Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[xenoargh]

I'm in complete agreement with Megas; the biggest problem with missiles is largely that they're one-and-done, and if they're not used ideally, they're just wasted OPs. 

Sure, they're great burst-damage for zero flux, but, with the exception of a missile-heavy flagship carefully controlled by a player, they tend to get wasted more often than not, especially vs. a player fleet that is equipped to handle it.  Yes, they give AI fleets an "equalizer" to punish players who've pushed the edge a bit too far, but I don't exactly fear missiles, personally.

As for shortening the time a battle takes... I've found it's the opposite.  Typically, I want to get the AI to launch its missiles if I can, to minimize risks later.  That takes time.  Missiles only "save" time, in the sense that the final kill on a bigger ship is a few seconds shorter... but the time it took to get that ship ready to kill is usually larger, because of what the OP said; I don't have the same depth of firepower and Flux.

I get that players abound who think that missiles are great because they can occasionally feel like a badass blowing away an Onslaught with Reapers or whatever.  But if you're playing a mixed-arms fleet that's designed to neutralize missiles (with firepower that can also contribute to ship / fighter kills), you can see they're not that cool.  If the AI did the same, players would largely be in agreement about this, I suspect.

[FooF]

To the OP: No.

The point of missiles are to provide flux-free damage, alpha-strike potential, and/or an opportunity to exploit temporary weaknesses. Missiles win flux-wars and punch holes through armor that can literally take minutes to punch through with an ill-suited weapon but can be opened instantly with a missile.

The regenerating missile argument falls flat when I consider that the vast majority of combat situations are decided in less than 5 minutes. CR is built-in to prevent long kite-and-snipe engagements. Limited missiles also plays into a more "arcade"-type of battle. What I hear in this argument is that equipping missiles gimps a ship long-term. That may be accurate, but most of the combat mechanics encourage fast time-to-kill percentages. That's why Safety Overrides is what it is. I usually have missiles to spare at the end of battles because I try to maximize their effectiveness.

If I equip two Reapers on my starter Wolf, yes, I lose a few OP that could have been better served for Vents or hull mods but I gain the ability to absolutely crush a Destroyer that has me beat in all other regards save mobility. Missiles turn otherwise average ships into force multipliers for the fleet. The "Harpoon Hell" that occurs when a ship gets overloaded is so dangerous because even frigates are equipped with them and can contribute to the Alpha strike. Alternatively, it lets my little Wolf genuinely threaten even a Dominator. It won't win the battle single-handedly but a single torpedo creates opportunity for the rest of the fleet to exploit.

@ xenoargh

If you're designing entire fleets to fight missile swarms, the missiles are in fact doing their job, even if not a single one is fired. Every Dual-flak or PD laser you throw on a ship is a weapon mount that could have been more effectively utilized to kill another ship rather shoot down missiles. If missiles were regenerating, all that does it put more and more emphasis on PD, which lowers time to kill overall (because PD doesn't kill ships). What the game needs right now are more distinct "anti-fighter" vs. "anti-missile" PD. Currently, they do both and if you equip anti-fighter you get anti-missile, and vice versa.

Yes, the AI has a bad habit of unloading half of its ordnance on the first frigates in a fight. That's dumb and does create "wasted" OP for AI ships but if the AI were more judicious in its missile-use, I would come to the opposite conclusion: missiles are freaking powerful and I need to avoid/mitigate them.

Missiles can be improved but I don't think there needs to be wholesale change to their mechanics.

[xenoargh]

You're kidding, right?

Dual-flak?

PD lasers?

Yeah, you're kidding.

[Megas]

Re: PD weapons.
Depends.  PD tends to be flux-efficient.  Most ships do not have the flux stats to support assault weapons in every mount, especially flux hogs like blasters and Mjolnir.  For example, Dominator.  I would like to mount Railguns and Needlers in the small mounts, but it does not have the flux stats to fire them and Maulers and heavy weapons.  I usually end up mounting Vulcans in all of the small mounts (or maybe three light needlers in the front), and let heavy and medium mounts deal with assault.  Also, ships like Falcon and Eagle.  What will they use in the energy mounts?  Pulse lasers and blasters to brawl and have flux problems and give up their ballistic and range superiority?  No, those ships will likely use beams to backup their superior ballistic power, and some beams have PD as a nice side-effect.  Even high-tech ships have difficulty supporting more than a few non-beam energy weapons.

