Any use for a really small carrier?

[Gandalph]

Originally posted by capnq:

quote:

---

The 12 fighters and the ship arrives a firing point approximatly at the same time.

How are you managing that? When I have a carrier launching fighters on several consecutive combat turns, the fighters get strung out in a chain with each group a full move or more apart.

Oh, wait, I see you have the launching ship charging into the combat, as well. I usually trade armaments for cargo space and have the carriers set to Don't Get Hurt.

---

I have found that if you put a single CSM on the ship and set the strategy to maximum weapons range, the carrier/whatever will stay effectively away from the battle and keep the fighter Groups together so they all arrive together.

[Skulky]

This is neat. I gotta try this. I've always wanted a "heli-pad" like modern destroyers or something like and escort carrier. Up until now i couldnt' find any use for the later and hadn't really thought much about the first one. I'd keep the other guy honest with PDC, and you wouldn't even always need to load the bays.

Component idea: quick launch bays, they can launch 3 fighters combat per turn and 3 fighters per game turn, so they are more in short term, but less in long term. WP attack?

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Gandalph:
I have found that if you put a single CSM on the ship and set the strategy to maximum weapons range, the carrier/whatever will stay effectively away from the battle and keep the fighter Groups together so they all arrive together.

Yeah, that what I do, the CSM helps to waste some point defence shots.

I realize using these mini-carriers won't work against someone determined to max out the PCD tech area -- but like Rautha says you can get them out earlier and surprise an opponent

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
"I never play against the AI"
Well, then you have just given your oppoenents something to think about. Hmm.

Well. I'm playing in several PBW games so they will just have to guess, is it in your game I'm building them??

[Gryphin]

Ruatha, I'm only in the Gallactic Bash but I'm taking notes.
SEdatabase > Players Ruatha > Ship Desgin > Destroyers with fighters

[ January 03, 2003, 22:45: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
I've built a destroyer with two capital weapons, ECM, solar sails and solar panels. And a fighter bay level 1 and a cargo bay.

I suspect you'd be better off using Light Carriers with their heavy mounts and greater carrying capacity. On the other hand, it is a neat design, and you shouldn't let practicality get in the way of the Art of Ship Design. Well, unless you want to win...heh

[ January 03, 2003, 22:59: Message edited by: spoon ]

[Pax]

Originally posted by Skulky:
Component idea: quick launch bays, they can launch 3 fighters combat per turn and 3 fighters per game turn, so they are more in short term, but less in long term. WP attack?

I've actually been thinking of something similar for my mod-in-progress, Exodus; one of the traits is "Doctrine: Advanced Carriers", and it will greatly enhance fightercraft, carriers, and related components.

My notes regarding unit-launch components include this:

code:

---

UNIT LAUNCH



||Tech  ||         Cargo Capacity                        ||  Launch  ||

||      ||-----------------------------------------------||          ||

||Level || Satellite | Mine | Fighter |Adv Fighter| Drone|| Capacity ||

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

||  1   ||    10     |   5  |    5    |    10     |  10  ||    1     ||

||  2   ||    20     |  10  |   10    |    20     |  20  ||    2     ||

||  3   ||    30     |  15  |   20    |    40     |  40  ||    3     ||

||  4   ||    50     |  20  |   40    |    80     |  80  ||    4     ||

||  5   ||    80     |  30  |   80    |   160     | 160  ||    6     ||

||  6   ||   120     |  40  |  160    |   320     | 320  ||    8     ||

||  7   ||   200     |  50  |  320    |   640     | 640  ||   10     ||

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



SPECIAL: Advanced Launch Bay



Level   Cargo (kT)  Launch Rate

1         5           2

2        10           4

3        20           6

4        40           8

5        80          12

6       160          16

7       320          20





SPECIAL: External Fighter Link

  -- launch rate of 1/combat-turn and game-turn, cargo for one of required type of fighter



1 (requires small fighters); 

2 (requires medium fighters);

3 (requires large fighters);

4 (requires advanced / huge fighters);

5 (requires PF's);





Special Bay racial-trait requirements:

 External Fighter Link -- "Doctrine: Advanced Carrier" -and- "Microscalar Engineering"

 Advanced Fighter Bay --- "Doctrine: Advanced Carrier"

 Advanced Launch Bay ---- "Doctrine: Advanced Carrier"

---

So, yes, an Advanced Fighter Bay VII will be able to spew 20 fighters per turn per component. Mind, they won't be cheap, and won't innately store diddly ... but the advanced fighter-launch-and-recovery systems will make for faster speeds in getting the fighters into space, fighting on behalf of the carrier.

Making fighters become and remain a viable combat option throughout the game is one of the things I want to do with Exodus ... without making them the combat choice. I want a balance between missile use, fighter use, torpedo use, and direct-beam/projectile use.

And no, I haven't picked specific sizes for each component yet.

I'm also considering an "external fighter link" ... launch/recover one fighter, with cargo space FOR one fighter, with the component itself remarkably small ... the concept being fighters that don't land INSIDE the carrier, but instead, dock TO the carrier (the External Links will, obviously, have the damaged-first trait of armor, and not a lot of HP themselves ...). Such a component would be perfect for adding a small bit of increased firepower to a ship (picture one of those destroyers carrying only 6 fighters instead of 12 ... but, it can drop all six at once ... in roughly the same "space" in terms of hull kT).

