Carrier vessels CVs available?

Well, I never really noticed this in GC1, but I too would like this option for GC2. If I had to guess though, it probably won't be in the game, unfortunately. Seems that the game focuses mainly on capital ships, rather than fighters

I wish this wasn't so, though.

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.

Of course, if fighter bays were a module that could be added to a capital ship chasis, the next logical question is whether or not we can design the fighters themselves. For example, one might design attack fighters and intercepters. If one put 1 module of intercepters and 3 modules of attack fighters on a carrier, then a carrier could dish out a lot of damage, but be lightly defended by its intercepters, which would be reflected in its attack and defense rating. Of course, a carrie rcould mount other weapons as well, which would likewise affects its attack and defense ratings.

Just ideas.

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.

The main advantage to fighters I can think of (assuming the fighters, too, could be designed) is allowing the player to skimp on fighter craft's range and speed, since the carrier would compensate for that by having them onboard except during battles. However, if that's the only advantage, it seems to me one might as well just add in some extra miniaturization levels on range and speed modules to accomplish about the same effect.

Fighters are great in games like MOO where battles take place in a seperate tactical world. However, while I may be missing something, I don't think they add that much in a game like GalCiv where everything is just comparing stats and rolling dice on the main map.

Hmm... one thing I just realized I am missing: I'm not sure how fleet combat will work, and so far as I know, the system has not been posted to the board (if it has even been finalized by SD). So, it's possible fleet combat will introduce elements that make fighters more than, as Ugleb says, renamed guns.

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?

VagabondNomad... so, according to you, fighters are actually missiles, and interceptors are actually point defense. And it's only a matter of labels and attack graphics.

Then there isn't a reason to be designing "attack fighters" and "interceptors". No need for torpedoes or bombs (effectively missiles), and fighter beam and fighter mass drivers --- which is point defense, according to you, because they are only effective for shooting down other fighters.

The real point to fighters is that it limits the amount of hardware you are putting at risk while attacking the enemy. The loss of a few fighters does not mean the loss of the whole carrier ship.

Now, while I love fighters, fighters might not be reasonable for the Gal Civ universe. What ranges are ship to ship combat actually happening? If you don't have FTL drives in your fighters, then whatever ship they are targetting could just pop off a short jump, and leave the fighters behind. This one fact alone means that fighers are only good for defense, where ships are going to "hold their space". If you have to put an FTL drive in a fighter, so that it can at least chase down a target that tries to run away, that means the fighter has less room for weapons, and you are approaching the tactical point of having small naval screeners, rather then "instant" power projecters. Remember, in space combat, we are talking about everything being in the same medium, rather then having seperate mediums. Everyone has the same drive system moving them through that medium, just ratio to their mass is difference. They all travel in the same manner, and all work on the same scale. This means that a space carrier and its space fighters is more similar to a large mother ship launching small patrol boats, rather then a modern air carrier which launches aircraft. If they have to use a different engine to get around at sublight speeds in GC, then fighters could be effective because they only have to waste space on a minimum amount of life support and basic infrastructure, and can devote more space to sublight propulsion (so they are faster then FTL ships), weapons, and defenses. No need for long term recycling, or FTL structures. But remember, that is only good if you are defending a particular point in space (like, say an area around a planet). Otherwise, the targets may go FTL, and put an insurmountable distance between them and the fighters, leaving the fighters to have to be collected by their carrier so that the carrier can give chase. And while the carrier is recovering its fighters, that would make an excellent tactical time for the ships that hopped away to hop back, and start the fight... jumping back out when the fighters close in.

Just something to consider.

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.

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)

Unless I'm missing a key distinction, this proposal is still sounding like 'a gun by a different name'.

Your first point to me makes the fighter into a point defence module (like an armour or shoield module).

Point 2 would make it equivalent to a missile/mass driver/laser weapon module.

Point 3, the ability to attack many times, I'm not clear on. As I understand the GCII combat system, a ship armed with missiles is not restricted by ammunition considerations, it is simply assumed to be resupplied behind the scenes. Each attack it launches another volley of missiles just as a laser fires another blast. If by 'missile' we meant a one-shot unit such as GC1's anti matter missile, then I think I'd see a justification, but that doesn't apply in this context as I understand it.

Point 4, must be attacked by point defence, again makes a fighter into a missile module substitute.

Point 5, now this may have something to it. I have no idea about the method GCII uses to calculate the success or failure of an attack, so I don't know if it could be factored in somehow, but there may be something to start developing with here.