In case of LR PD laser, it is a general-purpose weapon.  It is designed primarily as PD, and not that great at it, but it also useful as Tactical Laser-Lite if flux cost (or weapon availability) is an issue.  More often than not, I pick LR PD Laser over Tactical Laser because the former is more common, faster, and cheaper to use than Tactical Laser.

Dual-flak is both among the best PD in the game and a good short-range assault weapon.  Not as useful for assault as before due to AI kiting-and-turtling so much now.

Most of the best PD weapons have a use beyond PD alone.

Then there is that weird weapon Devastator that seems assault first, PD second.

If missiles were regenerating, all that does it put more and more emphasis on PD, which lowers time to kill overall (because PD doesn't kill ships). What the game needs right now are more distinct "anti-fighter" vs. "anti-missile" PD. Currently, they do both and if you equip anti-fighter you get anti-missile, and vice versa.

That is because the line between fighter and missile is blurred to the point of being mostly indistinguishable aside that missiles require green diamond mounts and LPCs require flight decks.  As for effectiveness, fighters are generally superior to regenerating missiles because fighters are fast and damaging, while the regenerators are too flawed.

CR is built-in to prevent long kite-and-snipe engagements.

Unfortunately, the AI does not think so, and trying to force fights against the cowardly AI without fighters is a pain, either because my big ship is too slow or my small ships are not powerful enough to attack without taking casualties.

[xenoargh]

Dual-Flak's all right, if you're just trying to save turrets, but it's not great otherwise.  I'd rather have two Flaks; more range, can engage two targets on different arcs, etc. 

For 50% less OPs than two Flaks, you get 1 more shot / second, which is meaningful, but not nearly as much as one would think, given the range disparity and damage difference- two shots of Flak kill a Hammer but it takes three from Dual Flak, due to the threshold-y nature of the missile hitpoints (which really should be built around Flak damage and all other PD adjusted TTK-wise to be balanced, imo).  Granted, late-game Captain bonuses can push Dual Flak over that particular threshold, but I usually don't want to spend their level-ups on that if I'm playing Vanilla straight.

Meanwhile, with a range of only 400, it's just not engaging quickly enough against fast-movers and it's almost useless against Sabots.  If Dual Flak had 500 range, it'd be arguable that it's better for builds where you only want one turret doing anti-missile PD on a given arc. 

But usually, on Enforcers, I lose 4 OPs and a turret to have two Flaks, which means that practically no Harpoons can get through vs. leveled Captains, because of the percentile nature of range bonuses, both Captain and Hull Mod, plus the late-game penalties of ECM.

name         range   damage/shot     OPs   energy/shot   chargedown   burst size
Flak Cannon   500   200            8      50      1              1
Dual Flak Cannon   400   150            12      50      0.33              1

I completely agree that LRPD is now what Tac Lasers were with PDAI, only cheaper and slightly less damage.  They're about the only buy for Energy PD right now; Burst PD is great for player-ships, but is terrible if you're building a late-game fleet to brawl, because of the ammo pool issues, PD Lasers have too little range and efficiency, Mining Lasers are even worse.  There was a squirrel-case for IR Pulse with PDAI, but I don't think it matters now that range kiting is so nerfed late-game by ECM.

[intrinsic_parity]

I would generally agree that missiles are on the weak side but I still think that 0 Op is too far. Ships with universal/hybrid mounts would all be thrown out of balance. For instance, legion with 5x medium sabot pods would be insanely overpowered. It would have a ton of extra op to equip the best bombers or have incredible flux stats and weapons, plus unleashing 20 sabots simultaneously is already obnoxious in itself. Sabots in general would be incredibly overpowered. The are generally immune to PD since their second stage arms outside of PD range. I think sabots in general are a bit op when stacked, even in the current game build. They definitely don't need any help.

[AxleMC131]

To the OP: No.

