Print

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

[Plaje]

A while back I made this thread on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/starsector/comments/ncnuji/the_current_state_of_carriers/gy9akbd/?context=3) but after giving carriers a second try I wanted to re-iterate it and make sure it is seen on the official forums.

I know carriers were OP/meta before but they have been nerfed way too hard in the other direction right now. Consider the following:
1. Carrers received nerfs in a few key areas which I mostly agreed with if they happened in a vacuum
2. However, this happened in a patch where literally every other ship design received some kind of massive buff, mostly in the form of character/officer skills and built in hullmods
3. While carriers also got an overall "helping" on the character skills like other designs did, carrier's "help" on the skill tree doesn't quite help it as much as other skill sets
4. Fighters have no answer to strong PD screens. I realize PD is supposed to be the counter to fighters, but there has to be something you can actually DO about it in order for fighters to actually be useful in this game, besides "use a different ship". This was true when drover spam was good and is even more true now after carrier nerfs.
5. Finally, the real matter at hand: you can fill your fleet with just about any "good" ship design of any other category and take it all the way into endgame and dominate with it once you are fully kitted out. With carriers, you get fully kitted out and still lose your fleet to anything with an onslaught in it, or anything remotely strong ([redacted] fleets, stations, etc).

Partly this is due to carrier hull mods. All other ships get large bonuses and have many options in the form of built-in hullmods. But with my carrier fleet I find that there's just no reason to take the 3 built-in skill because there just isn't anything useful to put in there (if it was even possible to reach with a carrier-focused skill tree). There are only 2 hullmods that affect fighters at all and only one of them is particularly useful (expanded deck crew is great but a merciless commander can always just buy more crew). PD bonuses are decent but don't help your fighters when flak is involved.
Additionally, and this is just a personal thing I have with carriers, our control over where our fighters go is very limited. It takes much longer for fighters to respond to combat commands than ordinary ships do, and by the time they get around to responding they're already all dead. In addition some commands simply don't exist for fighters, like there is no equivalent of "escort" for fighter wings, if say I wanted one interceptor group to guard a specific friendly ship or something. It would help a lot to have a bit more control over where our fighters are going and to be able to tell our friendly carriers to recover replacement rate when we need to also.

What I'd like to see at a minimum if carriers are going to come up to where the rest of the game's ships are:
1. Several extra hull mods for fighters so we have something to build into our carriers that will help the fighter wings and not just "deck crew plus irrelevant ship mods"
2. As said, more manual control over where fighters go - maybe not completely manual, but we need to be able to tell our friendly ships to recover replacement rate, tell specific wings or specific ships' fighters to go perform a specific task, and we need to be able to synchronize our fleet's wings to go out and come back together instead of just going in single-file and getting shot down one-by-one to any amount of PD. Currently we can't do this even if our carriers all contain the exact same ship, officer, and fighters. They quickly get out of sync, and it BEGINS out of sync when some wings are faster than others
3. Some kind of answer to flak/onslaught. Right now there is LITERALLY nothing the player can do to counter it besides switching ships, and using these tactics against AI fighters is so far beyond overkill that you can get by with just one dedicated PD frigate against even the strongest enemy carrier fleets (granted, the AI doesn't use dedicated carrier fleets much, but it wouldn't matter if they did). It's just too binary.
4. In the presence of everything else that happened in the game, drovers could really get un-nerfed and still not be that great, and the other carriers aren't spectacular either though drover/heron/astral might be good if fighters themselves werent so pedestrian
5. There has to be some way to scale these guys into endgame. Right now flash isn't really any better than piranha or whatever in the face of [redacted] or onslaught fleets.
6. Something needs to be done about flash and piranha wings hitting their own carriers when they deploy their payloads. Literally - they hit their own ship.

I realize this isn't intended to be addressed in the next update but really these things are so bad to use in so many places I think they should be. Most of this stuff could just be tweaked here and there to be sufficient, adding hullmods isn't too hard either. The hard parts (in my opinion I guess) would likely be fixing the AI to stop bombing your own ships, and adding new mechanics to give us better control of the wings is probably a larger diversion of resources than you guys are willing to make, though I still think it is needed.

[Kobura]

Entire YMMV post.

