Midline BomberIt's my understanding that the current consensus is that the Piranha is a midline bomber, not a low-tech bomber. This is generally supported by the coloration of the non-red portion of the Piranha's hull, which is more similar to the coloration of the Thunder than to the coloration of the Talon and the Mining Pod (more easily seen by examining the sprite in the game data files than by looking at the bomber in game, however), and by the color of its engine exhaust, which doesn't seem quite as red as that of the Talon and the Mining Pod, as well as (more circumstantially) by the description of the Conquest battlecruiser. Given that it's also similar to the Broadsword in coloration, though, I'd be perfectly willing to place Piranhas as either very late low-tech or early midline, particularly as I feel that Conquests are themselves fairly early midline warships.
While there are a variety of midline heavy fighters with decent anti-ship capability, it simply isn't the same as the sheer alpha-strike potential of bomber wings. Even low-tech fleets have a bomber, midline fleets should too.
High-Tech Destroyer/Cruiser-Sized CarrierI don't know that this is necessarily problematic. If the fictitious space navies of the Starsector universe parallel real-world navies in their funding allocation, then during peacetime they will most frequently go in for building capital ships rather than the smaller vessels that can more readily be built rapidly should a war come up. Plus, the Heron is already at the edge of being a high-tech carrier with its heavily energy-focused armament and its more rounded and irregular hull shape than the other midline cruisers; paint the hull blue and I'd have been willing to call it a high-tech carrier. There are also some indications that the high-tech line of ships was developed in peacetime, especially with the upcoming rules change that removes hull logistics cost from the supply consumption equation. Lower crew requirements and lower ship upkeep, combined with the use of weapons which might be less effective than the ballistics they replace but which only really require energy from the ship's power plant, are the kinds of trade-offs you might expect to see a navy make when the budget is its greatest enemy, rather than a theoretical or actual hostile nation capable of seriously threatening it. I do agree that the lack of a late midline or early high tech light carrier is a bit problematic, lore-wise, as the Gemini feels like an early midline light carrier which should have been supplanted by a later design, rather unlike the way the Heron feels like a late midline fleet carrier sufficiently modern to work with the high tech lineup. I also agree that it'd be nice to see a little more diversity in the carrier lineup, because while the Heron is a 'fast carrier,' the only things we have to compare it against are the two light carriers, which are equally fast on the main map, and the Astral, which is significantly heavier. It could be nice to get a late midline or early high-tech 3- or maybe 4-deck cruiser level fleet carrier with burn-3, but I don't really feel it's necessary, and it might be problematic to squeeze a 3-deck carrier in that isn't either overshadowed by the Astral and Heron or completely outclasses the Heron. 23.5 logistics for 6 flight decks versus 10.5 logistics for 2; pick something in between there for a 3- or 4-deck carrier, and you have to start wondering if you would have been better off going for the capital carriers or just sticking with the slightly lower number of flight decks granted by the Heron but having space for more fighter wings in your fleet.
Given the lore behind the Astral and the variety of powerful, shielded, high-tech strike craft, the lack of a high-tech carrier below capital level is really apparent. A number of missions involving high-tech fleets have to settle for the Gemini, which is midline and not even a dedicated carrier. A high-tech destroyer with 2 decks, or a cruiser with 2/3 decks, is almost desperately needed.
Low-Tech Cruiser-Sized CarrierPersonally, I feel that conversions and hybrids are a fairly good fit for low-tech carriers; after all, that's how many early carriers entered service in the real world, as conversions of existing (though often incomplete) ships, or hybrid cruiser-carriers and battleship-carriers (which were often, in the real world, eventually fully converted to carriers, scrapped, or retired due to being inadequate in both roles). It'd be nice to see a bit more experimentation done with it, but on the other hand, low-tech already has both the Condor conversion and the Venture carrier-medium cruiser hybrid (the Venture is in my opinion late low-tech, as despite its coloration, its shape has more in common with the Dominator than with the Eagle, and its basic statistics are likewise more in line with low-tech than with midline cruisers, with relatively poor flux stats, an inefficient shield, a heavy reliance on its armor and innate hull strength, and an armament that is heavily weighted towards ballistics and missiles, though which has started to introduce energy mounts). The Gemini already fits the role of a dedicated early midline light carrier intended to replace the Condor conversions in military service nicely, despite its description indicating that it's a freighter, although it'd be nice to see something a little more durable enter service in the late midline or early high-tech lineups to help emphasize the increasing importance of the fighter and make the high-end carriers a bit more diverse.