The point of missiles are to provide flux-free damage, alpha-strike potential, and/or an opportunity to exploit temporary weaknesses. Missiles win flux-wars and punch holes through armor that can literally take minutes to punch through with an ill-suited weapon but can be opened instantly with a missile.

The regenerating missile argument falls flat when I consider that the vast majority of combat situations are decided in less than 5 minutes. CR is built-in to prevent long kite-and-snipe engagements. Limited missiles also plays into a more "arcade"-type of battle. What I hear in this argument is that equipping missiles gimps a ship long-term. That may be accurate, but most of the combat mechanics encourage fast time-to-kill percentages. That's why Safety Overrides is what it is. I usually have missiles to spare at the end of battles because I try to maximize their effectiveness.

If I equip two Reapers on my starter Wolf, yes, I lose a few OP that could have been better served for Vents or hull mods but I gain the ability to absolutely crush a Destroyer that has me beat in all other regards save mobility. Missiles turn otherwise average ships into force multipliers for the fleet. The "Harpoon Hell" that occurs when a ship gets overloaded is so dangerous because even frigates are equipped with them and can contribute to the Alpha strike. Alternatively, it lets my little Wolf genuinely threaten even a Dominator. It won't win the battle single-handedly but a single torpedo creates opportunity for the rest of the fleet to exploit.

Yes, yes, and yes. Thanks FooF for putting into comprehensive words what I was madly unable to last night.


Incidentally, I do want to apologise to Wapno for the manner in which I presented my initial counter-argument. It was rude, poorly-thought out, and at a time when my mind was definitely not functioning at full capacity (ie. late at night when I was about to go to bed). And while I stand by my argument, I will accept that some people find it more effective to swap missiles for extra ordnance points to use elsewhere - I just find that an extremely strange way of thinking, due to (for a start) FooF's above points about the strengths missiles have over other weapon types.

Nonetheless, I apologise profusely for my rudeness, and as per my own personal rules for such situations, I shall humbly bow out of this conversation henceforth.

[Linnis]

Regenerative missiles are fine, just town down sabots. I mean instead of pilum and Lashers with missiles spam now its just bomber spam.

The only time that non regenerative missiles feel like an designed choice is when having small fights with ships that will overload from being hit with an harpoon.

Otherwise anything that is not a sabot is useless in endgame.

[Megas]

I prefer dual flak over single flak due to 1) turrets and 2) rate-of-fire.  I had times when single flaks fired their shots, stopped the first wave of missiles, then another wave gets through between flak salvos.  Single flak is good mainly when lack of either OP or dual flak availability is a problem.  The only time dual flak is not good enough is to defend against Squalls if there are not enough.  (Probably need about four dual flak to stop squalls.  Anything less needs Devastator backup.)

@ xenoargh: The biggest disadvantage of burst PD is availability.  Even if I want to use them, I do not have enough for more than a few ships.  As for Tactical Lasers, I am likely not to have IPDAI, so using it for PD is usually not an option.  Also, with less skill power, the flux cost of Tactical Laser can be a problem for some ships.  Finally, Tactical Laser is rarer than other lasers.

[Wapno]

I am not opposed to the OP, if missiles stay as they are.  I prefer all missiles gain regeneration instead, though.  I would use fighters' Swarmers over the limited four-shot if I had a choice.

With tight OP budgets, if I need to sacrifice something, missiles are always the first to go.  Sometimes, that is not enough, and I need to sacrifice more than missiles alone, but missiles are always first.

I must say, it feels good to see like-minded people around here. The latter part of that quote is exactly the problem I try to bring up with this topic - it is perfectly viable strategy to drop missiles and use their OP to reinforce other aspects of the ship. Since the same doesn't work the other way (as in, dropping guns/vents for more missiles is not as effective) it's an obvious balance problem.

I support regeneration for all missiles with all my heart. It would be absolutely awesome, but knowing how Alex stubbornly opposes that idea, I don't see it happening any time soon.

To the OP: No.

The point of missiles are to provide flux-free damage, alpha-strike potential, and/or an opportunity to exploit temporary weaknesses. Missiles win flux-wars and punch holes through armor that can literally take minutes to punch through with an ill-suited weapon but can be opened instantly with a missile.