In .91A after the pretty expected first playthrough using nothing but Capitals, I was using almost nothing except a single player-driven Capital (I like the Conquest), and carriers. Drovers, of course, back then. Who wouldn't? That strategem doesn't work anymore, but I've found a bit of a balance with 6 hangar decks in my fleet (Paragon, Conquest, Dominator [planning on swapping out - just can't slug like I need], Monitors, just swapped two Wolf for two Tempest, two Heron ...and I admit, player-driven Hyperion, may play with a Doom)

Strike craft can and do still throw the balance when the scales are tight, and sometimes I find it difficult to justify the 20 points a Heron costs, until I remember trying to make the same six bays work out of three Condors. Not a good situation, that was, even in a stagnant battle Condors can get flanked by most geographical features, and outmaneuvered by slugs. What I used to do was simply hold a line while the fighters did everything and that flatly doesn't work anymore, and good on it. Mixed fleet composition pays major dividends now, even as I'm still focused on using a Paragon as a distractor and a Conquest as a rotating one-sided hammer, exploiting or creating gaps in the enemy with a Hyperion, I realize I've taken a frigate and am doing half a dozen ship's worth of carriers work now. The strike craft (each Heron has an identical mixed trio of Xyphos, Flash, and Lux, so I can take the losses I expect to, and laugh) mostly do support or exploitation, as I set them to escort their larger ship, and even with one captain Aggressive they stay behind and to the sides, not getting hit too often, and fast enough to reposition as the field evolves.

The big thrust is: Frigates are the new bombers. Strike craft won't do the hammerblows they used to, what they may well do now, instead is create fractures and periodic tactical strikes that allow the real vessels to do the job.

Some personal notes: Monitors are ridiculous. Absolutely stupid. I set monitors to escort either the carriers (who themselves are each escorting a combat cruiser/capital), or to escort the capital itself, and frequently the monitor soaks up everything coming at it and begs for more. Either don't give the AI any more guns and just pump those insane shields, or do something time-synchronized like light mortars so the fortress shield comes down as little as possible. These things aren't force multipliers, they're exponent-ers. Giving a large ship the ability to basically leave, or throw a bone at the enemy that can take an entire fleet's pounding for minutes, and costing 6OP? I'LL TAKE TEN.

Fast versus toughcapitals are not to be underestimated. The Conquest isn't the baddest bone in the bin, but it's definitely fast enough to pick its' engagements, and in an attrition game, options are king. Maximize it by arming one side (I affectionately name mine the 'Broadside') versus big targets, and the backside with some PD and anti-frigate/strike craft stuff. Devastators are cheaper than dual flak, here, with the mounting system, and are tremendously flux efficient versus missiles (a big Conquest enemy from smaller ships, or Salamanders versus unshielded engines).  Especially with a survival-oriented Paragon as a battle anchor, the Conquest spinning around the fight with some Monitors keeping things from chewing at it, really gets the job done.

Player-Hyperion, or Doom phase cruiser. Basically cheating. That's really all there is to it. My Hyperion is so good, I cart around a spare chariot for myself for when the CR isn't replenished. Each has two ion repeaters and, of all things, a heavy machine gun (for shields). The shield on the Hyperion with 100CR (or even 85) and the shield mastery improved is very, very, very tough, mine is extended to 360 degrees, allowing me to ignore Salamanders (used to really be my mortal enemy) and also warp into pain spots to disable some engines at a critical moment has typically won me games all by itself, by forcing enemies to stay caught-out so they can be finished off instead of dumping their flux load, pulling back, and recharging. It's also great for pursuit as you can leapfrog through the retreating enemies and disable engines as you go, leaving them for slower ships to gobble them up. I can't believe I waited so long to play with one. It really is cheating.

This hasn't seemed like it helped with the carrier-centric problem much, but what I did do was (forcibly... I bounced off this wall too) discover that carrier spam simply doesn't work in the campaign, and I have to be diverse to get the results I want EVERY time considering the variety of opponents I'll be contending with. Slewing strike craft at the enemy sometimes functions, but often it's a lossy battle, not the win-button it definitely was, and should not be again. I agree with the DRover commentary though, they were definitely too good, and now just aren't. Niche results using them with a pair of Cobra LPC though, as +100% Cobras is better than +1 Khopesh, or Perdition, or Pirhanna.

I haven't played with a Legion yet in 95, but I suggest you try a pair of Herons as your go-to strike carriers, since you only get 6 bays in your maximized perks, get the best, most powerful 6 bays you can. Or three Drovers = 12 Cobras

[Megas]

Enemy fleets got buffed by the change of DP pool distribution and them having more officers and superior officer power than you.  If you do not take officer skills, you will be stuck at 40% map size for DP late in the game.

