Well, a Carrier is certainly a capital ship. Perhaps there can be a "Figther Craft" module put onto larger hulls.

I don't know how animated combat will be, but seeing a big, Wing Commander style capital ship that "fights" by releasing a dozen tiny fighters should be possible. The fighters themselves could be equipped with the beam, driver, or missile weapons.

"under the hood," the carrier could just be considered by the game as any old ship, with its own attack and defense values. But the user would see a big, realtivly defensless carrier unleashing hosts of smaller ships to do its work.

Would these fighter bay modules actually be doing anything different, or are they merely substituting conventional weapon and defence modules? If a module of Mass Driver armed attack fighters adds 1 point to the ship's Mass driver attack strength, doesn't that mean its simply a Mass driver with a different name?

Now, if fighters add something in addition to a 1 point attack/defence bonus, they have a justification. Maybe interceptors add a point of defence to the fleet, defending the ship under attack? May possibly lead to unalanced 'uber fleets' with unbreachable defences, so that has to be considered. I just think a feature like fighters has to be more than a renamed gun or shield module.

Here's one area where I think that fighters would be distinctly different from just another gun - fighters can only be defended against with point-defense weapons, not your typical capital-scale weapons.

So, let's say a single battleship meets up with a single carrier. If the battleship has no point-defense weapons mounted, then it is defenseless against the onslaught of the carrier's attack fighters.

Here's another difference - interceptors can only attack other fighters, not capital ships. So, if a carrier ONLY has carriers, then it cannot attack any other capital ships.

Now, the distinction over what is an "attack fighter" and what is an "interceptor" might actually come down to what weapons are designed into the "fighter". Weapons like torpedoes and bombs would allow the fighter to attack capital ships, while beam weapons and mass-drivers would allow the fighter to attack other fighters. The game would need the intelligence to evaluate the weapons on the fighters to correctly calculate the carrier's overall attack / defense ratings.

To simplify things though, restricting an entire fighter bay to a single fighter/interceptor design could be the way to go. It would easy calculation for the programmers, and from a logical point of view, we could view each fighter-bay/fighter-type combination as a squadron, if you will. In fact, maybe instead of using the term "fighter bay", we use the term "squadron" isntead?

Star Pilot, to address the available-space issue you raise, I would suggest that fighters not be allowed to have FTL drives. Considering how to make fighters distinct from any other weapon, such as a missile, let's try take 2:

Fighters:
Can attack other fighters (or missiles) with the correct armament
Can attack capital-ships with correct the armament
Can attack multiple times, while each missile can attack only once
Must be attacked with point-defense weapons
Are more difficult to hit with point-defense weapons than missiles (ECM, piloting skills, etc)

I think having fighters would create a very interesting consideration in ship design. For example, if a battleship doesn't devote any of its space to point-defense weapons, then a fleet of carriers would devour that battleship. However, if a battleship ONLY has point-defense weapons, then it probably wouldn't last very long against frigate armed with capital-ship scale weapons.

It's true, one could say, "Why not just use missiles instead of fighters?" I would respond by saying that if one were to pit a carrier loaded with fighters against a carrier with an equal number of missiles, the fighter-carrier would win, for the reasons stated above.

Just some thoughts.

Missiles advantage over a fighter is: No organics. This means that it can pull 60G thrusting or manevuers, while a fighter is limited to 8G and under. Are your fighters direct controlled (organic in the cockpit) or remote controlled? At remote controlled, they gain the advantage of having an organic computer (the brain!) in control of a fighting system not limited by organics (missile). After all, you can have a computer to auto-respond on developments that happen too fast for an organic, but the organic is there to handle things that the computer isn't an expert on (such as the current politically derived Rules of Engagement. ).

I can see early space fighters having the pilot in the cockpit, and over time, moving them out and back to the carrier. That is what we are doing with modern fighters in the Real World. (See: Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) and the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) for details). At that point, you end up with: Missiles. Multi-load, multi-function, reusable, but still, they are just missiles. A weapon carrying system that deploys more weapon systems. Or, put another way, a baby carrier. I'm being extreme here, but the difference between a missile and a (sometimes) remotely piloted craft grows very blurry and indistinct when you get into missiles that deploy sub-munitions, and that are capable of taking their own evasive actions and determining their own targets. Indeed, most of the tech has been incorporated into the UCAVs, which are entirely programmable (like a missile) so that no input from any pilot is ever needed to perform their mission and deploy their munitions. Or shoot down other aircraft.

Now, reality doesn't matter. But I'm curious what having fighters gain us in terms of fun and strategy. Attack fighters will add to your ship's overall strength, but only be vulnerable to interceptors and point defense? Why not just make them their own category, and only allow intercepters to be be the defenders?

