Print

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

[Goumindong]

This might be seen as an extension of the topic "large ships in small fleets" but for me its primarily a verisimilitude issue. Though it would generally solve that "problem" as well.

As the game has progressed the otherwise coherent ship design ideology has faltered as ships have been changed. As a result a number of ships and ship types have lost their identity and fleet and fleet composition has as well.

And the reason for this is primarily fuel. Well, not fuel exactly (though it does make for a great title) but the fact that combat ships have very little variation in fuel and cargo space despite in game design goals which produce fleets that are always very similar and with little variation. This hampers play styles which would exploit opportunities which might exist in

In general there are roughly four purposes for designing ships in starsector

1) Exploration/Pirating: Go far, be safe out there, bring back stuff

2) Raiding: Go a medium distance, kill things, leave debris fields

3) Sector Defense; Go nowhere, prevent raiding
3a) Assault Support: Take sector defense fleet and put it in your opponents sector

4) Pure Hauling: have loads of stuff. Move it places

Ships in starsector are only really designed around point the third. You're expected to bring support ships with extra fuel and cargo space if you want to go far and/or bring back stuff. This is OK, but primarily it does two things.

1) It limits the player use of the non-optimal ships because there is little strategic value in choosing the non-optimal ship

2) It puts all fleets on a knife edge with regards to disengage ability because even if they can run they still have to protect their fuel and supplies, without which they're basically done.

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

The Solution is to increase the variation in ships by giving them a more defined strategic purpose. This should limit the use of pure cargo and fuel ships and relegate them to more specific purposes. Pure cargo ships would primarily be involved in shipping. Fuel ships would largely be involved in refueling operations and assault support. The three primary assault types

Changes Based on Ship Type

• Pure Cargo Ship: Fuel capacity up.
• Pure Fuel Ship: No changes
• Exploration/Pirate Ship: Increased Cargo, Fuel, fuel efficiency.
• Raiding: Decreased Cargo, Increased Fuel/Fuel Efficiency, Increased Supply Efficiency. Small decrease in Strategic Speed
• Sector Defense: Large Decrease in strategic speed for large ships, Small increase in strategic speed for small ships.

With the advent of "sustained burn" we can now modify the base speed of ships even further, whereas the difference between 6 and 8 used to be a 33% increase in speed now its a 12.5% increase in speed without considering the skill that caps every fleet at 20. Ships can have burn speeds as low as 3 or 4 because planets cannot avoid assault fleets and because multiple fleets can be expected to work in tandem for sector defense (some with capitals burning to catch up, some with frigates for catching fleets until the capitals can catch up). The difference between a 4 burn ship and an 8 burn ship is only at 28% increase at sustained burn speed and 5.2% with the +5 max burn skill. Changing the max burn of various ships radically doesn't alter the ability of players to take those ships places they might not be suited, but does make it a little bit harder than it is currently.

The question of course is then "how much of a change are we talking about" , "which ships go where and why". Cargo and Fuel Ships are pretty much unchanged

Exploration Ships: Need fuel for about three times as much maximum range as current(100-150 LY). This is about similar as what they currently run when escorting a single fuel ship of one size lower than themselves. Needs cargo for about 4 months of deployment plus full cargo compliment of ship one size smaller. An exploration/pirate focused capital at 10 fuel/LY, 40 DP should have about 1500 fuel and 1060 cargo capacity.  This is not enough fuel or cargo for its maintenance to justify bringing it if it is not intended to fight. But enough that you don't have to also bring a fuel/hauling source for it if its intending to. An exploration focused Cruiser at 20 DP should have around 380 Cargo Capacity and 450 fuel. A destroyer at 10 DP about 140 cargo capacity and 150 fuel. They need to be slow enough to be caught by fast sector defense fleets but fast enough to outrun sector defense capital fleets.

Raiding Ships: Need fuel for about 50 LY of travel (enough to get to a close-ish sector and back) and supplies for 1 month-ish of deployment. Needs speed to outrun sector defense capital fleets but not sector defense frigate fleets.

Sector Defense Ships: Needs fuel for about 5-10 LY of travel (enough to jump out of the sector and maybe fly to another sector... but not back and/or burn at things) and cargo for 1 month-ish of deployment. Capitals should be quite slow and frigates the fastest in the game.

-----

What ships go where and what changes are made to them?

Goal here is to have a decent amount of variety for what tech types(high, low, pirate) have what types of ships. There will be bias for exploration ships for pirate vessels (non -D mod) as well as anything that we might consider traditionally undergunned. There will be no suggested changes for fuel and cargo ships except that cargo ships all get enough fuel capacity go go about 50-60 LY.

