Comprehensive(?) carrier proposal

probably not "new" ideas

from GalCiv2 Forums
Formula for carriers that would hopefully minimize large-scale changes to game design:

1) Have a special "hangar module" that allows a ship to "carry" one or more other ships. The basic one would be a 18-space module permitting the carriage of one (1) tiny-hulled ship (module size must NOT scale with carrier hull-size). Later ones could allow "small" hulls ,"mini" hull, or more than one hull at a time for a slight space savings:
* "carried" ships cost -1 logistic point (e.g., 1 for a tiny hull, 0 for a mini);
* "carried" ships are "assigned" to a carrier... THAT may take some extra programming
* "carried" ships are otherwise just part of the fleet, up to the capacity of all hangar modules in the fleet;
* you'd probably also have starbase hangar modules;
* non short-ranged ships (see below) can also be carried;

2) Add a new option for "tiny" (and maybe "small" hulls called "short range." These hulls have no innate speed, nor sensor rating, nor range. Modules cannot be added, and neither can engines ["It followed us!" "No, it's a short-range fighter..."];
* short range ships can not move on the map, but can be transferred between ships or from a ship with hangers to a starbase hangar or planetary stardock;
* if abandoned without a suitable carrier, these ships are lost;
* short-range ships can be built 2-to-1... that is, you can build two at the same time, if they are the same class;

3) Add a high-tech 8-space "mini" hull type that is half the size of a tiny hull, and can only be "short-range";

4) Allow missile defense ratings to be used against ANY weapon fired from a ship with a "short range" hull (only once for missiles, or course) [short-range ships lack the tactical advantages of supralight engines, so ECM, chaff, and point defense will foul their attacks];

5) Add extra techs:
* "fighter-control" techs that allow additional reduction in the logisitics cost of carried units (can't go below 0, of course);
* "fighter production" techs that allow more short-range hulls to be produced at once;
* "self-defense" techs that allow multiple short-range hulls to be engaged;
* "fighter defense" techs that provide a bonus for attacks on short-range hulls;

UPSHOT: you get:
* fighters you can design with the current design system;
* capital ships with some built-in resistance to fighters (assuming they have missile defense);
* clear differentiation of which ships can be "multi-targeted" and which can't, without changing established game dynamics;
* carrier-based fighters won't tip the strategic balance, because they cannot operate without a carrier;
* players get modest numbers of fighters (a 80-space hull is probably only going to carry 4-5 mini fighters) without overloading the graphics engine with "swarms" of ships;
* you CAN use X-Wing style long range fighters (with hyperdrive), but they won't pack the punch of short-range fighter, which can put everything into weapons and defenses;
* carrier-based fighters can be a powerful force-multiplier in battlers
* but capital ships are still useful... investment in carriers will pay off but it will cost money.

What do you think?

Jon
warfare
23,977 views 39 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It ain't gonna happen.

But I really like the basic design you've come up with, although I'ld tweak it a bit myself.

Especially like the idea of Fighter hangers for starbases and the transfering of fighters from carriers to the starbases.

I am usually opposed to the carrier concepts players come up with but really like yours.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i like it too somewhat close to what i have said on occasion
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
its pretty cool but... there should be a high logistics lvl for just putting the module on the ship like on a large hull it adds 10 logistics points so you cant make a fleet of carriers and wipe everyone out.second it should take up like 33 to 50% of the capacity on the ship so you cant pour weapons aand shields on it. and if mini hulls cost zero logistics that would mean carriers could have an unlimited # of fighters!
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
its pretty cool but... there should be a high logistics lvl for just putting the module on the ship like on a large hull it adds 10 logistics points so you cant make a fleet of carriers and wipe everyone out.second it should take up like 33 to 50% of the capacity on the ship so you cant pour weapons aand shields on it. and if mini hulls cost zero logistics that would mean carriers could have an unlimited # of fighters!