I get that low-tech fleets aren't supposed to place much emphasis on strike craft, but the only low-tech carrier is the Condor which is a freighter-conversion. Gameplay-wise it does its job just fine, but thematically it seems weird there isn't a dedicated carrier design for low-tech fleets: they still field strike craft, after all.
Phase DestroyerI tend to feel that these two could perhaps be answered by the same ship, though the phase ships do tend to feel like intermediary designs between the early high-tech vessels like the Odyssey and Apogee, and the late high-tech vessels like the Astral and Paragon. I tend to feel that the Sunder seems late enough in the midline grouping to have delayed a replacement design long enough for the replacement to come into service contemporaneously with the phase ships, despite the rather obvious shortcomings of the Sunder's armament (namely, that all the big guns are fixed mounts rather than being turreted). On the other hand, it also seems like phase ships were something that came and went rather rapidly, so perhaps the justification for the lack of a phase destroyer is that one was under development, but the advent of phase cloak-penetrating sensors lead to it being cancelled in favor of the Medusa.
A destroyer hull seems to provide the perfect mix of firepower and speed phase ships require, yet while there are phase frigates and a phase cruiser, there is no phase destroyer. Not a huge thing but definitely noticeable.
Mid-High-Tech Destroyer
By "mid-high-tech" I mean in the same group as the Apogee and the Odyssey: high-tech vessels that still have some of that midline feel. I suppose the Sunder sort-of counts, but its design is more obviously midline than "mid-high-tech".
For me, the conspicuously absent thing is a mid-tech cruiser with a large ballistic mount and some medium energy mounts - something that actually has the flux stats to use a mjolnir cannon. If you mount low flux weapons in its medium energy mounts, at least. Or you could put heavy blasters there and something low flux in the large ballistic slot...*coughs* You mean something like this? http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=7676.msg127337#msg127337 The mounts are one large balistic, two medium universals in the front and in the wings, 2 medium energy, 2 small energy, 1 small turrent. Also it is still a work in progress, but if you want to see what I have already, let me know.
wait wait wait....Yes, but the request is for a high-tech cruiser-scale carrier, not for just a cruiser-scale carrier. High-tech destroyer/cruiser carrier should be interpreted as high-tech (destroyer or cruiser)-scale carrier or high-tech (destroyer and cruiser)-scale carrier, not as (high-tech destroyer) and cruiser-scale carrier or (high-tech destroyer) or cruiser-scale carrier, nor as (high-tech destroyer-scale carrier) and cruiser-scale carrier or (high-tech destroyer-scale carrier) or cruiser-scale carrier.
don't we already have a cruiser sized midline carrier in the Heron class?
Even though Heron is colored like a midline ship, its stats and weapon mounts make it feel more like a high-tech ship... without the obscenely high CR deployment costs. All the Heron needs to be a high-tech ship is a color swap and maybe laser instead of machine gun drones.Yes, I do believe that both you and I have already said something to that effect:
Plus, the Heron is already at the edge of being a high-tech carrier with its heavily energy-focused armament and its more rounded and irregular hull shape than the other midline cruisers; paint the hull blue and I'd have been willing to call it a high-tech carrier.
I like to see alternative epoch skins for various ships that straddle two epochs, such as a blue high-tech skin for the Heron.
yeah lol, grammar was never my strong point :PDon't worry about it. Constructions such as "green eggs and ham" are ambiguous as to whether or not the adjective applies to both nouns, or just to the first noun. Green eggs and green ham, green eggs and ham of normal coloration, and green eggs and ham of unspecified coloration are all valid interpretations of "green eggs and ham." Regarding the high-tech destroyer/cruiser carrier, context allows you to eliminate (high tech destroyer) and (cruiser carrier) as a valid interpretation (although by the rules of English grammar, taking the slash to be an 'and' or an 'or,' this is a valid interpretation) because there's a request specifically for a high-tech destroyer further down the list, but it remains ambiguous as to whether or not it's a (high-tech destroyer carrier) and (cruiser carrier) request or a (high-tech destroyer carrier) and (high-tech cruiser carrier) request. I assume it's the latter because the Heron exists, but under the rules of English grammar, either interpretation is valid.
sorry ;D
I think the number of hangar decks is highly disparate, currently. The Astral has 6 decks and the next best carrier, the Heron, has 2. That does not add up.