-----

Exploration Ships: These ships can generally operate on their own. They're good solo candidates as well as prime candidates for efficiency in flying to the outer reaches because you do not need to add dedicated cargo and fuel ships in order to make the journey and come back with a reasonable amount equipment. Adding one of these to a non-exploration fleet will add minimal value with the exception of the Paragon simply because you're unlikely to choose one of them for their DP over a more dedicated ship.

Spoiler

Capital:

• Paragon: Burn 7, Fuel 1500, Cargo 1100. This is a special case. Normally capital ships don't fall into this category but the Paragon is a big vanity project and big vanity projects don't conform to the same constraints as everything else. That is, while everyone else has to make tradeoffs on the Fast/Cheap/Good spectrum the Paragon's designers just kept throwing money at it until they didn't have to make any tradeoffs. It still keeps its supply and burn inefficiency though, because who cares about efficiency when you have money. Paragon purchase price should be upped to at least 1M credits
  

Cruiser:

• Apogee: Burn 9, F/LY 2, Fuel 340, Cargo 400. Top of the line baby. This is the Starship enterprise. Still Supply inefficient but damn if it doesn't go fast and long. Still better in a fight than the rest of the non-paragon explorer options for the DP though.
• Venture: Burn 8, F/LY 3, Fuel 450, Cargo 500. The Baseline pirate/exploration ship. Its kinda ***? But at least its cheap and you can haul *** back with it.
• Gryphon: Burn 8 F/LY 2, Fuel 300, Cargo 380. The Hegemony's answer to the Apogee, not quite as fast but the missile autoforge makes for easy resupply out in the vast.
• Colossus Mk 2/3 Burn 8, F/LY 3, Fuel 450, Cargo 350. Slightly better better cargo efficiency due to much lower supply costs. Its big and slow and you might rather fight a destroyer. But if you need 600 armor and 12 guns to toss into a fight its not actually that useless at 9 DP.

Destroyer:

• Gemini: Burn 9, F/LY 1, Fuel 150, Cargo 150: Its a combat freighter of course it goes here
• Mule: Burn 9, F/LY 1, Fuel 150, Cargo 150: Its a combat freighter of course it goes here
• Condor: Burn 9, F/LY 1, Fuel 150, Cargo 150: Its a converted freighter of course it goes here
• Medusa: Burn 10, F/LY 1, Fuel 150, Cargo 150: The phase frigates seem more like raiding or defense ships and so did the Sunder. So the Medusa gets an exploration role
• Buffalo Mk II Burn 9, F/LY 1, Fuel 150, Cargo 150  Its a converted freighter of course it goes here

Frigate:
 

• Hound Burn 10, F/LY .5 Fuel 75, Cargo 75: Its a combat freighter of course it goes here
• Mudskiper MK II Burn 10, F/LY .5 Fuel 75, Cargo 75: Its a combat freighter of course it goes here
• Shepherd Burn 10, F/LY .5 Fuel 75, Cargo 75: Its a combat freighter of course it goes here
• Tempest Burn 11, F/LY .5 Fuel 75, Cargo 75: Again the other high tech options seemed more appropriate in other roles. The Tempest definitely fits though

[close]

Raiding Ships: Adding a raiding ship to an exploration fleet won't reduce its range too much. But it will significantly impact the relative amount of supplies that can be brought back. Adding a raiding ship to a defense fleet will barely extend its range. Only worth it if you need a specific aspect of the ship. The Heron and Odyssey will be the most common raiding ships seen in traditional defense/strike fleets.

Spoiler

Capital:

• Odyssey: Burn 7, F/LY 6, Cargo 180, Fuel 300: Good at killing things and then getting away. Fast, expensive, but cheap to run for a capital. Might also get a free OP center or Insulated Engine Assembly in order to make it even more unique
• Conquest: Burn 6, F/LY 8, Cargo 160, Fuel 400: Good at killing things and then getting away. Its not quite as strategically advantageous as the Odyssey but its got a bit more oomph.

