Print

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

[CrashToDesktop]

@Aeson
In Star Wars, it might be different, but in real life, the aircraft carrier (and it's superseding variants of Super Carriers) have become the dominant naval force around the globe.  Battleships are virtually non-existant, and I'm pertty sure that none exist that are actually being used by a navy for possible combat.  It's just that fighters these days can pack so much firepower in a single missile or cannon that makes so powerful.  When humanity enters space (and inevitably starts fighting there), I doubt this order of battle will change very much.  But, that's not Star Wars, so yea.

The fighters taking up CR is a bit odd, I agree Dark and Aeson.  Maybe just keep the system with a set number of replacements.

[Histidine]

If all wings attached to a carrier must have the same orders, what happens when I have both fighters and bombers on the same carrier but only want to use one type? Do I just deal with it and operate wastefully? Do I have to attach different fighter types to different carriers to have anything resembling optimal play? That is A) boring and B) hugely limiting, especially for larger carriers.

[CrashToDesktop]

If all wings attached to a carrier must have the same orders, what happens when I have both fighters and bombers on the same carrier but only want to use one type? Do I just deal with it and operate wastefully? Do I have to attach different fighter types to different carriers to have anything resembling optimal play? That is A) boring and B) hugely limiting, especially for larger carriers.

Just because they're attached to the carrier doesn't mean you can't give them orders - if you looked at the fleet screen mockup Tartflette had, it showed the fighters at still part of the visible fleet.
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=9628.msg165642#msg165642
So I'm sure you could still give individual orders.  Maybe there would be a new command UI launch system for fighters on the tactical screen to compensate for when they're not deployed yet.

[Alex]

I've got to say, those are some really high quality mockups.

I've been thinking about redoing it - eventually, not now! - along similar lines (which involved installing hullmods instead, but this feels better). But, as has been pointed out here, the system currently in place *works*, so ripping it out is pretty low priority, and some might say counter-productive at this point.

(I don't know about the carrier not costing anything to deploy, that seems problematic since some carriers are pretty decent combat ships, especially if they could be fielded in large numbers. Even something as simple as the Condor, it'd be weird if it was a cheaper way to get LRMs on the field than, say, a Vigilance. And then there's stuff like the Odyssey and the Venture.)

Well, something to think about, definitely.

[CrashToDesktop]

Hey, our almighty overlord has dropped in to say something.  He likes it!

Yea, I noticed the quality of the mockups - was pretty surprised as well.

And something involving hullmods?  Let the rampant speculation of Alex's rampant speculation begin.

[Aeson]

In Star Wars, it might be different, but in real life, the aircraft carrier (and it's superseding variants of Super Carriers) have become the dominant naval force around the globe.  Battleships are virtually non-existant, and I'm pertty sure that none exist that are actually being used by a navy for possible combat.  It's just that fighters these days can pack so much firepower in a single missile or cannon that makes so powerful.  When humanity enters space (and inevitably starts fighting there), I doubt this order of battle will change very much.  But, that's not Star Wars, so yea.

Real-world carriers became dominant because they could deliver a comparable punch at much greater range than battleships. This is not an advantage that they retain; ship-launched missiles can deliver similarly powerful warheads at similarly great ranges to carrier-borne fighters. Carriers are no more guaranteed to be the dominant capital ship of the next major war than battleships were guaranteed to be the dominant capital ship of WWII when looking to the future from the interwar period.

Also, as far as real-world modern-day battleships go, the Russian Kirov-class battlecruisers may not be battleships in the traditional sense, being armed with missiles rather than guns and having thinner armor than the early 20th century battleships, but they are roughly a modern battleship might be expected to look like, and the Russian carriers to my understanding are more of a hybrid design halfway between a missile cruiser and a dedicated carrier than dedicated carriers like the USN carriers.

Furthermore, as long as we're talking about reality, the assumption that the dominance of naval aircraft carriers naturally implies the dominance of spacegoing carriers is flawed. Space is not the ocean; starfighters and starships operate under the same environmental constraints, whereas seagoing ships and aircraft do not. Real starfighters are more likely to be to space battleships what PT boats or MTBs are to battleships (or perhaps what fighter aircraft are to heavy bombers) than what fighter aircraft are to battleships, which would put spacefaring carriers into the same position as the MTB tender, and unless I'm mistaken the MTB tender has never been a dominant capital ship of any first-class naval power (granted, there have been proponents of the torpedo boat or similar vessels as the mainstay of the navy, but such has never really caught on with any of the dominant naval powers, nor have such navies typically successfully toppled a dominant naval power without first getting a battle fleet comparable to that of the dominant naval power they fought).

[Alex]

Yea, I noticed the quality of the mockups - was pretty surprised as well.

I wasn't surprised

[CrashToDesktop]

@Aeson
Fighters as a whole are not a threat to be set aside lightly, armed with a variety of missile - including anti-ship missiles.  Sure, they might not be as powerful as an anti-ship missile launched from a ship (fighter munitions generally have a smaller payload due to weight restrictions), but in a world where armor is pretty much nonexistant and protection relies mostly on shooting down the fighter or even the missile itself before it can strike, just one fighter-launched anti-ship missile can disable a full-sized cruiser.  A larger ship-launched one simply adds maybe a better chance to hit or slightly more survivability - but I'm certain that fighters will remain a dominant force.

@Alex
Right, forgot to take into account that it's Tartfiette makes these, lol.

[Thaago]

...

(I don't know about the carrier not costing anything to deploy, that seems problematic since some carriers are pretty decent combat ships, especially if they could be fielded in large numbers. Even something as simple as the Condor, it'd be weird if it was a cheaper way to get LRMs on the field than, say, a Vigilance. And then there's stuff like the Odyssey and the Venture.)