There may have been other hidden carrier changes.  Before, it used to recover rate if it had more than a half (or someone other threshold) a wing left.  Now, (not sure of this but) it may require the full wing before recovering rate.

Problem with carrier skills is they conflict with other skills that may be just as good for carriers.
* The bomber skill conflicts with Helmsmanship (which is also good for carriers)
* The fighter doctrine (or its successor) conflicts with Crew Training (or whatever Fleet Logistics non-colony half's successor's name is).
* The fighter speed skill conflicts with Electronic Warfare skill, which is vital against human fleets.
Same reason why Flux Regulations is better than Phase Corp for phase ships, because phase ships need the flux skill too.

Drover was over-nerfed.  Costs too much DP and its Reserve Deployment has become a harmful system (ruins replacement rate).

Recall Device with massive delay means there is no point for Astral unless player is really hurting for fleet slots.  Now, the only useful carriers are Mora (enough OP to repurpose into exploration ship with fighters) or Heron (basic combat carrier), at least until carriers in general stop being useful.

Legion is merely a gimped Onslaught once the fighters are wiped out.  Just stick with Onslaught.  Legion14 is better as a super Champion or missileship; go all in on missiles and ignore fighters (or grab mining pods as free meat shields).

Missileships with large homing missiles are better carriers than carriers.  Locusts and ECCM'ed MIRVs act as better fighters than fighters.  In addition, the ships still have the stats and enough guns to function as a full-blown warship (with exceptions like Gryphon and Atlas2).

EDIT:  The motes discharged by Ziggurat also act much like modern fighters, and Ziggurat can fight.

1. Several extra hull mods for fighters so we have something to build into our carriers that will help the fighter wings and not just "deck crew plus irrelevant ship mods"

No.  All this does is push carriers to sacrifice more or everything for fighters.  Empty mounts, no hullmods aside from carrier buffs just for the ship to do its job.  This is already a problem for most carriers (actually, all of them except Legion), and more carrier-only hullmods will make it worse.

Carriers have mounts for guns.  It should use them, not leave them empty just to have enough OP to get what it needs to do its basic job of using fighters competently.  Carriers should be able to fight like they used to before 0.8a.  Of course, fighters cannot be so weak that getting a warship is better than a carrier every time.

I suggest making carrier-only stuff cost no OP.  This means...

Make all of the bonuses from Expanded Deck Crew the baseline.  Buff base carrier stats with the bonuses provided by pre-0.95 Expanded Deck Crew (because 0.95 deck alone is not good enough), then remove the hullmod from the game.  Then make sure carriers have enough OP to arm themselves like a warship of a size lower like in pre-0.8a releases.  That way, if fighters are gone or away, the carrier can still fight.

Make fighters cost no OP.  Player will stick the best fighters and carrier hullmods (i.e., Expanded Deck Crew) on the carrier regardless of OP cost just so it can do its job, even if it means sacrificing everything else.  (For ships without bays, make Converted Hangar cost more OP, and do not allow it to be s-modded.)

[Plaje]

1. Several extra hull mods for fighters so we have something to build into our carriers that will help the fighter wings and not just "deck crew plus irrelevant ship mods"

No.  All this does is push carriers to sacrifice more or everything for fighters.  Empty mounts, no hullmods aside from carrier buffs just for the ship to do its job.  This is already a problem for most carriers (actually, all of them except Legion), and more carrier-only hullmods will make it worse.

I'm legitimately curious to know what absolutely essential hull mods you are building into your Heron or Condor that takes up all your built-in hullmod space and would be better than an actual fighter bonus in that slot instead.

Say they added a hullmod that gives all your bombers flares and some extra shielding. You would rather fit ____ mod in there instead on your Heron that is going to be make your fleet more effective, what hull mod is that going to be?

[Megas]

I did not use built-in mods for most of my ships until near the end of the game, and only on ships good enough for endgame use, which carriers failed to make the cut.  Most of my ships had a single built-in mod (either Hardened Shields and/or Expanded Missile Racks).  I was hoarding my points to pay 2^n costs for colony improvements.  I did not want to waste story points on ships unless I was certain I would use them in my final endgame fleet, which ended up being Radiant, Paragon, and phase ships.

I did not use Condor in my last game.  I lucked out (or not given how bad Drover is now) and bought (to steal) pristine Drovers from powered-armor guy at the bar at a discount.  Soon after, I got Mora and Heron.  Near the end of the game, I looted Legion and Astral from enemy fleets (then fix with Field Repairs) after I already assembled my final fleet of Ziggurat (or Paragon when raiding core worlds), Radiant, Harbinger, and several Dooms.