Cruiser:

• Heron Burn 7 F/LY 3, Cargo 80, Fuel 150: The only carrier on the raider list and the only proper carrier which doesn't need a support fleet. The Heron is a mean machine
• Falcon Burn 7 F/LY 3, Cargo 80, Fuel 150: The smaller Eagle designed for killing ships and then getting out rather than as a pure power option
• Aurora Burn 8 F/LY 3, Cargo 90, Fuel 150: The Doom was going to go here but now that it going to have mines instead of interdiction the Aurora makes more sense. The Aurora is the quintessential overpowering high tech ship... but all it can do is fly there and blow something up because its going to need all its cargo for supplies

Destroyer:

• Harbinger Burn 8 F/LY 2, Cargo 60, Fuel 100: Not much to say about this. It kills things dead. But again with the supply issue.
• Hammerhead Burn 8, F/LY 2, Cargo 32, Fuel 100: A straightforward design for a straightforward task. The distinctive hammerhead is a result of stripping out the places which would have been used for cargo

Frigate:

• Lasher Burn 9 F/LY 1, Cargo 16, Fuel 50: Most of the hegemony uses larger ships in raids or eschews raids all together. But the Lasher is an effective ship
• Shade Burn 9 F/LY 1, Cargo 32, Fuel 50: Now that the afflictor is getting interdiction the shade is the clear option. It can use its EW to disable enemy defensive ships while the rest of the fleet kills the valuable cargo
• Scarab Burn 9 F/LY 1, Cargo 32, Fuel 50 When the shade is disabling dangerous things the Scarab is cutting through anything it can find
• Hyperion Burn 10, F/LY 1, Cargo 60, Fuel 50 Another high tech raider. Even worse for supplies than the other ships the Hyperion is in danger of running out unless its constantly farming a good amount of supplies

[close]

Defense Ships: Adding any of these to a raiding or exploration party will impart a significant penalty to effective range and potentially maneuverability speed. The frigates are much easier to accommodate because of their much lower total supply usage and their much higher burn rates

Spoiler

Capital:

• Legion Burn 4, Fuel 100, Cargo 160 What can we say its a straightforward murder machine
• Astral Burn 4, Fuel 100, Cargo 200 What can we say its a straightforward murder machine
• Onslaught Burn 3, Fuel 100, Cargo 160 What can we say its a straightforward murder machine

Cruiser:

• Eagle Burn 6, Fuel 30, Cargo 90 What can we say its a straightforward murder machine
• Mora Burn 6, Fuel 30, Cargo 90 What can we say its a straightforward murder machine
• Dominator  Burn 6, Fuel 30, Cargo 90: What can we say its a straightforward murder machine
• Doom  Burn 6, Fuel 30, Cargo 90. Now that it has mines tri-tach is going to park it at home and make it a silent killer of raiding fleets.

Destroyer:

• Sunder Burn 8, Fuel 20, Cargo 40: This went here because the others seemed better. Plus i believe that the Sunder is the generally superior fleet ship due to its potentially excessive range
• Drover Burn 8, Fuel 20, Cargo 40 Similar to the Sunder this ship fits better in this place than the other options
• Enforcer Burn 8, Fuel 20, Cargo 40 This is a quintessential defensive ship

Frigate:

• Centurian  Burn 7, Fuel 10, Cargo 20: Intended to primarily fly with larger ships as mobile point defense the Centurian does not need a strong burn drive
• Afflictor Burn 12, Fuel 10, Cargo 30: The afflictor is the high tech defensive frigate that can run down and out maneuver raiding parties.
• Kite Burn 12, Fuel 10, Cargo 20 The Kite is the low tech defensive frigate which can run down and out maneuver raiding parties
• Monitor  Burn 7, Fuel 10, Cargo 20 Intended to primarily fly with larger ships as mobile point defense the Monitor does not need a strong burn drive
• Wolf Burn 12, Fuel 10, Cargo 20 The Wolf is the mid-tech defensive frigate which can run down and out maneuver raiding parties.
• Omen Burn 9, Fuel 10, Cargo 20: General point defense its intended to fly with the faster high tech fleets. Expensive but availiable to explore or raid if necesary
• Vigilance Burn 10, Fuel 10, Cargo 20: Dangerous in a group its all purpose fast defense
• Brawler Burn 10, Fuel 10, Cargo 20: Dangerous in a group its all purpose fast defense

[close]

[Megas]

I miss the days of not needing a tanker.  Today, most endgame fleets used by the player (that can fight level 10 bounties or AI stations) will be as slow as Prometheus because they need one to explore anywhere far from core worlds.