And shouldn't missiles be just as effective against fighters? After all, that's what we use to shoot down fighters now. Well, that, intercepters, and flak. I presume that Point Defense utilizes Flak (along with a mixture of short ranged, fast recharging, energy weapons and/or small mass drivers). Humm... come to think of it, the truth is that even energy weapons should be able to pick off fighters as easily as they can pick off any other space ship. Energy weapons require extremely precise targetting (otherwise, you miss. No self guiding weaponry there!). And your energy weapons have to deal with extremely fast moving objects (because you yourself are moving very quickly, and that will make even 'stationary' targets appear to move at those speeds). So why can't they pick on fighters? It's not like the fighter is only going to be 5 meters long by 1 meter across. You still have to pack all the weapons, engines, and whatever defense you want, even if you keep the pilot back on your carrier (thus letting you not worry about life support or life protection from high G maneuvers).

Again, I'm just trying to understand how it would all work together to add strategy to the game. And why fighters would be vulnerable to fighters (Space Superiority/Interceptors) and PD. If PD work just as effectively against fighters, then everyone would just use PD to defend against fighters and missiles, instead of picking something that only works against fighters, wouldn't they?

Humm... I recall Brad mentioning that ship defenses that your attack method isn't vulnerable to will still add between 1/10th to 1/2 their value to the defenders, with the final value to be determined in beta for best game play. Would fighters ignore that? Is that their special reason for including? Is that you can choose their attack method (ie, simple bombs (mass driver EQ) or energy bombs (Energy weapons) or missiles) before ever battle? That would make them an interesting strategic choice, but it would need to be limited so that it was only some fraction of what a dedicated system could. Then, we don't need a special defense against them, as your defender would defend against their defense method. After all, your ship's armor will just as easily absord and redirect a kinetic strike from an iron "bomb" as from a mass driver. And your energy fields will shift away energy from a local explosion as from a directed beam weapon. And your point defense will shoot down the missiles launched by the fighter just as if they were launched by a ship.

Would that be fun? A multi-purpose weapon system? It would provide players with similar strategic options that real carriers provide in the real world. More strategic choices means more fun, doesn't it?

Idea for differentiating a fighter from a normal weapon: RANGE A fighter could be just like any other weapon, except that it has an extra square of range! You could send your squadron to attack without having to be adjacent to the target.

That's a very interesting idea, AngleWyrm. That brings to mind the type of tactics used during the battle of Midway. If fighters had a very short FTL capability - one or two squares - then Midway types of attacks would become a strategic option. One possible way of implementing this in the game would be to right-click on your carrier fleet, select the option for fighter-attack, and then select the target fleet.

One major advantage to a fighter swarm is the number of targets. A heavy capitol ship weapon might take out a fighter in a single shot, but a lot of it's damage potential would be wasted killing just one fighter. So it would make sense to design anti-fighter fleet defense ships that contain many lower-power weapons that put out just enough damage to kill a fighter (of the current tech level).

This is interesting too, as it makes fighters both an interesting strategic chess piece, sort of like the Knight in chess, in their extended attack capability, but they are also formidible in their own right during the situations where they are defending their fleets from attack.

In order to prevent fighters from being too strong, their balancing cost could be the space requirement for a carrier to house a squadron.

Ranged weaponry has been mentioned as a "like to add" feature by Star Dock in the past. Having the weaponry mounted in smaller FTL ships that depend on a mother ship for their long term needs and maintenence would certainly fit the carrier concept.

Lucian...

Why can't I mount these anti-ship bombs on a tiny hull FLT ship, like a scout ship? Surely that ship can carry more of the same weaponry as a bomber. And, it has room left over to mount the interceptors anti-fighter tech, to keep away pesky smaller fighters and interceptors. If we toss off the long term infrastruture of the scout ship, and go with just a basic FTL and Life Protection (like you'd have in your bombers), then it turns into a mega-bomber. Very good at ship killing, not so good without a mother facility (ie, it requires a star base, world, or carrier to operate from).

Just curious.

As for your system, I think we could simplify it. Please consider...
FighterCraft have:
Range: How far a fighter craft can go
Capital Target Weaponry: good for hitting ground and big ships
Anti-Fighter Weaponry: good for shooting down other fighters

Give players a certain number of "design points" for their tech reseach, and they could then spend them on their designs. That would let them to make super interceptors with no range (all their points spent on Anti-Fighters), or moderate ranged escorts (half points in range and half points in Anti Fighters), a multi-missioned fighter/bomber (1/3 points in range, 1/3 points in Cap), or a long range bomber (1/2 points in range and 1/2 points in cap). Every point used in the design would generate some basic maintenence cost... more advanced fighters cost you more to keep.

This would create a system where you'd design your fighter craft to meet your needs. Want to have long range strike? Design accordingly. Just want the best possible interceptors to keep your worlds and star bases safe? Build that no-range interceptors!

