It's unquestionable that carriers would add a new dimension to gameplay, to the point that it's arguable that they should have been in GCII in the first place. There's just no denying the sheer impact carriers have made in naval warfare ever since WWII, and there's no real reason to believe it would be any different in space.

The problem is that the game mechanics of GCII were not designed with carriers in mind; as such, finding a way to implement carriers into the game as seamlessly as possible is like trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack.

This is probably the top reason as to why I have come to wish this game had the same kind of exposure to a scripting language that Civ IV has with Python.

I say this should be stickied for further refrence and the place to post about carriers. Who agrees?

It's unquestionable that carriers would add a new dimension to gameplay, to the point that it's arguable that they should have been in GCII in the first place.

They wouldn't change much if implemented my way, and I'm actually making them as an aesthetic ship design already. ([link="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/DreadArchon/GC2carrier.jpg"]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/DreadArchon/GC2carrier.jpg">Link) I simply count the ships' overall attack and defense as taking into consideration the fact that it's escorted. But "unquestionable?" That's just silly.

That's the whole idea of this thread, to get the ideas out. Of course there is no "1" idea, and that is what makes it great, you get multiple ideas, and select the best from each. Consider it a "smorgaborg" of ideas, you have a lot of good things to choose from, so you don't have to settle on just one item. (Hmmm, all you got is ham?)

Just ignore heroine4life, every single carrier thread that comes along, she/he trolls it. Voting no is one thing, insulting everyone who supports it by calling it dumb is another.

I vote yes very strongly, as I think that anything that improves the depth of the battles is a good thing. I don't understand why people are saying "All you would do is mass carriers, lol," how is that any different than the game now, which is just massing battleships of various sizes?

i agree that most implenemtations of carriers would mostly be a cosmetic thing rather than a real enhancement to gameplay. and the rest would likely be unballancing. personally i couldn't care less about carriers, i just don't want to see a bad version implemented. even the relativly easy to code version(i think) that i suggested would change the very little relative to the effort to build it in. in short, it is probably a waste to time for SD but since they don't seem to mind that if enough ppl are screaming for it...

so a formal poll would definatly seem in order, even if it only applies to GC3. and god bless you for suggesting this be stickied, can't swing a dead torian around here without hitting 2 threads on this topic

Just ignore heroine4life, every single carrier thread that comes along, she/he trolls it. Voting no is one thing, insulting everyone who supports it by calling it dumb is another.

The worlds worst troll indeed. what are the odds he/she lives under a bridge and charges people to cross?

BTW carriers are an excellent idea and one which which would add to the gameplay. At present GC2 would not really be able to present a decent enough form for such a great idea, an inclusion of Tak combat would allow us to fully utilise the new combat options carriers would allow. As for carriers holding tiny ships...Dunno, Tiny ships have their uses already, I'd prefer tiefighter and xwing analogues twisting around the larger hulls. Why take something away just to add another feature? As for a poll, well if it comes about, the yes vote would be huge.

later

Forgive me if I'm mentioning an idea that has already been given, I tend to glance through posts rather than read each comment individually. I agree with those who've stated that implementing carriers would probably be difficult to do while maintaining the integrity of the games AI mechanics (each time you add a new feature, it opens up a huge can of worms in terms of getting the AI to use it properly). However, if carriers were to be implemented, here's a suggestion which might involve the least amount of brain damage:

As mentioned by some, the ability for a ship to be a carrier would be given by attaching a module to the ship. This module would in essence act like a weapon -- when it fired, the graphic would be several tiny ships flying out and attacking another ship. Just as weapons are divided between beam/mass driver/missle, the fighters module would also specialize in one of these three weapon types. ULtimately, the "fighters" weapon would be more powerful than normal weapons you could put on another ship; HOWEVER, every time you used this weapon it gets a little weaker (due to the fact that some fighters will be destroyed). Ultimately, carriers would have to leave combat for a while to allow new fighters to built, or this weapon would become all but worthless. I think this would add a unique tactical element to the game, using existing game mechanics to minimize the impact on the game's engine.

It depends on how carriers are done.

If it gives bonuses to small ships. NO

If it is like on Master of Orion 2 then YES.

Tiny ships could be "attached" to Huge, it would solve it. You could even make it more carrier-like by putting in a module ("Fighter Control Station")

No it wouldn't. The smaller ships have same damage weapons as larger ships but at a smaller size. If you "attached" it to a carrier which would make it so they dont need FTL engines then you basically completely unbalance the game as they will be more powerful than a huge ship.