I think the Condor should have 2 decks to distinguish it more from the Gemini. It's kind of ridiculous that the Gemini is nearly as good a cargo ship as a Tarsus, and just as good a carrier as a Condor. But if the Condor got extra decks, then the ships above it with decks should get more, too. The Venture, Atlas, and (maybe) the Odyssey should have 2 decks, and the Heron, being a cruiser-sized Fast Carrier, should have 3 decks.
This would take things from Destroyer: 1, 1; Cruiser: 1, 2; and Capital: 1, 1, 6; to Destroyer: 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3; and Capital: 2, 2, 6 (1, 2, 6 if the Odyssey stays at 1 deck). I imagine a Cruiser-sized dedicated carrier and a Capital-sized Fast Carrier would both get 4 decks. A Destroyer-sized Fast Carrier would of course only have one deck. So with those three hypothetical ships included in this change, there would be Destroyer: 1, 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3, 4; and Capital: 2, 2, 4, 6 (or 1, 2, 4, 6).
I guess the Condor could be the Destroyer-sized Fast Carrier w/ 1 deck. It would need a speed boost, since it's currently slower than the Tarsus, but that could work. Since the Condor is a stripped down Tarsus, making it go faster is not unreasonable. Then put in something else as the Destroyer-sized dedicated carrier with 2 decks.
I wouldn't call the Venture a low-tech carrier however, for starters it's not a dedicated carrier and for another it's more of a civilian vessel.To me, the Venture feels like a military ship that the military decided they didn't need and which they therefore permitted to be used for civilian purposes, rather than being a civilian ship from the start. It feels a lot like the compromise cruiser/carrier hybrids that were experimented with in the real world and soon discarded in favor of dedicated carriers with dedicated escorts - a ship with inadequate firepower for its size, if it's to be used in the battle line, and a carrier with inadequate fighter capacity if it's to be used in the support role that dedicated carriers fill. In short, a flawed concept that is nevertheless useful as a combat-capable civilian vessel.
I think the number of hangar decks is highly disparate, currently. The Astral has 6 decks and the next best carrier, the Heron, has 2. That does not add up.I disagree with the Condor receiving two flight decks if the Gemini sticks with only one. In my opinion, the Gemini feels much more like a purpose-built military escort carrier than the Condor does, with a significantly better defensive armament, a military-grade shield generator for a mid-tech vessel, and fairly decent flux stats given its armament. The only part about it that says "I'm not a military ship" is its description, but even if that doesn't change, it would hardly be unique in history for a military vehicle to be misrepresented in this way. If either of the light carriers is to receive a second flight deck, my feeling is that it should be the Gemini.
I think the Condor should have 2 decks to distinguish it more from the Gemini. It's kind of ridiculous that the Gemini is nearly as good a cargo ship as a Tarsus, and just as good a carrier as a Condor. But if the Condor got extra decks, then the ships above it with decks should get more, too. The Venture, Atlas, and (maybe) the Odyssey should have 2 decks, and the Heron, being a cruiser-sized Fast Carrier, should have 3 decks.
Since the Condor is a stripped down Tarsus, making it go faster is not unreasonable.I disagree with describing the Condor as a stripped-down Tarsus. The Condor is a heavily-modified Tarsus, having gained a completely new weapons mount in a location where there previously was no weapons mount and having had a fairly significant amount of hull reinforcement, as well as receiving significantly improved armor. A stripped-down Tarsus would be more along the lines of the Tarsus you purchase from the shipyard - a hull with the essential equipment intact, but carrying more or less nothing else.
This would take things from Destroyer: 1, 1; Cruiser: 1, 2; and Capital: 1, 1, 6; to Destroyer: 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3; and Capital: 2, 2, 6 (1, 2, 6 if the Odyssey stays at 1 deck). I imagine a Cruiser-sized dedicated carrier and a Capital-sized Fast Carrier would both get 4 decks. A Destroyer-sized Fast Carrier would of course only have one deck. So with those three hypothetical ships included in this change, there would be Destroyer: 1, 1, 2; Cruiser: 2, 3, 4; and Capital: 2, 2, 4, 6 (or 1, 2, 4, 6).I think you really need to take logistical efficiency into account, as it and durability and perhaps firepower are all that the larger carriers have going for them, and a carrier's firepower can largely be replaced by well-managed fighter wings, especially since carriers tend to want to stay out of fights with anything approaching their own weight class.