[ January 04, 2003, 13:25: Message edited by: Pax ]

[Krsqk]

IMO, the major difficulty in (re-)balancing everything is making all options viable without making them identical (i.e., all damage/tonnage/reload formulae exactly the same, etc.). If you can pull it off, I for one will tip my hat to you.

I like the destroyer carrier idea. It has good elements of surprise, at least the first couple of times it's tried. Never building more than two or three of the same ship name (i.e., rename designs every turn) also helps with that. And ISTR reading the "use light carriers as early game heavy-weapons bases" idea before, but that doesn't make it any less effective. Anything to throw the opponent off-balance, even if it is tactically implausible in the long term, is a good idea IMO. At least against humans--the AI doesn't know the difference.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Skulky:
This is neat. I gotta try this. I've always wanted a "heli-pad" like modern destroyers or something like and escort carrier. Up until now i couldnt' find any use for the later and hadn't really thought much about the first one. I'd keep the other guy honest with PDC, and you wouldn't even always need to load the bays.

Component idea: quick launch bays, they can launch 3 fighters combat per turn and 3 fighters per game turn, so they are more in short term, but less in long term. WP attack?

I think that's a viable idea. Especially with the new restrictions on recovery. Just say that it takes a long time to pack the fighters into their 'quick launch' carriages in the bays. So it allows very quick launches in the short term (when they are ready) but no faster than normal in the long term. This would actually be a good technical explanation for the recovery rule that you have to have full movement to land.

Some careful math needs to be done on the rate of launch/size of the bay/cargo capacity of the bay. The 'quick launch' should have somewhat less cargo capacity for its size to account for the extra launch equipment, maybe none at all. If it's all taken up with equipment you have to think about your carrier design more carefully. The quick-launch bay also needs to be substantially more expensive, of course.

[ January 04, 2003, 04:43: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
I've built a destroyer with two capital weapons, ECM, solar sails and solar panels. And a fighter bay level 1 and a cargo bay.
The Destroyer can launch one fighter each combat turn up to a total of 12 small fighters.
The 12 fighters and the ship arrives a firing point approximatly at the same time. In a battle group of 4 destroyers that makes 48 fighters and 4 destroyers for the cost of two ordinary small carriers with a total of 36 carriers.
The fighters may have rocket pods.
Is this a good early game strategy (I haven't got into anyy fight with them yet, and the simulation results are non-conclusive).
I was thinking of pairing them with an orinary fighter carrier to overwhelm any point defence so that some of the major fighter Groups get a chance to fire. Do pint defense cannons target "Strongest" first or?
I quite like these destroyers as I haven't seen any of them before (Maybe becourse they're useless?!?)
They come at half the price of an ordinary carrier and can fire 14-26 weapons at first combat turn (per destroyer and it's own fighters) depending on the fighter arnament, I like that!

Are they useless? Should I stop making them?

In the simulator one on one against my other top-design destroyer I loose three fighters (that one has a Point defense cannon and 5 Depleted Uranium cannons level 5 instead of Two for the fighter destroyer)

Gosh, I think you should tell us if it's a good strategy. That's what this forum is for, reporting your experiences with playing the game!

Point-defense probably follows whatever strategy the ship has been given. Another 'over-simplification' of combat, I think. We ought ot be able to use different strategies for PD vs. main weapons. In practice, I suspect that PD just targets what comes into range first and so it is effectively targetted at 'fastest' most of the time.

Small carriers are a nice concept but I think the design of the game is slanted against them. In "RL" the usefullness of small carriers is in protecting convoys of civilian merchants or military supply ships from light raiders like submarines and enemy planes. In SE these units are invisible. No civilian merchants are available and only the single abstract 'supplies' has to be gotten to your ships. No ammunition ships, no food ships, no medical ships, etc. It would be a micromanagement nightmare if they were included anyway. So the 'fun' of getting down to the logistical level and protecting your supply lines (or attacking someone else's!) is absent. Ah well, you can't have everything in one game.

If the way sensors works can be changed in SE V there will be a use for small carriers, though. This is their other use in "RL"... scouting. You now, if you have anything in a system, even one dumb satellite, you can see EVERYTHING in the system. This is ridiculous. Implement limited sensor ranges and suddenly scouting is necessary and small carriers would be great for this.

Other than that, I have always wanted to experiment with 'self escort' by putting a fighter bay or two on a transport (it has cargo capacity, after all) and a few fighters. Will a transport with 'don't get hurt' orders launch fighters in strategic combat? Or will it just run away with the fighters still stored and get bLasted with them still on board? I don't recall seeing sat-layers ever deploy their satellites in strategic combat. I've never gotten around to testing this idea.

Maybe if you make one class of transport with mostly fighter bays the AI routines will treat it as a carrier? Then it can be an 'escort' for other transports and LOOK like a transport until your enemy attacks. Then it turns out to be a Q-ship. And while it is not attacked it can still be an effective fighter transport, moving decent quantities of fighters from the 'rear' to the front lines.

[ January 04, 2003, 05:02: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]