All of these would be serious problems, except "mini" hangar would be about 9 spaces... If you want a "supercarrier" on a Huge hull (80 spaces, say 150 with improvements): put in about 20 spaces for engines, 20 for defenses, and 20 for rudimentary armaments, you can only hold TEN fighters! If the "hangars" cost enough, that's a very expensive ship, with ten fighters. If your logistics value is, say, 30, you can pack only FIVE of these "supercarriers" into a fleet... hence, only fifty fighters. Still a lot of fighters, but certainly not "unlimited."

SUMMARY: space (and cost) effectively limits numbers of fighters in this scheme. Logistics and design constraints will just make the system harder to balance. Also, I assume that space and cost are relatively easy to mod, allowing the Space: Above and Beyond fans out there a chance to really shine!

Jon

Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If your logistics value is, say, 30, you can pack only FIVE of these "supercarriers" into a fleet... hence, only fifty fighters. Still a lot of fighters, but certainly not "unlimited."


I apparently forgot to put in the original proposal, and forgot again here:

* having hangar modules should increase the logisitics cost of the carrier by +1

There could possibly be a racial bonus you could buy that would eliminate this for a LOT of points.

Thus, it would be FOUR supercarriers and forty fighters...

Jon

Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
What say Stardock ??? O_o

Monc34
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thats a good idea. Players would be able to send fighters to bases to be picked up by carriers. I like your idea but then again I like mine too. Carriers being too expensive will be game breaking. It would rendor carriers COMPLETELY useless.
If you take a newly built carrier for x(you never told us what a basic carrier costs) bcs that is a basic 18-space ship which can carry 1 "mini" fighter. First, one "mini" fighter would be so weak that a carrier would fall to a stinkin' single fighter.

And during the carriers early stages ( A few months after being built
and not upgraded)it would be a very (abnormally) fragile warship. And carriers would cost so much on just being built that upgrading it would be out of the question. So supercarriers, out of the question. And only 10 fighters on one supercarrier that costs thousands of bcs to build and upgrade?

10 fighters wouldn't be enough for single frigate or destroyer. And a frigate or destroyer would cost one fourth(1/4) of a carrier to build. And 10 mini fighters??
Okey, 4 heavy(small hull) fighters and 8 light(tiny hull) fighters would stand a chance against another capital ship. And how the heck can anybody afford to build and upgrade a carrier. Wouldn't losing one mean something that would affect the economic, military and political balance of an empire.

At the early stages of a newly built carrier(which I remind you is very expensive)it is very abnormally fragile(1 MINI-fighter)meaning that losing it before it can "grow up to be a big, strong little boy(Awwww, he's so cute) like a SuperDUPER carrier"(which too is abnormally fragile).

Your idea is good(maybe even genius) but it requires a little more thinking.
(not bragging)My idea is relatively stable.

Here is a link to my idea:

My carrier idea

don't get me wrong , I love your idea but just thought I'd take out the error before you go infront of the devs. Every bad idea about a single topic discourages
the devs to actually even sit down and think about it(let alone work on it).You're already infront of the devs but you know. You can make another post with the new and improved version of your idea.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Carrier thread #193.
I love carrier ideas, I really do, but have you ever thought about searching the forums for topics like this? Cause there are a gajizamunitollion other carrier threads, 4-5 of them are active right now.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Carrier thread #193.
I love carrier ideas, I really do, but have you ever thought about searching the forums for topics like this? Cause there are a gajizamunitollion other carrier threads, 4-5 of them are active right now.


I agree with the above statement.

i would like some kind of carrier class but enough is enough, this topic has been beaten to death many times over.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Carrier thread #193.
I love carrier ideas, I really do, but have you ever thought about searching the forums for topics like this? Cause there are a gajizamunitollion other carrier threads, 4-5 of them are active right now.


I agree with the above statement.

i would like some kind of carrier class but enough is enough, this topic has been beaten to death many times over.


I disagree. If someone believes they have something to add -- post it and start a new post.
I usually hate the carrier ideas players have.
But I thought the OP here had some very good ideas. I especially liked a fighter class for use with the carriers that can not move on the map by themselves.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
So one of these carriers allows you go fit more into your fleet than your logistics ability would normally allow because each carried ship counts less to logistics than it ordinarily would? Or is that negated by the logistics value of the carrier itself?