Well, something to think about, definitely.

Oh, I have an idea! How about we redo all the combat deployment costs to be by the weapons involved? I'm sure that will solve all problems without introducing any other issues.

[SafariJohn]

When did anyone suggest the carrier not cost anything to deploy?

[Alex]

I probably shouldn't have said "anything", but the OP does suggest carriers be cheap to deploy. Which should probably be taken to mean "cost as much to deploy as they would if they were the same ship sans flight decks", which would pretty much obviate my concerns.

[Tartiflette]

As for the whole "fighters as weapons of carriers," I'm at best ambivalent. I don't like the part about replacing lost fighters degrades the carrier's combat readiness, nor do I like the idea that I'd lose the ability to give orders to individual flights of fighters (implied by the fact that they're to be treated as weapons rather than as separate entities).

If all wings attached to a carrier must have the same orders, what happens when I have both fighters and bombers on the same carrier but only want to use one type? Do I just deal with it and operate wastefully? Do I have to attach different fighter types to different carriers to have anything resembling optimal play? That is A) boring and B) hugely limiting, especially for larger carriers.

I repeat, in battle the fighters would still behave as they do: you can deploy them or not and you can give them orders. The difference is that they can only be rebuilt and serviced by the carrier they are part of, and deployed if that ship is in the field. They are still independent entities, not drones! My reply about having them attacking the carrier's target is because it's how they currently behave in the game IF you assign them an escort order. (I'll edit the OP to precise that)

I've been thinking about redoing it - eventually, not now! - along similar lines (which involved installing hullmods instead, but this feels better). But, as has been pointed out here, the system currently in place *works*, so ripping it out is pretty low priority, and some might say counter-productive at this point.

My first draft was using hullmods too, but then they would have no cost and could be switched in hyper at will. And I completely agree that the current system works, I just felt that since you are probably wrapping up the 0.7a update, now is the best time to suggest things for the next one before you settle on its content!  

I probably shouldn't have said "anything", but the OP does suggest carriers be cheap to deploy. Which should probably be taken to mean "cost as much to deploy as they would if they were the same ship sans flight decks", which would pretty much obviate my concerns.

Exactly my thinking.

[...]Note that the carriers would have a cheap deployment cost (equivalent to a combat ship of the same power) that would raise only when rebuilding wings, but you'd need to deploy a lot of them to swarm an enemy ship however, thus balancing the cost.

I wasn't surprised

Hehe, thanks ^^ I believe a good mock-up is the best way to sell an idea... And even more importantly the best way to eliminate the bad ones! Because even a great idea on paper can be an horror for the UI thus useless.

[Histidine]

As for the whole "fighters as weapons of carriers," I'm at best ambivalent. I don't like the part about replacing lost fighters degrades the carrier's combat readiness, nor do I like the idea that I'd lose the ability to give orders to individual flights of fighters (implied by the fact that they're to be treated as weapons rather than as separate entities).

If all wings attached to a carrier must have the same orders, what happens when I have both fighters and bombers on the same carrier but only want to use one type? Do I just deal with it and operate wastefully? Do I have to attach different fighter types to different carriers to have anything resembling optimal play? That is A) boring and B) hugely limiting, especially for larger carriers.

I repeat, in battle the fighters would still behave as they do: you can deploy them or not and you can give them orders. The difference is that they can only be rebuilt and serviced by the carrier they are part of, and deployed if that ship is in the field. They are still independent entities, not drones! My reply about having them attacking the carrier's target is because it's how they currently behave in the game IF you assign them an escort order. (I'll edit the OP to precise that)

Yeah I know, was responding to Unfolder. (Sorry, should have disambiguated that...)

[Clockwork Owl]

Furthermore, as long as we're talking about reality, the assumption that the dominance of naval aircraft carriers naturally implies the dominance of spacegoing carriers is flawed. Space is not the ocean; starfighters and starships operate under the same environmental constraints, whereas seagoing ships and aircraft do not. Real starfighters are more likely to be to space battleships what PT boats or MTBs are to battleships (or perhaps what fighter aircraft are to heavy bombers) than what fighter aircraft are to battleships, which would put spacefaring carriers into the same position as the MTB tender, and unless I'm mistaken the MTB tender has never been a dominant capital ship of any first-class naval power (granted, there have been proponents of the torpedo boat or similar vessels as the mainstay of the navy, but such has never really caught on with any of the dominant naval powers, nor have such navies typically successfully toppled a dominant naval power without first getting a battle fleet comparable to that of the dominant naval power they fought).

Yep, if we take realism into account, it is unlikely that the space fighters would be useful. Even we don't
assume a battle would span some light-seconds across.
Underwhelming firepower, extremely precise anti-fighter weapons(There's nothing to diffuse something like laser PD in space, and that's not something you can flare off), etc etc.

Disabling space battleship might involve a total destruction since the spaceship does not 'sink' - if you land a good torpedo hit and break it into two pieces, but one(or both) of the pieces have some life-support and power supply intact, it is still capable of combat. Might make some relatively(considering it is a battle) hilarious scenes.

But we're going off-topic here, so yeah.

[Tartiflette]

Or maybe it will be quite the opposite! There is no such thing as stealth in space, crew are squishy and take a awful lot of space, heat dissipation is a nightmare, so maybe ALL combat ships will be fighter sized drones: they would be expendable, cheap, and far more mass-produceable (I'm talking about a swarm of several thousands units here, for probably the same cost as a handful of crewed space-battleships).