Almost all of what you described can be accomplished with a proper setup of vents, guns and hullmods on a ship, including setups that vent more flux than their weapons generate. The difference is that this is going to last you an entire fight, while missile launchers immediately become dead Ordnance Points as soon as they run out of ammo.

If I have a choice between temporary damage burst on one side and constant, high damage output on the other, the latter is always going to win.

The regenerating missile argument falls flat when I consider that the vast majority of combat situations are decided in less than 5 minutes. CR is built-in to prevent long kite-and-snipe engagements. Limited missiles also plays into a more "arcade"-type of battle. What I hear in this argument is that equipping missiles gimps a ship long-term. That may be accurate, but most of the combat mechanics encourage fast time-to-kill percentages. That's why Safety Overrides is what it is. I usually have missiles to spare at the end of battles because I try to maximize their effectiveness.

I have a feeling some people tend to ignore the fact that combat in this game is almost never 1v1 duel, at least unless it's the very start of the game. It's not about killing a single ship as fast as possible, but usually defeating an entire enemy armada, preferably without losing any ship in the process. Missiles are perfect for overkilling one, similarly-sized ship, but in macro perspective, compared to a loadout that is tougher, has more DPS and can take more beating, they are a horrible sell.

About the last part of that quote - if you're left with missiles at the end of the fight, that only means you're hoarding them. I think Alex himself has stated on his blog (according to my memory, it was when discussing ship systems, right before their introduction) that if there exists a mechanic that forces players to hoard stuff instead of using it, then it's not a good thing, at least definitely not fun.

If I equip two Reapers on my starter Wolf, yes, I lose a few OP that could have been better served for Vents or hull mods but I gain the ability to absolutely crush a Destroyer that has me beat in all other regards save mobility. Missiles turn otherwise average ships into force multipliers for the fleet. The "Harpoon Hell" that occurs when a ship gets overloaded is so dangerous because even frigates are equipped with them and can contribute to the Alpha strike. Alternatively, it lets my little Wolf genuinely threaten even a Dominator. It won't win the battle single-handedly but a single torpedo creates opportunity for the rest of the fleet to exploit.

Exactly how are you going to crush a destroyer with a single Wolf with Reapers? Unless we're talking about a destroyer that's already overloaded or being attacked by the rest of your fleet, then you can even reaper-shot it with a friggin Kite, but still, you have to get through its shields first. And then, even after you crush that destroyer, you're not going to crush any more destroyers because you're out of reapers...

Alternatively, you can drop the reapers and equip that Wolf with Pulse Laser, or even Heavy Blaster + Safety Overrides. Now it can actually pose a threat to destroyers.

And as I've already mentioned in my second post, the "Harpoon Hell" is largely ineffective tactic, if not outright horrible, even considering if it's not stopped by PD from the allies next to the overloaded ship (which I see happening very often). Simply put, you're wasting OP from several ships from your fleet just to kill a single destroyer. In many late-game battles, there's at least 10 more waiting in the line, and you cannot take them down with "Harpoon Hell" anymore, because you're out of ammo - instead you will have to somehow deal with them using ships weakened by installing now-empty missile launchers.

[Megas]

@ Wapno:  If regenerating missiles is not an option, then free or drastically reduced cost (akin to single-shots) of missiles as you proposed is not a bad idea.  Fighters, being indistinguishable from regenerating missiles other than being effective enough as a weapon, shows that regenerating missiles can work.  The same could be said about ballistics, though energy weapons lost its main advantage of unlimited ammo in the process.  I do not think fighters are overpowered per se (aside from Warthogs, maybe), but carriers do not suffer disadvantages normally suffered by gunships.  The main thing inhibiting pure carrier fleets is AI stupidity - they insist on sending their fighters to escort your flagship instead of at enemies to kill.  Currently, carriers are best used either as a solo flagship, as AI support for your frontline flagship to make use of their fighter escort, or bomber factories (in case of Drover or Astral).