Condor was one of the few carriers that could never fight well (except one old release with unlimited Salamanders).  Its stats and mounts are awful.  Its niche is cheap entry-level carrier.  In old versions, its destroyer-sized upgrade was Gemini, which had the mounts to fight back (and its original system was machine gun drones, when fighters were ships).  Lately, Gemini got the Venture treatment, was turned into a civilian ship, and now the proper destroyer upgrade to Condor is Drover.  Before this release, Drover could be built to brawl with needlers and missiles while using cheaper fighters, which worked, but it did not work as well as leaving all mounts empty, using high-end fighters, get speed and defense hullmods (and deck crew), and run away from everything like Spathi in Star Control.  Unarmed Drover with good fighters performed better than classic style warship-lite Drover.  Today, Drover is overnerfed, and I get rid of it as soon as I no longer need it.

For Heron, I use 8-12 OP fighters (or bombers), Expanded Deck Crew, maybe a QoL hullmod or two.  Heron may have flak and/or few beam PD, and the rest to flux stats.  At times, I removed all weapons from Heron to try to prevent AI Heron from charging at enemy ships and kissing them with flak.

What I want to use on Heron, in addition to aforementioned fighters and Deck Crew, is Heavy Blaster, some burst PD for anti-missile, ITU, Resistant Flux Conduits (for faster venting), high-to-max vents, and some caps.  Worked great in 0.65 (because fighters were ships and did not steal OP from the carrier, only Logistics), almost like Fury today.  But with fighters and deck crew sucking lots of OP, getting a good destroyer-tier weapons package without sacrificing fighter power (i.e., using Talons instead if anything that costs 8 or more OP) is impossible.  And since Heron is primarily a carrier, I min-max for its strengths (fighter use) instead of shoring up weakness (trading good fighters for a weapons package to brawl against the enemy effectively).

A carrier's job is to use fighters, but being the best at it often means sacrificing too much (perhaps everything) given how much OP fighters and deck crew cost.

For Astral, I want to fill the left medium mounts with Heavy Blasters, right mounts with missiles (and get Expanded Missile Racks), various beam pd, flux stats, ITU and other general warship hullmods.  But with modern fighters, I load up with bombers (after the Warthog was nerfed from 3x3 to 2x2), then put five or so burst PD for anti-missile, and the rest of the OP goes to Augmented Engines (burn 7 is unacceptable), Expanded Deck Crew.  Last release, I used Resistant Flux Conduits to vent spam after abusing Recall, but that use is shot down with the system delay.

Say they added a hullmod that gives all your bombers flares and some extra shielding. You would rather fit ____ mod in there instead on your Heron that is going to be make your fleet more effective, what hull mod is that going to be?

Instead of what, Deck Crew?  Probably not.  Replacement rate is a vital stat.  Instead of weapons, QoL hullmods, and flux stats?  If it means fighters last significantly longer against relevant threats (and thus not sink replacement rate), probably.

[JUDGE! slowpersun]

Missileships with large homing missiles are better carriers than carriers.  Locusts and ECCM'ed MIRVs act as better fighters than fighters.

This, in a nutshell, basically seems to illustrates this game's entire issue with carriers (combat or otherwise)... that fighters/bombers as missiles code is less effective than actual missiles.  Either "fix" carriers or drop them, I guess; I put "fix" in parenthesis because carriers have been fixed before, and I'm sure will be fixed again.  Seriously though, the inability to use fighters and bombers to at least project zones of control (ie, waypoint fighters/bombers, if unable to assign them to some arbitrary location) seems a primary source of concern for coding.  How does AI determine best means of determining what route for any single arbitrary fighter or bomber wing to take, let alone what is an ideal zone of control?  Adversarial system seems best solution, but huge pain to code...

[Megas]

Missileships with large homing missiles are better carriers than carriers.  Locusts and ECCM'ed MIRVs act as better fighters than fighters.

This, in a nutshell, basically seems to illustrates this game's entire issue with carriers (combat or otherwise)... that fighters/bombers as missiles code is less effective than actual missiles.  Either "fix" carriers or drop them, I guess; I put "fix" in parenthesis because carriers have been fixed before, and I'm sure will be fixed again.  Seriously though, the inability to use fighters and bombers to at least project zones of control (ie, waypoint fighters/bombers, if unable to assign them to some arbitrary location) seems a primary source of concern for coding.  How does AI determine best means of determining what route for any single arbitrary fighter or bomber wing to take, let alone what is an ideal zone of control?  Adversarial system seems best solution, but huge pain to code...

