Carrier Ships and Auto-Ship Naming for next v1.3

bump sounds interesting cant help with the mod though

This idea is only 'thrown out there' every two or three days, so it's not like anybody is sick of hearing about it yet. It's certainly not a problem that I've never read a 'lolz carriers plz' post that addressed the tactical utility of these vessels, or described a niche in GC2 militaries that they would fill. Nothing like a content-free 'give us carriers... well... because' post!

I have no patience for people who want to automatically steal names from existing scifi, but honestly how many classes do you ever use? I just upgrade the same four or five warship classes throughout the game, stuff changing their name every time.

@Pnakotus what du you want to say ? (im not shure about you '???')
if you dont want read annythng about carrier then do it and dont read it!


its ok when someone says he want a carrier in the game (i want it too)

@Pnakotus what du you want to say ? (im not shure about you '???') if you dont want read annythng about carrier then do it and dont read it! its ok when someone says he want a carrier in the game (i want it too)

When it gets implemented in a game we all play, everyone's opinions are put in. Hell, there's a lot of things I dislike that other people want, and I say so. I don't say "go away, shut up", I just explain why it is bad.

We have been through carriers over and over and over. Please use a search button next time.
And runningduck, he was being sarcastic.

Personally, I loathe the idea of carriers, and would merely impossible tech them as soon as released. There is no reason to have them at all, since there is nothing small ships can't do. And no, not an extra attack type, as that would require coding work. Not a quick fix.

man, auto-naming of ships? absolutely ! I'm so freaking tired of trying to figure out which ship is which and then spending a few hours naming them all. i'm not terribly creative and frankly run out of things to use as names. so yeah, that is great idea.

Carriers has been done to death, so I'll ignore that.

I agree it would be nice to have randomly generated ship names. I can manage to name the designs, but when you have tons of ships you eventually just have to give up. Plus, and this is only a minor annoyance but still, when the first capital ship notification pops up it includes the name of the ship... but since you haven't had a chance to rename it yet it will of course still use the standard 'Destroyer 10321583290537' default name.

But not after ships from Sci-Fi. Just use made up names like the ones for the star systems.

It would be cool to have ships auto named, but in terms of carriers....

What I would love is if the various Jewelry and graphics were only minimally connected to the actual function of the weapons. Why cant I have a phaser VII that looks like a phaser II? Why can't I pick the graphical representation of the engines?

As for carriers. Why not have the ability to have generic "fighter" Jewelry that escorts your carrier, basically within the battle widow they fly around, but in effect they are only an extension of the ships weaponry, you could have all the beam missle and mass driver weapons represented by little ships flying around your "carrier"

The only reason I could think that you wouldn't do this is so human opponents in multiplayer could spot and identify your systems. Multiplayer seems to be off the books *sniff sniff* so why not?

The point of carriers is to extend the range of fighters, I guess you could make them like slowly mobile military bases. with bonuses, but that would be difficult as hell to balance.

A lot of arguments against carriers, so heres a couple points for carriers:

• Carriers are part of most of the science fiction genre, much like shields and warp drives.
• Carriers are a real-world tech improvement.
• Carriers would introduce support ships to the battlefield.

Naming...I like the way it's done currently, with ship class + serial number. Any of my mediums and above that gain a lot of experience deserve special recognition; for those elite warriors, I'll give them a name of their own.

While I believe that carriers would be a load and a half of fun, I don't believe that they're really very feasible for GalCiv II, given the gameplay mechanics. It's probably best to have them in GalCiv III, so that a new combat engine can be built that's capable of giving them a viable strategic and/or tactical significance.

...Oh yeah, as for auto-naming ships: heck yes! The current naming method does literally nothing to differenciate one ship from another, and it's annoying to have to go and rename the AI's ships so that you can find them in the diplomatic trade screen.

It'd be easy enough to implement, and would be easily moddable; all you need is a bunch of ship names in text files (one file for each race--we don't want to see Drengin cruising around in the TAS Napoleon, now do we?). Perhaps you could even put starbase names in separate files, or have lists for different ship types (so a survey ship could be named the TAS Columbus, while a battleship would be named the TAS Alexander, and a freighter would end up as the TAS Hudson... or whatever).

I vote for carriers.

I think that anything that improves the depth of the battle system and adds variety to it is a good thing.
I also strongly support more types of ships, because battleships, battleships, battleships gets old after a while.

I would like to see carriers as well, but with the way the current combat system and logistics work, I really don't see the benefit.

Fighters are extremely small and maneuverable, and that is supposed to be their biggest advantage over capital ships. However, there is no maneuverability stat for ships. Also, there's litlte chance to miss in the current combat system. Damage is mostly decided by defense value, which fighters wouldn't (or shouldn't) have. You would need a rather sizeable force of fighters to really threaten just a single cap-ship as it is. Cap ships don't have any true "anti-fighter defense" or AAA either.