A possible point 6 to my mind is to add fighters as a fourth 'weapon type' in addition to laser, missile and mass driver. That may well be overcomplicating matters and adding clutter, but it would offer a fourth tactical consideration and more research options.

I suppose the alternative is to simply make fighters into an advanced branch of the missile tech tree, technology reaches a certain point where warfare evolves to a new 'age', like the advent of aircraft carriers in world war 2, which essentially rendered battleships obsolete.

Perhaps there is scope for the point 6 '4th weapon type' to enter the game at a later stage. Once your research into the three 'basic' weapon types reaches a certain stage you gain the ability to employ the fourth category, fighters. That could then lead on to the defensive advances to counter it. Less advanced races might find themselves rendered at a severe disadvantage with no established defence to this new form of warfare, I suppose the historical equivalent might be the late 1940's while america was the only nation with access to the atomic bomb, or the relatively brief period in the Great War when Britain deployed the first tanks and Germany had no counter tactic to this wholly new style of warfare. Then of course in WW2 Germany stunned the world with its Blitzkreig tactics, which took combined arms and those new fangled tanks to a whole new level.

I hope I'm making some sense here, what I'm trying to say is that to justify fighters as a game mechanic they have do something much more than immitate something existing with a novelty spin. Failing that we're just rebranding another feature or module to add a bit of background colour. I'm really starting to warm to the concept of an 'advanced 4th weapon type' as it could really shake things up mid-game. My concern is that it could prove to be a balancing nightmare, as the first race to attain the technology would have a devastating edge until other races develop the counter technology.

Whoo long post, got a little carried away there!

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. Then designing carriers that aren't heavily armed (except for fighters) makes sense, because they will usually not be directly involved in the battle. This way it's not an arbitrary enforced prerequisite, instead it is a good choice for designing a carrier ship.

The type of fighters would be missile, gun, or beam, with power based on the currently researched weapon technology, and the player can buy whatever fighters they want.

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 smaller low-power weapons that put out just enough damage to kill a fighter.

Heavy fighters could take more hit points to kill, and cost more space aboard a ship. And advanced fighter technology might offer additional range to fighters.

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.

Also, fighters could be low hit-point targets. Like maybe the smallest fighters would have one hit point. Then resupplying a carrier with more fighters could be a significant expense.

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.

I was going to type this huge post detailing the Fightercraft's place in a starfleet, its uses, and what not to do with them...but AngleWyrm kinda showed a better idea than mine, so I won't. But I still have some ideas that expand the role of Fightercraft -- unfortunately, I'm unsure as to whether it would be too much micromanagement or not combined with the weapon differences.

1) Offensive and defensive roles for Fightercraft. Using fighters as a sort of quasi-artillery is a very good idea for an offensive role that is unique. However, this offers no defensive measures with them, and certainly there would be some defensive role. For instance, perhaps there can be planet-based Fighter Bays that can be constructed which perform as a very basic "planetary defense". Not that the fightercraft would launch to attack the capital ships, but that they would take off to fight against a planetary invasion force. This would serve a defensive role very well, in my opinion, though it's not directly related to Carriers. Another defensive role will be suggested in 2.

2) Different kinds of Fightercraft. We all know there aren't singular designs for them on Earth, and in space there likely wouldn't either. Fitting in with AngleWyrm's idea of ranged assault, there could be three kinds of Fightercraft -- Fighters, Bombers, and Interceptors. Fighters are "balanced", designed as escorts. Bombers are "offensive", designed to deal damage against larger vessels. Interceptors are "defensive", designed to stop fightercraft assaults.

2a) Interceptors are "defensive" -- that is, they launch from the Carrier to fight off other Fightercraft. Being sleek, fast craft with speed and manueverability going for them, not weapons, this makes sense. This would obviously be most useful for Fleets, to help fight off Bomber assaults. This is not to say that Interceptors cannot fulfill the ranged "bombard" role, just that they would be far weaker in the role than one designed for it. Also, like Fighters, they can escort Bombers

2b) Bombers are "offensive" -- that is, they are designed to siege an enemy capital ship more effectively than others. Bombers are larger, slower, less manueverable than other Fightercraft, making them prime targets for Interceptors. However, the damage they can deal more than makes up for the risk. Bombers can play the "defensive" role but, like Interceptors on the offense, they do it far less effectively than those designed for it.