If regenerating missiles is a bad idea, then so is fighters and unlimited ballistics.  Salamanders are merely a homing stun gun, and Pilums seemed to have been weakened enough that player probably has to build specifically for Pilum spam for it to have a chance.  (I have not yet tried to build a Pilum spam fleet in 0.8+, so I do not know if it still works.)  I remember Pilums used to take quite a beating before one could be shot down.  Today, they are trivially destroyed even by weak weapons.  On the other hand, Swarmers are much harder to stop.  LR PD laser used to stop them easily, but not anymore.  It is like Pilums and Swarmers swapped hit points.

Come to think of it, perhaps all missiles regenerating could raise gunships to the level of carriers.  It could extend general combat range, and Starsector needs more long-ranged combat.  Weapon range is generally too short, not much longer than the length of a few ships.

I would like to see MIRVs restored to their second version, which was the regenerating version of the first, since AI still cannot converse them (aside from one for a final revenge attack).

[Draba]

Missiles in general are already a tough sell, since they are extremely limited and highly situational type of weapon. Thing is, installing them takes the same resource that could instead be spent on more flux vents/capacitors or better weapons/hullmods. At least in my case, 9 times out of 10 it's far, FAR more profitable to just rip out any missile launchers, leave their mounts blank and instead spend those OP points on Flux Distributor or other things that would last throughout an entire fight

I'm in the same boat, dumping missiles first on OP issues and think they are underwhelming considering their cost.
Way too unreliable when used by the AI, often still a gamble in the hands of the player(the obvious Afflictor torps aside).

Missiles aren't really combat-economical as a primary weapon for most ships, and as a secondary weapon their ECCM and Expanded Racks upgrades can't really compete for OPs with ballistics and energy weapons.

That's a nice summary: not strong enough to be relied on, too expensive for support.

I am not opposed to the OP, if missiles stay as they are.  I prefer all missiles gain regeneration instead, though.  I would use fighters' Swarmers over the limited four-shot if I had a choice.

Regeneration would be nice, but after reading the suggestion I think this one is even better.
If you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for missile OP costs they are still the short-term power boost they are intended to be.
Only the opportunity cost shrinks: you still brought something with more missile mounts and overall weaker stats into the fight, but at least it can have some decent weapons/hullmods.
Ship stats/mounts would need some tweaking though.

I think both versions would be improvements, in-combat missile reloads for CR would also make me a happy camper.
Both versions would also reduce the annoyance of AI wasting missiles like there's no tomorrow.

[FooF]

@ Wapno

Flux positive firing of weapons only occurs when a.) you have SO's bonuses (and thereby reduce your longevity and range) or b.) when you max vents and use relatively weak weapons. Most of the ships in the game, especially the low-tech ones, are extremely flux starved. You can't be flux positive on an Enforcer without going almost all small mounts or PD. The point being, the only way to stay flux positive is to gimp yourself in some way, which is the same argument being made for limited-fire missiles. "High damage, all the time" doesn't exist without a trade-off and not utilizing missile mounts to save OP is typically not enough. I'd love to see some of the non-SO builds you're using where you can achieve this. SO is an exception to the rule and has its own strengths and weaknesses. It can't be used as a "typical" build.

Missiles allow for a ship to operate outside of its typical role. Or to put it another way, missiles have always been supplementary. They are not primary damage dealers nor are they intended to be so. The only ship in the game where this is the case is the Gryphon and it has a ship system to regenerate missiles. The "friggin Kite" can only hurt a Dominator with missiles. No amount of "proper vents, guns, and hullmods" will help a Kite defeat anything larger than itself. It takes the two missile slots to actually do something. Yes, the Kite is an extreme example but as I look across the board, very few ships have a ton of missile slots and most are used to supplement or compliment your primary loudout.

As I look from a "macro perspective," I don't see this as a zero-sum game. You can have hard-hitting, tough ships that also can nuke a dangerous target if the opportunity presents itself. I don't see why this has to be all-or-none. I have a very effective SO Hammerhead build that is flux positive and then I mount two Reapers up front. I could have saved 4 OP but for what? What can 4 OP get me that is better than insta-killing a highly-dangerous and tough Cruiser, even if it's only once? Had I omitted the missiles, I can whittle down the cruiser but in the mean time, it's still firing big guns at my fleet. I see eliminating the most dangerous targets as a much stronger damage-mitigating tool than adding a hull mod. But, that's the old argument of "the best defense is a good offense." But that's also why I oppose regenerating ammo because that Hammerhead, if given another minute or so to reload, could do that again, and again, and again...for 4 OP and 0-flux. You'd have to rework the entire missile system to account for regenerating ammo.