[MajorTheRed]

I understand the problem, but back when ships had bigger fuel capacity (or worst, when there was no hyperspace), most non-combat vessel were useless. They brought flavour to non-player fleet, but that's it.
Considering your point Megas, I wonder if stating the max ship number in player fleet to only consider the combat ship would help. In this case, your fleet will be full of dram, and your speed would be stated only by your largest combat ship

[Goumindong]

Well under that it’s just a straight hidden cost to run all ships. As it is now but at least you have some choice in what you bring.

With this fuel ships would have purpose. Just not a purpose that involved every fleet needing them. Similarly pure cargo ships would have a purpose, just not a purpose that involves every fleet needing them.

In terms of practicality no space ships would rely on outside fuel sources unless refueling was abundant where they were going or unless it needed to be sacrificed for performance. Cargo ships today do not sail with extra fuel tankers, they carry their fuel with them. Cargo planes do not midair refuel nor do they usually refuel at all.

It’s inefficient to outsource fuel if the tanker has to make the same trip as the recipient as volume is a cubed process while area is a squared.

[Linnis]

Well we are talking about "fleets" It make sense to have a few ships with only fuel and cargo. It would not make sense for combat ships to have their space dedicated to fuel or cargo.

Otherwise I feel the Exploration ship types should be buffed in their own regards. Not only should they offer more cargo and fuel, but also consume less fuel themselves. Stuff like the Apogee and Odyssey should be able to do a circle around the sector without cargo and fuel ships no?

[Megas]

Stuff like the Apogee and Odyssey should be able to do a circle around the sector without cargo and fuel ships no?

They used to, but not today.  Apogee has a bit more capacity than other cruiser, but still falls well short of dedicated ships.  (Smaller ships are more competitive with dedicated ships of similar size.)  Odyssey capacities are low enough to be comparable to dedicated warships.

[Megas]

I understand the problem, but back when ships had bigger fuel capacity (or worst, when there was no hyperspace), most non-combat vessel were useless. They brought flavour to non-player fleet, but that's it.
Considering your point Megas, I wonder if stating the max ship number in player fleet to only consider the combat ship would help. In this case, your fleet will be full of dram, and your speed would be stated only by your largest combat ship

There is a difference between useful and required.  Without a tanker, no one will go far from core worlds.  The only solo exploration ship these days is a tanker.

Freighters are useful for hauling loot from the fallen, and required if you want to chain-battle in hostile territory with nowhere to store loot, but they are not critical like tankers are.

For unlimited tankers (and presumably freighters), if economy gets fixed, that can be full of exploit.  Before economy broke some time ago, I had few lucrative trading opportunities with fuel.

During 0.65, primary fleet was 15+ Atlases guarded by two Hyperion (due to food runs being more rewarding than combat).  Bounty hunter fleet on the side was whatever I wanted, but given Navigation back then, it was 40+ frigates.  Just as powerful as any other fleet, but with much higher burn speed.

[Goumindong]

Well we are talking about "fleets" It make sense to have a few ships with only fuel and cargo. It would not make sense for combat ships to have their space dedicated to fuel or cargo.

Otherwise I feel the Exploration ship types should be buffed in their own regards. Not only should they offer more cargo and fuel, but also consume less fuel themselves. Stuff like the Apogee and Odyssey should be able to do a circle around the sector without cargo and fuel ships no?

I mean, no. It wouldn’t. Unless you had a specific mission that required it.

In the real world: Fuel, space, and power efficiency all hit at “precisely enough fuel to do the job and not a second more”.

Fuel resupply exists because “the job” is variable but also because centralized points of resupply can minimize the job requirements and sometimes being able to move those centralized points is valuable.

In the real world we have cargo trains of ships in shipping lanes... but they bring their own fuel because adding ships is always inefficient. In the real world semi-trailers tend to carry around 2000 miles of fuel when full despite being able to fill up every few miles.

Naval fleets do not have dedicated fuel ships if they can help it*. The only time in modern warfare you have seen that type of thing is when the combat ships were escorting transport ships. Resupply ships are big fat targets that cripple the fleet if they go down. If they’re necessary they should be actively resupplying and then moving to get more.

This is what creates the trichitomy between exploration, raiding, and pure combat. Pure combat fleets operate close enough to a core world to not want their own fuel resupply unless they have to have it for a specific purpose. Raiding fleets don’t want to have to protect fuel ships from the targets they’re raiding. Exploration fleets don’t want to get stranded by pirates or [redacted].

*carrier groups have supply ships but they’re actually centralized logistics points rather than haulers. While they do have significant capacity they’re constantly resupplied by smaller ships and then redistribute fuel and ammo where needed. They’re also planned to be retired with no successor because of the above points about defending them.

