hate to point it out but the game already has fighters and carriers(sort of)

what i refer to is the starbase mod for the mini-fighters and that is what a carrie would carry not ships capable of getting there on their own but shuttles that can't fly through space that far ie no warp or life support at all not the tiny ships becouse they can carry both

a fighter would carry weapons only and suffencient means to fly around the carrier in combat

unlike mordern navies where the fighters can fight long distance from carrier do to the fact that if they are shot down the pilot can survive maybe

if you want to put more weaps on the tiny ships then don't put engines on them

i expermented once a tiny ship with no engine can carry the same paylaod as a small with engines of course you can't use these for anything but defense but that means you can use them for base defense too sense they can get there just not fast

Carriers are in Space Empires 5. Youll just have to get that if you want to to use them until GC develops further to enable this kind of gameplay.

Actually I find GC to be a jumble of ideas myself. On the one hand it seems to be trying to treat space warfare in a broadbrush type of way but then it zooms into the detail with individual designed spaceships.

Teh developers need to make up their mind which way the game is going and stick to it. Space Empires seems to have a monopoly on small scale tactics and strategy. IF I was Stardock I would be concentrating on really large scale warfare with literally hthousands of ships and loads of different gameplay concepts all done is a broadbrush fashion to really get an idea of huge galactic warfare. Otherwise you are getting two games doing almost the same thing in two almost identical ways.

Nats

Actually, carriers would be quite useful. But, are we talking fighter carriers or fleet carriers? If you go with space combat, those would be two separate times. And, realistically, there's no reason why you wouldn't use them. A small fighter can do precision strikes against capital ships and manage to disable important systems. Want an example? Try StarGate: Atlantis sometime, specifically where an Earth fighter takes out the FTL drive of a Wraith hiveship.

Fleet carriers would also be a tactical advantage. Why spend money to put FLT engines on ships when you can load them with weapons and armor and stick the FTL engines on what carriers them? And unless you're talking cloaking tech, there's pretty much no way an enemy ship would sneak up on you before you've begone to launch the actual combat ships.

Why oh why did you rez this thread from the cripts of deceased conversations? There are 2 more carriers threads active.

In a way, there is a point... We stopped commissioning battleships...

At any rate, why DID someone hunt this thread out of the depths? lol.

I think maybe a kind of supership that would have massive firepower and defenses, and could carry fighters it could be the civs flagship.

You know what, I regret that idea, carriers are a dumb idea to me now.

a fighter is a one person or two person craft the tiny ship in this game i see as having at least 10 in the crew

Problem with this is that the Terran/Human-style (which the Arceans use, as well) shows Tiny hulls being just that- one-person craft. You look at those Tiny hulls, and it's pretty obvious its a fighter. The AI even CALLS Tiny and Small hulls fighters (and Heavy Fighters), and refers to Medium hulls as Frigates and Cruisers. Larges are classified as Battleships, and Huges are Dreadnoughts. This is what the AI designates them as. I'm not just pulling names out of my ass to match with them. I'd prefer Tiny to be Frigate, Small for Destroyer, Medium for Cruiser, and the last two as they are, but this is the way the game's class defining system has it setup.

In a way, there is a point... We stopped commissioning battleships...

We could potentially revive battleships if we use missiles as their 'main guns', like the 'Advanced Battleships' from Rise of Nations. Those things would be a very effective Battleship-class vessel if they existed. They'd be like Ticonderoga-class Missile Cruisers, only even deadlier.

But the USN has essentially slimmed down to just Ticons and carriers, with smaller ships acting in picket roles.

the morden day us destroyer wieghs the same as a world war 2 battleship but cost a lot less all of the small ships exception submarianes are built to defend the carrier which only has offensive weapons ie the aircraft not saying it can't defend itself against a single combatent but it cant

sorry i didn't say it was the same i said it wieghed the same


i would go edit but for some reason they won't let me


but the subject was size of the tiny ships in this game


a ship can have a cockpit and still not be a fighter ie bombers and the space shuttle for instance

i think that the shuttle is about the size of the tiny ships in this game it can carry 10 poeple with life support

if you remember all of the sci-fi movies and shows that have fighters in them non of them have life support what i mean is that the pilot is in an enviroment suit

all a fighter is is an engine with a gun/guns tied to it with room for a pilot

i picture a space fighter to be only slightly larger than an f-15 becouse of the need of thrusters but then again a take of and land vertical fighter has thrusters doesn't it

and in the case of this game you could say that all of my crews travel in suits becouse since i don't have to put life support on the ships i don't

a ship can have a cockpit and still not be a fighter ie bombers and the space shuttle for instance

Did I say cockpit? I said no such thing. I continue to stand by the argument that the Human-style Tiny craft are just too small for anything but one pilot. You look at the Terran scout. It has nothing but a cockpit and wings and a little tiny engine. It is very obviously only large enough for one person.

And bombers and the space shuttle have alot more to them than just the cockpit, which allows for the larger crew capacity. A traditional bomber's cockpit (as opposed to a B-2 'Spirit' Stealth Bomber, which is a 2-man craft) is large enough for a pilot, a co-pilot, and the navigator, while the bombardier is in a further-back compartment, and gunners utilize the remaining crewspace along the rest of the craft. At least, this is with respect to old craft such as the Stratofortress- which is still in use, I believe. I'm currently not sure how the B-1 'Lancer' is setup internally - the Lancer being the third type of bomber that the US military wields, and is often viewed as our prime 'carpet bomber' ...

And, technically, bombers don't need much beyond the cockpit, the payload, and the engines. The B-2 Spirit does a decent job with just two guys running the show, the electronics on the assist. And the second guy is really just a backup.

Look to the A-10 'Warthog'. This thing is technically a form of bomber. It's primary role is ground support. It is loaded down with ASMs (Air-to-Surface Missiles) and bombs, and one big tank-buster gatling gun. And all it needs to fly is one guy.

as well as countless others I can't really remember now.

Such as the all-time classic Wing Commander (forget the stupid movie - the whole Pilgrim thing was just so idiotic. The Christopher Blair played by Mark 'Luke Skywalker' Hamill didn't need some special genetic 'gift' to be a talented pilot). Hmm... I need to make some Scimitar fighters, now...

EDIT: Also... I tend to be of the mind that Destroyers are supposed to be smaller than Cruisers. The order of 'craft' with respect to size in my mind is:

Fighter (including Heavy Fighters and Bombers)
Corvette
Frigate
Destroyer
Cruiser (and all varying types of Cruiser- Light and Battle)
Battleship
Dreadnought

with the exception of two fighters in the usa aircraft all usa aircraft are in reallity fighter/bombers the two exception is the f-16 and the f-18 oh and of course the ones that have a b in their number/name ie the disegnation of an f-15 is really fb-15 same with all the other fighters including the warthog as you stated its job is close support for land troops including killing tanks

Not really, though. Many fighters are capable of carrying air-to-ground weapons but aren't fighter-bombers in any meaningful sense of the word. That term refers to planes like the F-111 or F-117 (which is admittedly mischaracterized as a "fighter" in offical documentation). F-15Es might be classified as fighter-bombers; not sure on that one. Other F-15s are plain fighters.

Actually, I'm not sure why you're drawing a distinction with the F-16 and the F-18. Both are fighter-bombers, IIRC.