Another advantage fighters have is the fact that since they can be an incredible threat to enemy ships (in RL) they became the biggest weapon in carrier task forces. They would do most of the work of damaging & disabling the enemy ships before the friendly ships would move into gun range for the kill.

If a tactical combat system was ever implemented, then this idea would work great, because when combat commences, the fighters launch and race towards the enemy fleet and does it's damage well before the cap-ships even get within range of each other (if they even choose to, it's normally prudent to stay out of range while the fighters do their work.) If both classes have carriers, since the other ships guns wouldn't normally be effective against the smaller fighters, you could also house interceptor type fighters which would be even faster and more maneuverable than the heavier fighter/bombers which are heaver due to the increased payload of space torpedoes or heavier blasters or whatever they would be equipped with. Or even other small ships which serve as point defense and are basically small ships just bristling with AAA.

What if Carriers could be put in fleets with transports to provide air support for planetary invasions, rather than use them in space for combat, which would be pointless using the current system. Carriers could even have the ability to attack a planet on their own once per turn, reducing the population by 5% each attack. (i.e. 10000-->9500-->9025-->8574 and so on.)

*Sigh* not including any form of planetary bombardment was a active and intelligent decision by the designers. This includes carriers.

You want to trash an economy with little losses? Send in a transport with only 500 people and use orbital bombardment, you probably wont take the planet but you will kill billions and leave it undamaged, for when you drop your transport with traditional attack and take it.

As for carriers. Why not have the ability to have generic "fighter" Jewelry that escorts your carrier, basically within the battle widow they fly around, but in effect they are only an extension of the ships weaponry, you could have all the beam missle and mass driver weapons represented by little ships flying around your "carrier"

the main reason i keep on hearing about the carrier being a bad idea is how to make the ai use it, while this method will work brillent, the ai all ready makes ships on its ow, so just hav it like the above quote


good idea btw kingmaker

I like the idea of carriers, but as its said before, at the moment there is no point in introducing them, simply because the way that the combatsystem work. You would need to introduce som new variables like maneuverability/mobility, speed, range to target, and accuracy of weapons. You would also need another way of picking targets, maybe make it a player choice instead of it being a simple what is the biggest threat and the easiest kill. So a thing that could be in Galciv III and not in Galciv II expansion.

Naming...I like the way it's done currently, with ship class + serial number. Any of my mediums and above that gain a lot of experience deserve special recognition; for those elite warriors, I'll give them a name of their own.

The problem I have with the current system is that when I create a new ship design I name it "Slayer Mk 1" or something. A future upgrade of the class is the "Slayer Mk 2" and so forth. Then a ship is produced, it is named "Slayer Mk 1 235". I'm okay with this so far. The problem is that when I upgrade that ship to the Slayer Mk 2, the name is still "Slayer Mk 1 235", making it difficult to determine what version the ship is.

I like the idea of carriers, but as its said before, at the moment there is no point in introducing them, simply because the way that the combatsystem work.

The way things are currently, tiny hull ships are too slow to keep up with larger vessels. By the end of most of my games, my fleet speed is typically two or three engines per ship.

Starship Carriers !!!!!
WOW, just like StarCraft ????
Even in MOO2 they were just about ...
...WORTHLESS !!!!!
As for designing and naming my own ships ???
I LOVE that part of the game ...
How can you auto-name: "Man-o-Wart" ????

Ahzi Dahaka
like your idea about having auto-name the ship according to race. I think the point that byram is missing is that you can still name the class of this ship but its the specific name of the ship that can be automated. This would be especially helpful in diplomacy...just try to find ship Ass Kicker MK III 2034 on the galaxy map...especially late in the game when you play huge maps with gigantic fleets pitted up against each other. This would be an awesome addition to any of the major conversion mods out there in use...any takers???

@Prolifco
In Diplo ???
What ??? Are you giving away your ships ????
Never do that myself ...
I give them LAZERS up the tail-pipes ...

yo sherlock, its for when you give them to allies. way to be on it though...you're a sharp one. and a word of advice, next time if i want to know what you do when you play the game, i'll ask...

Wow, I give my allies Senors II,
NOT MY SHIPS !!!!!
Do you give them PLANETS TOO ?????

its kind of hard to give them Sensors II when YOU DISABLE TECH TRADING...WOW...last time i deal with your ignorance, play the game some more before you make a fool of yourself again, paz...

@prolifico
If you disable trade, how do you give away your ships ?
Or am I missing sumthing ?

SERIOUSLY Bro, you're missing sumthing...if you need me to explain this, you definitely have NEVER played the game... and next time when you get on the board say something worth saying other than 5 word phrases about nothing, no need to hate...i'm done wasting my time, i'm out...