Flight Decks per Logistics Unit
Carrier Efficiency (Half Skeleton) Efficiency (Standard Skeleton) Efficiency (Max Crew)
Condor 5.330 5.650 6.50
Gemini 5.180 5.350 6.20
Heron 4.875 5.250 5.75
Astral 3.625 3.917 5.00If you look at the CR/deployment, the Condor actually costs more than the Gemini to use.Actually, no, it doesn't. The Gemini takes 2 days to recover from deployment, same as the Condor does, and since the ship consumes the same number of supplies per day, the cost of deploying a Gemini is exactly the same as the cost of deploying a Condor. The Gemini is better suited to multiple deployments because it loses less CR per deployment, but the cost of deployment isn't any less. The Gemini does cost less to operate because it requires roughly half the crew of the Condor.
Why ever use a Condor when the Gemini is "a common freighter"? Why does the Condor even exist if the Gemini is so much better?Why does the Buffalo Mk II exist? That ship's a piece of refuse by almost any rational comparison to any real combatant out there, including most frigates. It exists because the better ships aren't necessarily available in sufficient numbers, or at all. Same reason for the Condor, although the Condor is a much better military conversion of a civilian freighter for combat than the Buffalo II is unless you need the missile spam more than you need shields. Also, if the bit in the Condor's description about being used during the Domain period is true, there is a chance that the Condor could predate the Gemini and would thus represent an experiment in carrier design.
But you are somewhat cherry-picking by choosing the Logistic Cost. It makes sense for the Gemini-to-Tarsus comparison, but I could easily choose the Deployment Cost to point out that the Astral is by far the superior choice over anything else. Even a straight change of just giving the Condor two decks still doesn't make it more efficient per Deployment Point than an Astral.True, but the deployment costs for the Condor/Gemini/Heron/Astral are 9/9/14/22, which gives 9/9/7/3.67 deployment points per flight deck, which is basically the same pattern though a bit more extreme. 2 flight decks on the Condor would reduce it to 4.5 deployment points per flight deck, nearly as good as what the Astral has, much better than what the Heron or the Gemini offer, and for less logistics per flight deck than anything else out there if nothing other than the flight deck count changed. That it isn't quite as good as the best currently-existing carrier doesn't strike me as a strong argument for why it'd be fine when it's also significantly better than both other existing carriers. You could up the deployment point cost of the Condor slightly, but the Condor is at 9, the highest destroyer is at 11, and the smallest cruiser is at 12, and 11 deployment points for 2 flight decks at burn-4 is still way better than what the Heron offers, especially in combination with its much lower logistical footprint.
Obviously all the ships in question would have to be rebalanced to compensate for the added flight decks, that is without question.My issue is that I don't see a good reason to undertake the rebalancing that you're asking for. I think that the "issue" of 1 deck, 1 deck, 2 decks, 6 decks is overstated, and could be adequately solved by adding an intermediate cruiser-scale or capital-scale carrier with three or four flight decks at an appropriate cost. I also feel that a ship such as the Heron which is a good ~50% larger by hull image file area than the Condor probably shouldn't have merely the same number of flight decks as it does if they're both dedicated carriers, especially when one was purpose-built and the other is a conversion job. I further don't see why the Condor's limitations relative to the Gemini are a bad thing; I've already explained that I feel that the Gemini is not really a civilian vessel despite the claim within its description text that it is. You may disagree, but the Gemini is awfully heavily armed for a civilian freighter, it has a shield generator whose statistics are entirely normal for a midline combatant with an omni shield, it has fairly decent flux statistics, and it has a fairly nice ship system for combat. At the very least, it was intended to be an easy conversion for military use if it wasn't a military vessel, or perhaps a Q-ship, from the drawing board.
...
I mean seriously? 1 deck for all but two ships, one of which has 2 decks and the other has 6! There is a definite lack of progression there.
Actually, no, it doesn't. The Gemini takes 2 days to recover from deployment, same as the Condor does, and since the ship consumes the same number of supplies per day, the cost of deploying a Gemini is exactly the same as the cost of deploying a Condor. The Gemini is better suited to multiple deployments because it loses less CR per deployment, but the cost of deployment isn't any less. The Gemini does cost less to operate because it requires roughly half the crew of the Condor.