The most glaring part is many of those missileships are still fully or mostly armed warships that can still fight against enemies of their weight class.  Carriers min-maxed for fighters cannot do this; they end up as Buffalos or Atlases that haul fighters instead of cargo.  Of course, carrier can use Talons and guns, but at that point, just get a real warship, possibly with missiles, instead.  If player wants to use fighters, best to min-max the carriers for that job.

That said, fighters from 0.8 to 0.91 used to be better than missiles overall, although missiles were still useful either as spike damage or as pseudo-fighters for warships that cannot use fighters.  I have posted fighters are better missiles than missiles in the past.  Now, some missiles are better fighters than fighters because the missiles take longer to run out of ammo than it takes for carriers' replacement rate to drop to 30% and because the missileship still has guns, ITU, flux, and (often) overall stats of its weight class.

If I want a cruiser "carrier", I grab Apogee with Locusts and Expanded Missile Racks, or better yet, Doom and spam mines and Salamanders.

And speaking of fighters, the one weapon that has the best drone behavior are the motes from Ziggurat.  Wished I could control modern fighters like the Ziggurat can control its motes.  If going back to pre-0.8a fighters is not an option (I am not holding my breath), then fighters should be piloted like Ziggurat's motes.

[Sheluna]

Aaaah, that's why I'm struggling this much in my late runs. Haaaaa. <picture of a dumb one discovering something clever for the first time>

Joke aside, I've read a few interesting things here, and I can add my own feelings to the pot : carriers suck.
The idea was awesome, though. I mean... They're like the perfect tool to adapt our fleets to whatever the enemy will thrown at us. Plenty of fregates? Okay, time to get the carriers full of hunters on the field! Plenty of heavy and slow ships? Bombing time! For attacking stations, it WAS a great addition to the fleet.

Now, they're SLOW, easily flanked, the AI don't know where to place the ship in order to stay "in the melee but not under the fire of the enemy". Or we use all the Command Points to protect them and all the fights is a game of "you won't reach them" and "***, I need to engage, but if I do that, I'll lose my carriers", or we let the AI in full auto and watch the carriers pop like corn on a burning stone.
But hey... They're still cool. I like the idea, so I keep using them. Even if I now rarely get them out in fights.

By the way... There is something which always bugged me a lot with carriers... Their prices in supplies at the deployment. I tried to compare the price per bay. When some are actually really good (hello heron), some are terribly bad. It's even hardly understandable. Why wasting so many points for a single bay of fighters which will get depop in a flash, followed by the future-scrap which is their carrier ?



I love that game, and I hope Alex will read that thread. Or at least, that someone will reach him with the feedback he probably needs to see where are the problems. Since fixing ships is probably the least amusing side in creating a game. Balance is hard to find. And each future minor changes can break and create huge gaps.

[Thaago]

I feel like I say this a lot... fighters aren't missiles and missiles aren't fighters. Their use cases are very different.

Carriers are a bit undertuned this patch because of how skills shook out. Personally I find Herons with fast bombers and Condors with thunders (or other interceptors before thunders can be found) to be good, and other carriers decent other than the Drover which has some sort of bug in its system.

...


By the way... There is something which always bugged me a lot with carriers... Their prices in supplies at the deployment. I tried to compare the price per bay. When some are actually really good (hello heron), some are terribly bad. It's even hardly understandable. Why wasting so many points for a single bay of fighters which will get depop in a flash, followed by the future-scrap which is their carrier ?

...

It depends on the ship system and number of bays (concentration of force is taxed as it should be). Condors are very economical per bay but have no fighter supporting system at all (its nice for Salamanders though). Drovers in theory have an amazing ship system for fighters but its currently bugged, etc.

[Burvjradzite]

I think we need someone, who can bring upon reliable carrier build that can fight through all the game content.

[Linnis]

Remember Carriers are under-tuned partly as a result of deployment is more restricted than before. If the game is modded with enough deployment points so that everything can always deploy, carriers would make up half or more of the fleet because of stacking firepower per area. If by chance, the game will allow us to deploy more than what we have now, carriers will become better in a sense.

[Wapno]

I love that game, and I hope Alex will read that thread. Or at least, that someone will reach him with the feedback he probably needs to see where are the problems. Since fixing ships is probably the least amusing side in creating a game. Balance is hard to find. And each future minor changes can break and create huge gaps.

Rest assured - he does read the forums, and he confirmed that on multiple occasions.