Finally, what kind of fleet actions are we talking about here? Early game, end-game, or...? If my early Wolf can use missiles to take out a Destroyer, that's absolutely a win, even if I can't do it again. The Destroyer was probably the biggest threat anyway. Taking out key ships is what causes momentum to shift or again, acts as a force multiplier for me. If I can't exploit temporary weaknesses with high burst damage, the bigger ship wins (with bigger guns, more vents, etc.), all other things being equal.

@Megas

Regenerating missiles are not the same as carriers with fighters (with/without missiles). Carriers have their downsides, namely being relatively weak in and of themselves and having a mechanic that slows down the regeneration over time. I doubt there would be any slowdown effect to the missile regeneration on a combat ship. It would likely be a fixed timer. Spamming bombers from carriers eventually gets the carrier into trouble and unlike combat ships, a carrier's "weapons" can be eliminated and thus, increase the time of regeneration.

For as strong as carriers are in this iteration, they still have factors that work against them. Regenerating missiles would have no drawback beyond reload time which, if you don't re-work the OP costs of missiles, would have to be high enough that balance isn't completely thrown out of whack. I hope no one is suggesting that Harpoons/Sabots have anything less than 1 missile/minute reload times. For a typical frigate, that raises one 3 OP rack from 3 shots to 6-7, assuming you use them early before your CR begins to diminish.

Now, if implemented, that means your average Wolf is going to be able to spit out 12-14 Harpoons/Sabots over its CR duration. That's twice as many missiles. It would be higher as the ship size and CR limits increase. The question I ask myself is: do I want 2-3x as many missiles flying around? Or perhaps more importantly, would regenerating missiles create a situation where I no longer value the limited supply (i.e. use them with abandon)? I'm a big fan of opportunity cost so using a missile now means I can't use one later. If I could count on regeneration, that decision-making is basically eliminated. I'd rather have the AI use them more intelligently rather that use more of them, to be honest.

As it relates to carriers, there's nothing I can do as a player from keeping that Wolf from firing 12+ missiles but I can slow down the rate that a carrier's fighters can be replenished. They are comparable but not indistinguishable. If every combat ship had twice as many missiles at their disposal over the course of the battle (even if it slows to a trickle after the initial volley), I can't do anything about that from a mitigation perspective besides slap on more PD or hope I can disable a missile mount via damage or EMP. The question I have to ask myself is: are twice as many missiles in the game good or bad? (And I would argue this needs to be taken on a missile-by-missile level. I agree with Megas on MIRVs, for example.)

Again, if missiles are intended to be supplementary (which I think is obvious from their current use and how their mounts are placed on hulls), does regenerating ammo enhance or sabotage this role? It would make using them less of a gamble but in essence, you've just created very slow reload weapons. I'm still a fan of high-risk/high-reward weapons but I admit, the AI needs to use them more intelligently.

[Ranakastrasz]

Before reapers took time to arm after launch, I loved using missile specilization for double missile cap, equiped two reapers on my personal wolf, and could "ram" two or four rigtes or even a destroyer or two to death. (or overload a cruiser, and put a big hole in the armor) After that, I still had normal wolf mobility and skirmishing for the rest of the battle.

Skimming to point blank, activating shields, throwing a nuke or w.e. reapers are, instantly hitting, overloading my shield with the instat kill's death blast and the reaper's own blast.... 13 seconds of overload and I go kill another one.

Shame they take time to arm now. Only good vs destroyers and up now. I want to hardwire my reapers to remove the safety fuse....

Hence why I have swapped to Rocket Pods. Takes more skill to keep on target, but you have way more, even if yield is significantly smaller. Makes a huge difference in duels.
Heck, even swarmers work on frigates. Sure, low damage, but its HE, and eventually wears down armor enough that it ends up being shield or nothing. And you can't dodge them, so have to move shield to block, or lose armor integrity.