Aside from logistics, carriers allow you to field small craft that do not require any engines/life support/sensors and so are 100% weapons/defence systems. Small ship packing big punch.

Downside being you have to build the carrier (very expensive) and the fighter craft (relatively cheap?) and keep replacing its fighters as they get destroyed. Lose the carrier and you lose a very expensive possibly critical ship.

It's interesting and sounds fairly credible.

Couple of concerns:

1. The AI has to be taught how to use them properly. It has to design both carriers and fighters as well know how to keep the carrier supplied with fighters. It has to know when to invest in them and when not to. IMO this could be the killer, if the AI can't use it then either it can't go in or you have to take away the option for it to build carriers, if the AI makes dodgy decisions on this it sinks its military spending into a black hole and hands you the game.

2. I'm not sure about the point defence part. If every capital ship needs point defence tech to defend against carriers then any race using missile tech is going to have a rough time of it as the entire galaxy researches point defence rendering their weapons ineffective.

3. What stops the enemy fleet from blasting your carrier to bits in the opening volley of a battle? Kill the carrier and the fighters are dead too.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Couple of concerns:

1. The AI has to be taught how to use them properly. It has to design both carriers and fighters as well know how to keep the carrier supplied with fighters. It has to know when to invest in them and when not to. IMO this could be the killer, if the AI can't use it then either it can't go in or you have to take away the option for it to build carriers, if the AI makes dodgy decisions on this it sinks its military spending into a black hole and hands you the game.

2. I'm not sure about the point defence part. If every capital ship needs point defence tech to defend against carriers then any race using missile tech is going to have a rough time of it as the entire galaxy researches point defence rendering their weapons ineffective.

3. What stops the enemy fleet from blasting your carrier to bits in the opening volley of a battle? Kill the carrier and the fighters are dead too.

Ah yes, the good bits...
1. That is, I believe, the core of the problem. For this to work, the AI would need to know how to combine fleets of ships. Currently, it does so on a very primitive level.
2. Point Defense against fighters is game mechanically stupid, but that's just my opinion.
3. The current system forces the AI to target the ship with the biggest guns, least defense and least hp.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

3. The current system forces the AI to target the ship with the biggest guns, least defense and least hp.



So if the carrier itself is less well armed then the fighters it gets shot last, that works.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
FOR THE REGICIDE:

Lighten up. I posted this because I didn't think the carrier discussions out there provided a comprehensive plan that made carriers workable and didn't blow the balance of the game. If you are tired fo reading them, feel free not to. The topic was clearly stated in the initial post, so it shouldn't be hard to avoid.


2. Point Defense against fighters is game mechanically stupid, but that's just my opinion.


Not that I am offended (which I coud be), but would you care to explain your remarks. I plan to answer Ugleb's post later, but I believe my original post explained the "historical" mechanics of what I meant, and the mundane reason for suggesting it (so that at least some ships had built-in defenses). To which of these do you object? Or is it both? Or something else?

It isn't the best idea, sure. But you might do me the courtesy of providing more to evaluate your statement than just your authority.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I didn't read all of this post but... sorry guys, Stardock isn't going to do carriers. It's been said plenty, stop spamming the forums. I never thought this dead idea would be spamed as much as multiplayer.  
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Lighten up. I posted this because I didn't think the carrier discussions out there provided a comprehensive plan that made carriers workable and didn't blow the balance of the game. If you are tired fo reading them, feel free not to. The topic was clearly stated in the initial post, so it shouldn't be hard to avoid.

I assure you I am very light. I love carriers, and I wanna see them in the game more than anyone. But spamming the boards with "I want a carrier" threads is not the Tao of the Carrier. This is the 6th, maybe even 7th carrier thread I've seen in the last week alone. Why can't we all just merge those threads and keep a centralized discussion?
Not that I am offended (which I coud be), but would you care to explain your remarks. I plan to answer Ugleb's post later, but I believe my original post explained the "historical" mechanics of what I meant, and the mundane reason for suggesting it (so that at least some ships had built-in defenses). To which of these do you object? Or is it both? Or something else?