No it wouldn't. The smaller ships have same damage weapons as larger ships but at a smaller size. If you "attached" it to a carrier which would make it so they dont need FTL engines then you basically completely unbalance the game as they will be more powerful than a huge ship.

They'd still be easy to kill, even if you gave them defenses. There wouldn't be much longevity on a carrier fleet, now that enemies fire back at the same time. You'd probably win your first battle or two, but then you'd be out of ships.

They'd still be easy to kill, even if you gave them defenses. There wouldn't be much longevity on a carrier fleet, now that enemies fire back at the same time. You'd probably win your first battle or two, but then you'd be out of ships.

Easy to product and larger ships are targetted first usually. So it would still be unbalanced.

I can crank ou one ship with huge ship attack power a turn. Who cares if they die in one hit if I can built 10 more by the time I resupply the fleet?

The MOO2 way is better, it insures that their is no exploiting.

I could have a bunch of planets perpetually build these and when one fleet runs out i sent a 2nd fleet and bring the first fleet back to rearm.

Also not to mention the fact that usually, when I play, the larg ships are always targetted first. So just have a couple of those with good attack power and defences and you are set.

I'm for the poll. Although unsure about carriers. I feel that the way the game plays presently that they might not work to the satisfaction of enough people. However they might be a consideration for a sequel.

Kanaric: If you're defending your worlds, you could use the Tiny ships WITHOUT the big ships, and nothing would change. If you're going on the offensive, it wouldn't be practical to build new fighters for your carriers because your carriers would be ten weeks away from the nearest manufacturing world (in terms of fighter speed, it would of course be only a couple weeks for the carriers themselves).

At any rate, I'm not terribly attached to my suggestion for carriers, I just thought it'd be simple. Here's another one:

Make carriers work much as they do in real life. Cut everyone's Range numbers by 50%-75% and make the carrier module generate a range bubble. Want to attack the other side of the galaxy? Better have some ships to base your assault from! (Of course, you'd still have to solve the speed issue. Maybe everything in a carrier's range bubble gets the carrier's speed?)

I think carriers are pointless until tactical combat is implemented.

I'd like to first see real tactical combat implemented and then a workable carrier plan presented. I believe that both of these ideas would enhance Galciv2.

And heroine4life the worlds worst troll? Maybe, but Marcanothas [or Maxi-Pad as I like to call him] certainly gives he/she a run for "its" money!

Maybe by developing 3 different types of ships in another rock-paper-scissor fashion. One type would be carrier, anotehr point defense ship and lastly long range ship with big guns (ok needs a better name for the type lol). So the carriers would rock the hell out of long range ships with big guns, but would get slaughtered by point defense ships,w hich are short ranged but good agianst fighters. And of course long range ship can take out point defense ship no prob. That way you would have to thinka bout make up of your fleet very carefully.

Look Everyone! Another Carrier thread... watch as Marcathonas head implodes!

One Thread to rule them all, One Thread to find them,
One Thread to bring them all and in the forums bind them

Lets take a look at what real life carriers do:

- Allows the Navy to use air support at sea
- Allows a country to project its air power across stretches of water

In space, we're talking about spacecraft carrying spacecraft, which is kind of pointless. In real life a carrier gives a sea-based force an additional method of attack and support.

In Battlestar Galactica, the Vipers are more manoeuverable than the Battlestar, but in GalCiv2 there is no limit to the movement of ships. Every ship is equally manoeuverable.

I can only see two reasons why carriers might be required in GalCiv2:

- The ships they carry are for atmospheric flight, and can attack planets in ways the larger ship cannot (due to problems operating within an atmosphere). May allow for spying on the surface of a planet, and conducting bombing runs on improvements.

- The ships they carry cannot travel far from planets on their own. This reason is pointless under the current system, as range not a problem at all except on the largest maps.

Personally, I would like to see range nerfed a little. Perhaps make the base range for a ship without life support units cut, but the effects of life support units slightly increased. Carriers could then act like a mobile starbase, and project an area your other ships can operate in.

I would just like to add that I don't care if carriers are introduced or not. I only care whether they are done properly, or half-assed in order to shut the pro-carrier players up.

Quixen, reviving threads just to antagonize another user isn't going to lead to just *his* head imploding (*brandishes the 'discipline' stick*). It also needlessly makes work for me and clutters the front page with YET ANOTHER thread on the same topic. If anyone wants to discuss carrier ideas, there are already plenty of recent threads for that. As for this one, I'm sending it back to the murky depths from whence it came.

*clink*