It also means that you need a lot more bombers then a world needs interceptors. Remember, they'll be able to go veryy short range, so that an attacker will have to pour lots of bombers in. Of course, if you cover them with escort craft, your losese won't be as big. And if you can get a tech edge, then your escorts could prevent your loses.

Just an idea of how to give players maximum flexibility to fit their strategic and tactical needs, without building set classes to be fooled with. Instead, treat them the same as the rest of your ships. They just happen to only operate from hangars (star base military module, world tile, and space ship pod).

As for your system, I think we could simplify it. Please consider... FighterCraft have: Range: How far a fighter craft can go Capital Target Weaponry: good for hitting ground and big ships Anti-Fighter Weaponry: good for shooting down other fighters Give players a certain number of "design points" for their tech reseach, and they could then spend them on their designs. That would let them to make super interceptors with no range (all their points spent on Anti-Fighters), or moderate ranged escorts (half points in range and half points in Anti Fighters), a multi-missioned fighter/bomber (1/3 points in range, 1/3 points in Cap), or a long range bomber (1/2 points in range and 1/2 points in cap). Every point used in the design would generate some basic maintenence cost... more advanced fighters cost you more to keep.

This sounds like a proposal taking shape to me

A simple ship design feature for fighters would certainly open up a whole new avenue of tactical options and interest. The concept of extended attack ranges sounds great, it really does give a wholly new and unique justification for fighters. Designing Interceptors to be the defence against bombers is also good in this context, as fighters become an almost self contained strategic area for the game.

I'd love t hear some input from stardock at this point, I realise the developer's are busy and its a little early in the beta schedule, but I think there's a good achievable feature being outlined here. Keep up the good discussion folks!

Why can't I mount these anti-ship bombs on a tiny hull FLT ship, like a scout ship? Surely that ship can carry more of the same weaponry as a bomber. And, it has room left over to mount the interceptors anti-fighter tech, to keep away pesky smaller fighters and interceptors. If we toss off the long term infrastruture of the scout ship, and go with just a basic FTL and Life Protection (like you'd have in your bombers), then it turns into a mega-bomber. Very good at ship killing, not so good without a mother facility (ie, it requires a star base, world, or carrier to operate from).

The problem with equipping a tiny hull ship is that it's still a ship. Much larger than a fighter will ever be, and still not as manueverable. Fightercraft are extremely small one- to two-person craft [perhaps five to seven on the very largest bombers]. They are an aspect of the fleet based entirely on superior maneuverability against ships. Even the lightest scout ship will not be as manueverable or small as a fighter, since a ship by its very nature is a ship...something larger than a boat. Not that I don't see where you're coming from, I'd thought of that myself earlier but quickly dispensed it for something more interesting. ^^ Though I know my idea was sort of unrefined, that's because I just wanted to throw something out that could lead to further ideas and such.

In response to Lucky Jack: That depends entirely on how they're implemented. If they are implemented well, they offer extra customization options for an already incredibly diverse set. Well implemented extra options are very good for fun in the short term. In the long term, well-implemented fightercraft would add a whole new dimension to GalCiv 2's combat system. Ranged attacks could add a lot of extra strategy to battles, creating sieges and the like on enemy fleets...and vice versa for your own. Carriers will On the other hand, if it's not well implemented, you have Civilization III's artillery in space. Nice strategic option, but not much fun.

Of course, I'm quite sure Stardock will be capable of making a very fun, very interesting Fightercraft system should they decide to implement it. So long as people give them the necessary feedback, of course.

This post is strictly IMHO. I am not a Stardock employee.

In looking at the reviews pointed to by this forum I have to wonder how detailed our control of battles will be. With only three types of weapons and three types of defense mentioned in the reviews it looks like adding something like carriers and fighters would require a considerable design change.

Also, it sounds like battles would have to be micromanaged, and may become beyond the AIs abilitiy to manage. And since Brad (FrogBoy) is the AI programmer (and he has consistantly espoused the need for a VERY inteligent and strong AI), I think these issues may be the main constraints in including these for GC2.

If it can be done well, however, I am in favor of it.

If not for GC2, perhaps for GC3?

Lucian Gyiira, I have one question for you. How do you figure a scout craft wouldn't be as manueverable in space as a 1 seater fighter craft? Remember, manueverability in space is a function of engine ratio (amount of thrust produced versus total mass). RL fighters gain maneuverability primarily through aero package. You can design a really fast air craft, but that doesn't yield a craft that can turn a tighter circle then its opponents. Indeed, the faster you go in the air, the harder it is to turn tightly. But your aero package gives you handling back. That's why the ideal aero fighter is a variable wing craft with controlable vector thrusting.