True, but the deployment costs for the Condor/Gemini/Heron/Astral are 9/9/14/22, which gives 9/9/7/3.67 deployment points per flight deck, which is basically the same pattern though a bit more extreme. 2 flight decks on the Condor would reduce it to 4.5 deployment points per flight deck, nearly as good as what the Astral has, much better than what the Heron or the Gemini offer, and for less logistics per flight deck than anything else out there if nothing other than the flight deck count changed. That it isn't quite as good as the best currently-existing carrier doesn't strike me as a strong argument for why it'd be fine when it's also significantly better than both other existing carriers. You could up the deployment point cost of the Condor slightly, but the Condor is at 9, the highest destroyer is at 11, and the smallest cruiser is at 12, and 11 deployment points for 2 flight decks at burn-4 is still way better than what the Heron offers, especially in combination with its much lower logistical footprint.
My issue is that I don't see a good reason to undertake the rebalancing that you're asking for. I think that the "issue" of 1 deck, 1 deck, 2 decks, 6 decks is overstated, and could be adequately solved by adding an intermediate cruiser-scale or capital-scale carrier with three or four flight decks at an appropriate cost. I also feel that a ship such as the Heron which is a good ~50% larger by hull image file area than the Condor probably shouldn't have merely the same number of flight decks as it does if they're both dedicated carriers, especially when one was purpose-built and the other is a conversion job. I further don't see why the Condor's limitations relative to the Gemini are a bad thing; I've already explained that I feel that the Gemini is not really a civilian vessel despite the claim within its description text that it is. You may disagree, but the Gemini is awfully heavily armed for a civilian freighter, it has a shield generator whose statistics are entirely normal for a midline combatant with an omni shield, it has fairly decent flux statistics, and it has a fairly nice ship system for combat. At the very least, it was intended to be an easy conversion for military use if it wasn't a military vessel, or perhaps a Q-ship, from the drawing board.
Though I find the Condor's speed very odd. Since the Condor has less surface area than the Tarsus, which means a significant reduction in armor weight, and it doesn't carry anywhere near as much weight in cargo, the Condor should have a higher speed than the Tarsus. Perhaps 50 or even 55. It doesn't seem particularly logical for it to be slower than the freighter it's based on when it has an entire section of hull removed. And honestly, how often does the Fast Missile Rack really come in handy? Looking at the sprite, the Condor has two less engines, but all its engines are bigger than on the Tarsus, so I think its ability should be switched to Burn Drive to match the Tarsus. This would change the Condor from just being a poor man's Gemini to being a durable carrier that can easily escape a battle gone wrong.I could go either way on Fast Missile Racks or Burn Drive. As Megas says, Fast Missile Racks is a very useful ability for improving the Condor's performance in the missile support role, but on the other hand Burn Drive would give the Condor a halfway decent chance at running away from something that engages it, at least long enough for its escorts to respond. But then again, the Condor is a fairly tough carrier and if it's being threatened by a frigate or a destroyer rather than a heavier ship, its escort probably has time to respond anyways.
Coincidentally in a similar way as the Tarsus is differentiated from the... holy crap the Buffalo is bad. I see it's a little cheaper to run due to crew costs, but you'd think it would have at least slightly more cargo space than a Tarsus. Yeesh. I wonder why the Buffalo doesn't have 350 or 400 cargo space. Or at least better fuel efficiency.Yes, that is a bit odd. It looks like between this version and the last version Alex standardized fuel consumption rates; I'm fairly certain that there used to be a great deal more variability there, with high tech ships being generally more fuel efficient than midline ships, and midline ships being generally more fuel-efficient than the low-tech ships. Not sure that I'd say that the Buffalo is bad, if we're referring to it acting as a freighter, since it's (barely) more logistically efficient as a cargo hauler, but it's certainly not something you want going into combat and is much less capable of surviving if it should find itself drawn into a fight.
I suspect that a lot of my issues with how decks are distributed comes from, as you pointed out, the fact that there are only 4 dedicated carrier classes in the game. I think that if we had more carrier classes to cover all the intermediate areas, then my idea would become irrelevant.More appropriately-costed carriers won't meet any objections from me; there's a hole for a burn-3 carrier at cruiser scale or at the light end of the capital scale to explain why the Heron is a 'fast' carrier rather than just a carrier, unless the 'fast' designation refers to its combat speed rather than its burn speed.