Missiles are scary. While AI can be stupid with them, I still hold my breath each time I have to dodge a harpoon in a frigate, find salamanders extremely annoying (they hurt mobility a lot, and never stop) and sabots ruin your ability to fully rely on shields. (which regenerate, sort of, unlike hull)

The larger scale dumbfire missiles I have to agree are terrible, but while for a long time seeing destroyers with 4 reapers (not sure what the model name is) that they used to never fire.. That they do now is rather scary.
Especially since It tends to be surprising.

Overall, I actually spend OP on missiles a lot, because the alpha strike potential is so high. Breaks shields, breaks hulls, and doesn't require constant pressure or as much manuvering to use.

So Disagree. Missiles are reasonable as is. Large dumbfire varients are terrible, but thats not the same problem.

[Megas]

Regenerating missiles are not the same as carriers with fighters (with/without missiles).

You got that right.  Regenerating missiles are ineffectual.  Fighters can actually kill things.  There is a reason why I put Converted Hangar on most gunships instead of wasting the OP on Salamanders and Pilums.  As for non-regenerators, it is a case-by-case basis.  Often, such missiles are mounted mainly for AI mind-control.

Dedicated carriers are unconventional, not weak.  They do not have the mounts like gunships, but, at least for a flagship, they do not need them except maybe for PD.  Maybe because for AI, PD at all makes them stupid (e.g., put flak on carrier, carrier thinks it needs to jump into a melee with it to fight).  As a flagship, carriers are superior to gunships except maybe Paragon.  Even then, Paragon cannot do much against enemy frigates until they swarm by the dozens.  The only reason for player to not use a carrier, is he needs to use a gunship to escort his fighter escort and not die.  Carriers work best as a backline unit (although some can tank if necessary), which hurts if your AI carriers' fighters escort you instead of killing enemies.  Before 0.8, player can take a skilled flagship and kite-and-snipe things to death without giving the enemy much of a chance to fight back.  Today, a carrier can send fighters at cowardly enemies and kill them without allowing them much of a chance to fight back.  All of the penalties mobility boosts have only affect gunships.  UI affects shot range, which carriers do not need, and fighters only generate minimal flux to block zero-flux boost... until Helmsmanship 3 comes along.

I rather have Heron than Gryphon.  Gryphon is a destroyer in a cruiser chassis due to its missile power.  It is usually the first to die, if left alone.  Heron is probably the most powerful cruiser because of its fighter power and it can kite.  Other gunships can close the gap a bit if they get Converted Hangar.

As for not preventing the enemy from firing missiles, we have shields and PD weapons.  Again, due to flux stats and some ship design, mounting PD instead of an assault weapon is not a drawback, especially for ships like Eagle where energy assault weapons do not mix well with long-range ballistics.  Plus, some PD weapons are multi-purpose.

I am generally not scared of missiles in 0.8, thanks to weakened missiles and weaker Missile Specialization.  The thing that bothers me most is cowardly AI running down the clock unless I have something fast to counter it.

Now, if implemented, that means your average Wolf is going to be able to spit out 12-14 Harpoons/Sabots over its CR duration. That's twice as many missiles.

This is not a problem.  If anything, that is a good thing.  Makes currently non-regenerators useful, if the attacker lives that long.

Again, if missiles are intended to be supplementary (which I think is obvious from their current use and how their mounts are placed on hulls), does regenerating ammo enhance or sabotage this role?

I would say enhance, since I have incentive to use them more.  Currently, I am inclined to use Converted Hangar plus fighters instead of missiles, because fighters are better missiles.

However, if regenerating is truly a bad idea (I fail to see why), then the OP's suggestion to make them free (or very cheap) is a good idea.

If missiles are considered super moves in a fighting game.  Then missiles should either be free (no OP) or start empty and build up ammo as they fight (maybe capture objectives for more ammo), then use the equivalent of Shin Shoryuken or Shun Goku Satsu late in a fight.  Missiles feel little more than a little Hadoken or other fighting game fireball.