In space, everyone has vector thrusting. And there is no air to use to gain bonus manuevering. It's all engines. It might cost a civ more to strap in 4 Rolls Royce Directed Plasma Engine Mark 3s to their scout hulls, but if that generates the same engine ratio (thrust to mass proportions) as 1 Rolls Royce Directed Plasma Mark 1 engine on a single seater fighter craft, then both craft end up being as equally maneuverable in space. Both can now do 15G. And your over powered scout craft now has the advantage that a lost engine doesn't make it a sitting duck coasting dead through space, it just means they are reduced to 11G manuevering. At the same thrust ratios, you have the same dead rest to acceleration rate capability (the same 0 to 100kmp, as it were) and the same breaking time. Only, on the super-charged scout hull, you can mount more weaponry and defenses. Of course, that adds non-thrusting mass, but the same physics behind fighters still apply to the scout hull. Add more thrust to keep up you desired manuevering rate, or live with being slower then the max line, but have more punch and more battle survivability for it.

I can understand why a distinction between fighters and everything else has to be made. No distinction, no need for inclusion in the game. Fighters could just as easily be represented/abstracted in missile tech.

Consider, in space, a fighter offloads all the required long term support functionality to its mother craft. That lets it pack a lot more punch for its size, or pack in more engines (to give it that high maneuverability) then a ship that also has to worry about its own support for months at a stretch between tenders or ports. This is why the mother ship are "weaker" (ton for ton) then it's kindred combat craft, because it has less space left over for direct weaponry (ship guns, shields, etc). But this just means that it uses its fighter capability to better scout out its area (to avoid direct fighting), and that it gets its own protective escorts of direct combat ships (just in case). And of course, with a sufficent fighter complement, that carrier could make sure that only a very determined effort could be able to close to "direct combat" range with it and its escort.

I can envision several roles for carriers to provide. However, I think there is a danger of them taking over as the dominant combat tech. Would that be fun? Consider, if you can get serious range strike capability, you start off with having your carrier fleet just out of your opponents move range. You move a couple of tiles to bring your target into range of your fighters, and then range attacked your opponent. First strike. If you have enough strength, your target is gone. If not, it's damaged, and your carrier's escort will have an easy time of killing it, if it attacks. Merely strategic flavor, not unbalanced, as long as your carrier's move is done (stuck) after it attacked. However, if it can still move after its attack, then it could slip back out of your opponents move range, and be ready to rinse and repeat on your next turn. This would definately be the winning path for all military in the game... inflicting damage with no possibility of receiving any yourself. Fighter range tech and fighter strength tech would then become the uber military techs.

Consider, if you have ranged capability, that you should then have a "Zone of Control" around your carrier ships. Hostiles suffer damage for merely travelling through your ZoC (your fighters scrambling and attacking anything hostile coming "near" their carrier), and unfriendlies being kept out at the force of your weapons (races you aren't on neutral or better terms are "forced away"). It seems reasonable, but consider the impact that this one feature would carry. Defensive races would want carriers near their assets, to create "mine fields" of protection around those assets. A surprise attack from the Drengin? The first ship or fleet would get a free ride through a carrier ZoC, being neutral until the attack, but after that, they'd suffer damage being in or passing through carrier ZoCs.

This could be a good thing, but it would be a big change to how things happen on the main map. And if fighters create ZoCs, we'd want to station them out of our military star bases. Indeed, anything featuring ranged capabilities on the main map, and we will want that same capability to be housed in our star bases, for those times we want to improve our holding of a region of space. And a Star Base would be able to house much larger amounts of fighters then a ship... and a planet even more then a star base!

Consider, you are in a war with the Altarians (because you are just suck a wicked, wicked emperor), and you will not be able to just send in your transports to attack their homeworld in a simple sneak attack. Why? Because they have FIGHTER SQUADRONS on their home world, and they won't permit a race as untrustworthy (you are at unfriendly relations) as you to travel through their fighters ZoC. Note: You can fly through their 'influence' regions, because that is just an area of space under their cultural, not military, sway. That would be the distinct between ZoCs and influence. Although some people may argue that any ZoC should in itself create additional influence. After all, people holding guns tend to influence the less armed around them.

Something to consider. If fighters are ranged, either their effect is abstracted (via ZoC or Civ/CtP/SMAC style bombarding), or its a measurable unit on the map (ie, Anti-Matter Missiles). If it's abstracted, that can really make for a huge impact to the game. If its just a "regrowing" AMM whose range is directly based and limited purely to its creator (carrier, planet, starbase), that isn't such a big deal. One requires the AI to get a serious schooling in strategy and tactics. The other merely requires the AI to gain a "love" for building them.

If fighters are just another weapon system on a ship, then I don't see how they are truly a distinct feature of the game. If they add something distinct (ie, ranged combat), that in itself will make a serious impact on the main map. I am not against carriers. However, I am currently concerned that they may become an uber tech. Certainly, many interesting ideas have been cited, but how do we keep them balanced for fun game play and only add, not remove, strategic options?