For more specific space stuff note that the ideal rocket equation (which guides all space ships that don’t operate on magic) doesn’t have a mass component, it has a mass ratio component. In order to achieve any particular delta-v you much carry the same ratio of mass to fuel. Moving the fuel to another ship doesn’t help you.

Stuff like the Apogee and Odyssey should be able to do a circle around the sector without cargo and fuel ships no?

well the Apogee yes. But the Odyssey I envisioned as a raiding/assault ship rather than as an explorer.

[PCCL]

Unfortunately none of these matter because fuel and supply are not simulated.

And if they were, that wouldn't matter anyway since we can magically hide all our logistic ships away for the main fight

[Megas]

I just remembered another exploit that could happen with unlimited freighters or tankers:  Converted Hangar.  With a Leadership build, such ships can be directed to focus their fighters to destroy enemies one ship at a time.  They will never be as efficient as proper carriers, but they are effective enough to defeat fleets no bigger than it.

[Goumindong]

Unfortunately none of these matter because fuel and supply are not simulated.

And if they were, that wouldn't matter anyway since we can magically hide all our logistic ships away for the main fight

Sure but then no ships have particular mission advantage. With large fuel and cargo reserves on some combat ships those ships become more valuable in certain types of operations. Whereas they are generally ignored at the moment.

[xenoargh]

This is interesting.

Let's start with some basics, shall we?

1.  If ships are in the game that are worthless in combat for what they cost to deploy, nobody will ever use them in combat unless they're a newbie who doesn't know any better.  They're just eye-candy that might have a stat that's useful (but, if not, they're just trash, like the current Apogee and Venture, to be frank).  Cargo and Fuel carriers have their role, which is to never ever be seen in combat unless you're chasing down a defeated enemy.  If Iron Mode saved before / after combat, like it really should, they'd need to have something that might allow them to not just be instant junk.

2.  Fleets need a minimum combination of effective combat power, hauling capacity and Crew size to efficiently explore the Sector.  You can't run around in a single Dram; it can spot things, but it cannot do anything else.  If the game starts getting time-pressure in it due to Outposts (and, one presumes, imperial growth of the Factions over time) efficiency of time matters much more than now, with a static universe.

3.  The current system of fleet speeds is in dire need of improvements; we had a discussion of that one and I and several others put forth some ideas on that topic.  Basically, Sustained Burn is pretty broken right now; it totally obviates the need to use any of the other movement mechanics.  Which is too bad, because I actually like the other stuff... if it was at all practically useful.

So, let's talk about these ship themes in these contexts.

1.  "Explorer" ships should have a median level of Fuel and Cargo and Crew, and be efficient on general use of Fuel and Supplies, except if deployed in combat.  They should, imo, be inefficient to use in combat, but effective; if a player wants to explore with "Explorer" ships and chooses to fight Domain Tech junk, they should be fine, but the cost to regain CR should make them unattractive to fight anything heavier unless you're desperate... not their actual utility in combat. 

2.  "Raider" ships should have low Fuel and Cargo and Crew, but be reasonably efficient on use and more efficient in terms of CR repair.  They're pure-combat warships designed to wreck and leave, and that's a good theme for them.  They should have the best base speeds and acceleration values on the strategic map; it shouldn't be possible to out-run a Raider force unless it runs out of Fuel.  Pirates shouldn't use Raiders; they'd be military vessels pretty much exclusively, because Pirates need to haul stuff back.

3.  "Pirate" ships should have median Fuel and Cargo, but low Crew.  They should recover CR well above average, reflecting their robust designs and general immunity to little issues.  They should have better-than-average Emergency Burn stats and base speed / acceleration on the strategic map.  Their Achilles heel should be that a purely "Pirate" force simply cannot sustain Crew losses without serious CR problems; they need to pounce and get out.

4.  Instead of "pure cargo" vessels, which I really think is synonymous with, "stat-objects that use up limited fleet spaces" I'd like to see "Civilian" vessels.  These would have generous Fuel and / or Cargo values have low Crew, be built around defense, not offense, and recover CR quite slowly, but cheaply.  They represent efficient vessels meant for capitalist ventures; they don't have a lot of redundancy like a military vessel or a "Pirate" design needs... but they should be able to fight.

5.  "System Defense" vessels should have lower-than-average Fuel and Supplies and robust Crew.  They should recover CR quite quickly compared to anything else.  They're great for cruising a limited zone, but need logistics support to move inter-System.  Anything not in their class should find trying to engage them with the goal of reducing their CR a pretty lousy deal.

