make more sense than carriers. Especially since the bases can be refit for other purposes, while carriers require 50% components be fighter bays. Furthermore unless you are doing a long range rampage through enemy territory, it makes more sense to use EPP equipped bases and move forward one system at a time, consolidating your gained territory. A colony can store fighters in cargo facilities and launch 1000 per game turn, so there is no need for carriers at your colonies.

To summarize - massed carriers are NOT cost effective for ANY purpose.

Edit : Once you have learned Starbases and EPP V of course.....

[This message has been edited by LCC (edited 13 June 2001).]