I meant from the standing of game mechanics. I am well aware of the historical reasons of doing that, but the game mechanics would kind be messed up. Missiles would become next to useless if everyone in the galaxy had two reasons to invest in Point Defenses instead of just one. People say "the big guns should have no hope of hitting a small fighter", well isn't that why the small fighter has so much HP? How can a fighter, barely 10 meters long, have 6 hp, if a huge, 3-kilometer warship has 50? I think that alone accounts for the mobility. Plus, it would be a nightmare to code, and just makes carriers less atractive for the devs to make in their already limited time.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I didn't read all of this post but... sorry guys, Stardock isn't going to do carriers. It's been said plenty, stop spamming the forums. I never thought this dead idea would be spamed as much as multiplayer.


I relish the irony of being accused of"spamming the forums" with carrier ideas by the THIRD person in one day. Keep our boards clean, Azrune!
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is the 6th, maybe even 7th carrier thread I've seen in the last week alone. Why can't we all just merge those threads and keep a centralized discussion?


If you will check the data at the top of this page, this thread was initiated three weeks ago. The reason it has been active recently is that I posted a reference to it on Night Hawk's thread, which seems to be doing a reasonable job as the clearing-house for carrier ideas that you seek.


I meant from the standing of game mechanics. [...] How can a fighter, barely 10 meters long, have 6 hp, if a huge, 3-kilometer warship has 50? I think that alone accounts for the mobility.


Your points are well-taken. I am not wedded to the idea of using missile defense against fighters anyway. Thanks for explaining your opinion!


Plus, it would be a nightmare to code, and just makes carriers less atractive for the devs to make in their already limited time.


I am not sure that is the case. It depends strongly on how the game is coded. All you'd really have to do is total fire from "short-range" ships in all three categories separately from fire for long-range ships. Only those familiar with the code can tell us how difficult this would be.

Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ok, now to reply to the ton of constructive criticism everyone has provided recently:

First, I'd like to clarify my reasons for submitting this idea:

The way I tried to set this up was to provide a method for including carriers in the game that:

1)wouldn't heavily overload the game with tons of tiny ships;
2) would require minimal changes (= programming and playtest time) to the current game design;
3) not tip the balance of the game;
4) permit you to get along reasonably well in a game where your opponents built carriers without having to research too many major new technologies yourself;
5) would allow you to use the powerful ship design tool to make fighters; and
6) had a snowballs chance of getting carriers and fighters past StarDock, so that people who wanted Battelstar Galactica or Space: Above and Beyond could MOD the game to make their ideal system.

If carriers are TOO expensive, it isn't game breaking, it just means you can't load up on carriers. Mod the game. At least then, carriers will be in it!

Under this system:
The primary benefits of carriers are:
a) allowing you to bring more ships into battle for a given logistics value;
b) allowing you to have more targets for your enemy to shoot at;
c) taking advantage of the game mechanics (where weapons are smaller on smaller hulls) to allow you to pack more weapons in the same space by using that space to carry a smaller ship

The weaknesses are:
aa) the carrier should cost more;
bb) the carrier itself uses slightly more logistics;
cc) you still have to replace the easily destroyed fighters;
dd) cc above could get expensive in the long run;
ee) carriers are weaker (NEW IDEA, see later post);
ff) fighters can't fly around the map on their own.







Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Second, a couple points to respond to Ugleb, The Regicide, The Night Hawk:

1) [CLARIFICATION] Having a hangar module makes a ship a carrier. Carriers require +1 logistics points over the regular hull size. It might be best if this were scaled, such that having, say, 8 fighters gave you a +2, but the best cut-off would have to be determined by playtest.


2) [MODIFICATION] Sure, scratch the whole bit where missile defence works on fighter weapons. If y'all son't think it is necessary, drop it!