6.  "System Assault" vessels should have high Supply, Fuel and Crew values.  They shouldn't be quite as efficient at combat as "Raiders", but close.  They should not regain CR as fast as "Raiders" can, but should not need much logistical support to attack across Systems, and stay in action once they get there.  Their main weakness should be below-median CR recovery; they should be great for assaults when they're fresh, but they shouldn't be able to chain-battle much without serious CR problems.

I'd also like to suggest a few more distinct design motifs.

1.  "Long Haulers" should be a bit like Civilians, but they are much more efficient on Fuel use.  However, they should be hampered by poor base speed / acceleration values.  If my ideas for making Emergency Burn actually relevant were used, then they'd basically be good at Sustained Burn but bleed Fuel like stuck pigs (and accelerate quite poorly) during Emergency Burn.  They should be tougher and nastier than "Civilian" vessels and have higher Crew values to give them more durability.

2.  "Scouts" would be designed for military scouting and possibly for players to use to look for good Exploration runs.  Basically bare-bones- extremely low Crew, excellent Fuel and Supply efficiency, and almost glacial CR recovery; they aren't meant to fight and aren't designed for fast repairs.  But they'd be faster than anything other than Raiders over short distances, and could out-run Raiders on long straights.

In general:

1.  I think that using pure-Fuel / pure-Cargo vessels that have no combat role at all is bad design.  I don't mind if we have some in to specifically act as logistical support for "System Fleet" concepts, if they need to move to another System, but that's about it (and using a Hull Mod, like, say, "Fuel Bladders" to temporarily stat-up Fuel storage instead might be a better idea).  They shouldn't be ubiquitous or pretty much required to field an effective force.

2.  I really think I'd like to see functional archetypes like this rather than the complex muddle of High Tech vs. Low, etc. that now exists... and I don't like how more than half of the ships in the game are essentially worthless, having no role where they're sensible to use, frankly.

3.  I'd prefer a game where the archetypes form natural groupings that are sensible. 

Want a pure-combat force that has some reach?  Mix Raiders with System Assault and Long Haulers.

Want to be a Pirate?  A couple of Raiders, lots of robust Pirates, a few Civilians to haul the loot away.

Want a mobile carrier force?  Long Haul ships and carriers, a few System Assault ships to get into the middle.

Basically... I'd really prefer to play out a game where I don't automatically burn down X number of fleet spots because the ships are totally worthless in combat; I'd prefer a game where yes, I can deploy my tough, nasty optimized Explorers, but I can't expect that to work out in a system-raiding or assault scenario, where CR recovery is really important.

[Sarissofoi]

Actually this sounds interesting.
I think it would go great if salvage, surveying, repairs etc was a more a ship/mods/captains personal skills than player skills.

[Eji1700]

I understand the problem, but back when ships had bigger fuel capacity (or worst, when there was no hyperspace), most non-combat vessel were useless. They brought flavour to non-player fleet, but that's it.
Considering your point Megas, I wonder if stating the max ship number in player fleet to only consider the combat ship would help. In this case, your fleet will be full of dram, and your speed would be stated only by your largest combat ship

I mean, as the game is right now, almost all vanilla non combat vessels are passive upgrades.  You never ever see them, or think about them, it's just literally "oh right need more cargo/fuel, better buy one".  The only exception to this being the quasi combat freighters like the Gemini and Mule, which feels like a huge waste of sprites.

There's still only a few exceptions among the modded ships, where really you just have combat tankers/freighters for the most part.  I'd really like to see them get more of a fleet purpose at the very least (sorta like salvage platforms and it'd be nice if there were ships that lowered refit times in space), and I'd love if you could find a reason to occasionally deploy them, or just see them in combat or care about their refit screen.

[Megas]

The main reason to deploy civilians is auto-resolving pursuits, where it is completely safe and when player does not want to drain CR of proper warships.  The CR of civilian ships are untapped resources that are rarely used.

Aside from that, they can rarely be useful to boost initial Nav/ECM numbers, especially in a fight against a lone battlestation that is unable to attack anything beyond its reach.

That said, I agree that civilians are primarily stat sticks, which seems a bit annoying.  I like to call them loads for having less burn speed than most warships of their size class.  "But... burn speed of battlecruisers is faster than battleships!  Who cares?!  I need to bring this slowpoke superfreighter or supertanker slower than a battleship to a fringe system where killer monsters full of treasure are, kill them, then haul back lots of loot."