Id love for a BS6 frigate carrier that was little more than a flight deck with engines. maybe a single PD. Delicate, but fast.I would expect that any frigate capable of carrying a flight deck would be slow because of the amount of internal space it had to sacrifice in order to fit the flight deck. Especially since the majority of the frigates in the game have sprites with bounding areas less than one third the bounding area of either of the destroyer-scale carriers. I find it difficult to believe that any frigate roughly the size of any of the frigates currently in the game could fit a flight deck while remaining reasonably fast; in my opinion, your best hope for a carrier with more than burn-4 is for a high-tech destroyer-scale carrier, rather than hoping for a frigate when the apparent size of such a craft is at best questionably suitable for a flight deck given the current carriers.
Missing a Fast Carrier too.The Heron is also a burn-4 carrier.
Fastest in the game is either the condor or the gemini at BurnSpeed 4.
Missing a Fast Carrier too.The Heron is also a burn-4 carrier.
Fastest in the game is either the condor or the gemini at BurnSpeed 4.
While superficially the same speed, it gets a smaller speed bonus from the navigation skill due to its larger class, so in reality the heron'fast carrier'is actually quite slow :-DThe difference in burn speed between a Condor/Gemini and a Heron is never greater than 1 due to Navigation, and at Nav-0, Nav-1, Nav-4, Nav-5, and Nav-8+, there is no difference at all between a cruiser with base burn-4 and a destroyer with base burn-4 unless there are other modifiers coming into play. I would say that the Heron is much more than 'superficially' the same speed as the two destroyer carriers, and that differences in speed due to navigation skill levels are closer to being abnormal than typical.
you don't really want to employ fighters against small fleets. Fighters are typically at best no cheaper than frigates to deploy, and probably cost more once you factor in losses, so for hunting fast fleets I'd rather be using frigates.Thats a shame. I really want to keep my fast fleet, i got tired of running naught but lashers with the odd wolf and vindicator thrown in.
question are there any good missile carrier cruisers/destroyers? something i could stack with Pilum LRM's for long range support?You're really limited in hull choices for this purpose, on account of the Pilum launcher needing a medium missile slot instead of a small one.
A real military I imagine would always be using cruiser or larger sized carriers in fleets utilizing fighters or bombers. On that note, I absolutely believe there is a place in-game for additional cruiser and capital sized carriers. Maybe something a little less extreme than the Astral in the capital class, and something a little slower and heavier in the cruiser class.See "escort carrier" or "light carrier." The real world escort and light carriers may be more in line with the cruisers of the time than the destroyers and the real world fleet carriers may be more in line with the battleships of the time as far as sizes go, but in Starsector we can infer from the Heron and the Astral that the standard fleet carrier is a cruiser-scale vessel rather than a capital-scale vessel - or at least that if it is capital-scale, it's a small capital ship. What the navy would be building in peacetime is another question, as is whether or not there would be a dedicated design when converting the Tarsus or using the Gemini is adequate - though I still feel that the Gemini is more accurately described as a purpose-built escort carrier rather than a freighter conversion.
The Gemini and Condor fill the destroyer sized carrier niche quite well. Really, I don't think there's any reason a "dedicated military" destroyer sized carrier should exist. From an in-universe standpoint, there is no point. Fighters and carriers are inherently large-fleet craft, and military fleets with their massive budgets and R&D resources are always going to prefer a larger, more capable, more survivable carrier. The whole destroyer sized carrier concept is very neat, but conversions fit this role ideally. It's the whole "some civilian decided he wanted carrier capability but couldn't finance a full scale option, so this workaround is available". Alternatively "fighters and strike craft are becoming a part of military doctrine, and new cruiser or capital options take time to develop, so in the mean time here is this inexpensive standby".I agree that the Gemini and the Condor fill the destroyer-scale carrier niche reasonably well. I disagree that this means that there is no reason why there should not be whatever you mean by a "dedicated military" destroyer-scale carrier (presumably, one designed from day one to be a light or escort carrier, though in my opinion the Gemini already is this despite its description), though I also don't feel that there must be another light carrier introduced into the game. The rationale for including another light carrier really depends on how you think that Starsector's convoy escort and support details would be handled by a space navy charged with taking care of things. There is a clear trend away from guns in favor of energy weapons as you progress from low-tech to high-tech ships, which leaves a conspicuous lack of late-midline or high-tech light carriers. It's not necessarily a hole that needs to be filled, though, as if late midline and high-tech designs are peacetime designs, there's a decent chance that design priority was given to the big ships that are difficult to produce quickly, rather than placing emphasis on smaller ships that are easier to build quickly - though this doesn't help explain the relative abundance of high-tech frigates.