I think we need someone, who can bring upon reliable carrier build that can fight through all the game content.

I think the crux of the problem here is that there is no such build in the current iteration of the game. Besides the carriers being generally underpowered, there exists a ton of things which either directly hamper their effectiveness, or are outright a hard counter. Doom's mine strike being a prime example, which is a "delete all fighters now" button. The "endgame boss" fight is another one, which features a system that murders fighters even faster than Doom's mine strike (even having additional bonuses specifically against fighters).

The worst thing is that there's not much that can be done to counteract this. You can minmax all you want, stack Expanded Deck Crew with Carrier Group skill, best fighters, etc., but you're still going to quickly run into a scenario where carriers are just not viable. This is unlike warships and phase ships, which can be made to work in pretty much any situation, given the right build and skillset.

I've literally instagibbed the "endgame boss" using two paragons with tachyon lances, while practically suffering no significant damage, thanks to heavy armor + resistant flux conduits + shield shunt. With carriers, you can bring whatever you like, but it's probably just going to casually wipe all your fighters with its ship system, and then proceed to tear apart your fleet now stuck at 30% fighter replacement rate.

Remember Carriers are under-tuned partly as a result of deployment is more restricted than before. If the game is modded with enough deployment points so that everything can always deploy, carriers would make up half or more of the fleet because of stacking firepower per area. If by chance, the game will allow us to deploy more than what we have now, carriers will become better in a sense.

Probably ain't going to happen. Deployment points limit is not a balancing issue, but a hardware requirements issue. Battles have limited DP specifically so that you don't turn the game into a slideshow by having too many ships present (battlesize can be increased in the settings btw).

[Plaje]

Remember Carriers are under-tuned partly as a result of deployment is more restricted than before. If the game is modded with enough deployment points so that everything can always deploy, carriers would make up half or more of the fleet because of stacking firepower per area. If by chance, the game will allow us to deploy more than what we have now, carriers will become better in a sense.

I think that's the main difficulty in balancing fighters right now, either you're able to reach a critical mass of swarming death, or they get killed on the first or second run and your fleet dies. Before the drover nerf it was the former, now after 0.95a it is the latter. There's never going to be much room for middle ground with the current design.

I guess maybe that's the key takeaway - unless the current all-or-nothing design of fighters is changed they probably will never be balanced. Maybe we could do away with the fighter replacement rate and make a new mechanic that doesn't encourage this kind of binary PD versus wings check.

[Megas]

I think that's the main difficulty in balancing fighters right now, either you're able to reach a critical mass of swarming death, or they get killed on the first or second run and your fleet dies. Before the drover nerf it was the former, now after 0.95a it is the latter. There's never going to be much room for middle ground with the current design.

I guess maybe that's the key takeaway - unless the current all-or-nothing design of fighters is changed they probably will never be balanced. Maybe we could do away with the fighter replacement rate and make a new mechanic that doesn't encourage this kind of binary PD versus wings check.

This was the exact same problem with Pilums.  In older releases, it was possible to achieve critical mass and kill everything with Pilums.  (Pilums back then had much more hp, and old Missile Spec. 10 upgraded them to nearly emulate Harpoons that could regenerate.)  Now, it is impossible to reach critical mass with Pilums (at least without Missile Spec. for all ships), and all that mass Pilum spam can do is make the enemy ships cower and run away more (making them act almost like Timid captains), and Pilums are mostly or completely worthless.  If you are lucky, mass Pilum spam may kill a ship or two; otherwise, it is a waste of PPT.  At least more recent releases sort of acknowledges it by making Pilums dirt cheap.

If fighters will be deliberately weak for the sake of balance, then all the more reason to make fighters free or cheap (for those with real bays at least) and restore viability of warship-lite loadouts for most carriers.

@ Wapno:  Another hard counter against fighters is Ziggurat's motes, although Ziggurat needs something like it because its firepower all goes forward.  Without motes, Ziggurat would be a sitting duck like Harbinger is.  Of course, Ziggurat is the queen of hangar queens, taking ages to heal enough CR to fight back after one fight even with Efficiency Overhaul.

[Wapno]

@ Wapno:  Another hard counter against fighters is Ziggurat's motes, although Ziggurat needs something like it because its firepower all goes forward.  Without motes, Ziggurat would be a sitting duck like Harbinger is.  Of course, Ziggurat is the queen of hangar queens, taking ages to heal enough CR to fight back after one fight even with Efficiency Overhaul.

Yup, that's what I was referring to as "endgame boss" in my previous post. Also agree about the hangar queen part.