3) [NEW RULE] CARRIER TACTICS: This was something I thought of before, but didn't get around to posting. Every fleet with carriers must select a "tactic" for use in battle. This would be settable from the fleet dialogue, and applies to all included fighters. These tactics would be:

* Full Assault: carriers participate as normal combatants and are fired on normally. This is for the Babylon Five fans who build hybrid cruiser-carriers;

* Screen: carrier's weapons are not figured in the fleet total, and they cannot be targetted, until all non-carrier ships have been eliminated. The other ships are screening the carriers;

* Strike: carrier's weapons are not figured in fleet total, carriers cannot be targetted, but short-range ships get NO logistics bonus (minis are 1, tinys are 2)... excess fighters do not go into battle. You send your combat ships, but not your carriers;

* Fighter Strike: As a STRIKE, but ONLY short-range ships participate (the carrier's escorts remain behind). Basically, you have launched a WWII-style airstrike;

If a fleet is attacked (i.e., is the defender), "STRIKE" and "FIGHTER STRIKE" are treated as "SCREEN."
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sorry for the multiple posts, I seem to have trouble uploading large posts. What a shame...

4) [NEW RULE] LOGISTICS (the process, not the technology): It is clear to me, especially from Ugleb's comments, that carriers and starbases with hangar modules will have to be able to spawn their own fighters (ala StarCraft). Just allow them to build short-range ships, one per week, at the same price as a starport.

Limiting them to one/ week may actually be enough to keep carriers from being horribly debalancing... you'll probably lose most of your fighters in a good battle... having to wait for your supercarrier to make 10 new fighters will be a chore. Sure, you could park it over a planet, or transfer fighters from another carrier, but then you have to spend more money and plan.

5) [NEW RULE] To keep things fair, all short-range production (on carriers, starbases, and starports) should have a maximum build time of one week.

6) [CHANGE] No "small"-sized short-range ships. That gets too complicated. Trust me, I've given it a lot of thought.

7) [CLARIFICATION] Carriers can repair their fighters at double the rate ships repair themselves (they are basically a big fighter drydock).

8) [NEW RULE} Another one I thought of before and didn't put in. Hangar modules are just empty space... not very tough. They should probably drop the number of hitpoints in the hull. To borrow from Starfire, I suggest making larger hangar modules that use slightly less space and are cheaper, but take more HP away (because they are larger, continuous empty spaces.

EXAMPLE:

TINY HANGAR MODULE:
10 spaces
carries one "mini" hull
costs X (to be determined)
-0 HP to carrier

SMALL HANGAR MODULE:
19 spaces
carries two "mini" hulls or one "tiny"
costs 1.9X
-1 HP to carrier

MEDIUM HANGAR MODULE:
37 spaces
carries 4 mini or 2 small
costs 3.7X
-3 HP

LARGE HANGAR MODULE:
72 spaces
carries 6 mini or 3 small
costs 7.2X
- 5 HP

"GALACTIC" HANGAR MODULE:
100 spaces
carries 12 mini or 6 small
costs 10X
-12 HP

9) [CLARIFICATION] Hopefully the self-spawning thing will help the AI manage the lgoistics of carriers. However, I agree with Ugleb and Regicide that AI programming will be a problem. I am not sure that any carrier idea will fix this, though. Probably why StarDock doesn't want to bother...

Ok, that's all. I hope.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hey,
I didn't get what was aimed at who!!!
Where's the reply to my post. There are so many things in their that almost render your idea "stupid"(no offence).
Please give a direct clear reply to me after reading my post carefully.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
With all these people asking for carriers why the devs don't do anything about it. I agree that adding carrier modules should not be so much a pain to add in a next patch. Carrier modules should have been in the game in the first place, it was a mistake to overlook it. Just correct it and people will shut up with carriers.
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
With all these people asking for carriers why the devs don't do anything about it. I agree that adding carrier modules should not be so much a pain to add in a next patch. Carrier modules should have been in the game in the first place, it was a mistake to overlook it. Just correct it and people will shut up with carriers.


The devs have already addressed the subject. Cari and Brad have both said that it's not going to happen.
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The devs have already addressed the subject. Cari and Brad have both said that it's not going to happen


You getting tired of saying that yet Kryo? LMAO