2c) Fighters are "escorts" -- that is, they are designed in a balanced way to help defend Bombers on their run. They can take out Interceptors as well as they can Bombers, but they aren't as effective at the offensive nor the defensive roles. However, their balance makes them excellent escorts for attacking bombers. For one, because they can defend the Bombers from Interceptors better than the Bombers themselves. For two, because they also carry some payloads that are due to the ship/s being sieged, meaning that the battle is more likely to succeed than if the Bombers are Interceptor escorted.

3) Combined assaults, as you can see, are a point I'm making. With Fighters escorting Bombers on the attack due to the threat of Interceptors, there's a sense of combined arms where each part plays its role without being overpowered. Fighters are okay assaulters and defenders, but will never live up to Interceptors and Bombers in their designed roles. On the other hand, Interceptors are lousy attackers and Bombers are pitiful defenders, but are still capable of those roles in emergencies. Meanwhile, you can assist your attacking squadron/s with an extra squadron or two of escorts, furthering the siege's chance of success.

Personally, this might be a tad too complex to integrate and might lead to unneeded micromanagement, but it's an idea that I had...

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).

It might be possible to get some of the spirit of multiple fighter roles with hull sizes, hit points and damage.

A fighter that deals 1hp damage could take out all other 1hp fighters, and thus be a good interceptor. And a fighter that does 2hp damage would waste some firepower shooting at other 1-hp fighters, thus would be better suited to attacking capitol ships.

Then the ideal strategy vs another fighter-armed fleet might be a mixed strategy of small anti-fighter fighters and heavier anti-ship fighters.

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!

Has anyone mentioned yet that fighters are a reusable resource while missles are one shot weapons? Or that fighters can be loaded with many different weapons; guns, missles, torpedos, ...? And that missles shot from capital ships need more range than those loosed from fighters?

No, fighters are not invincible (regardless of what fighter jocks think today), but they have some very distinct advantages (and weaknesses) in battle.

For some good examples of how they could be used in space effectively, see the Star Wars series (more particularly the X-Wing 9 book series) or the later books in the "Honor Harrington" series by David Weber.

Now, the question is, would fighter bays in GC2 add to the fun in any noticable way?

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.

Now, the question is, would fighter bays in GC2 add to the fun in any noticable way?

I think they could, in a very distinct way. If the extended attack range concept is adopted, at a certain point in the game carriers will appear and open up a new style of combat. Instead of just being another ship to 'head butt' an enemy ship with, we will have a type of ship which attacks in a completely different style. Carriers would likely be weaker ships themselves, their value being in the ability to attack 'remotely' from a distance.

In theory a carrier will need to avoid face to face engagements with the enemy as it is defensively weak compared convential warships (considering a dedicated carrier ship vs a conventional warship of similiar size). This would prompt players to treat their carriers differently, keeping them behind the 'front lines' of the war to send their bombers ahead for targetted strikes against enemy ships, colonies and starbases.

Why is this adding to the fun? Because it's adding variety. You will be prompted to think about how you use a carrier, where to place it and how to protect it. In return you gain the ability to attack without directly risking your large expensive ships to return fire. If every ship in your fleet essentially acts identically (move next to enemy ship, fire, win or lose, repeat) combat won't be all that interesting. A carrier would not act exactly like any other ship, and so has a different feel to spice things up a little.

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?

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.

I'm not convinced it would actually be any change to the current combat system. There would have to be some sort of 'deploy fighters' command incorporated, when activated that would spawn the fighter squadrons in the same fleet/stack as the carrier and then would be ordered just like a normal ship. The player then moves them to their target, they attack and disappear (either having been destroyed or returning to the carrier once the mission has been completed).

I suppose it would work like an anti-matter missile in GC1, the missile is built, launches from your colony, moves to a target and detonates, removing itself (and hopefully the target) from play. The difference is that fighter squadrons would not stay in play until they are used, they have to return to the carrier after a brief period for refuelling etc.

The most difficult idea we've talked about so far is the ability to custom design your own fighters, that would require a ship design system of its own, although far less sophisticated than GCII's current system.

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?

If we have to add a new type of ship, I'd apreciate more a kind of mine layer/ mine sweeper starships because it gives the game more strategic options with a simple implementation since the mine is the perfect asymmetric weapon that currently is missing.

I agree with Lucky Jack (or John ) that before every consideration we need to understand if the AI can cope with it.

Also, I'm terrified by the amount of words written in this thread and I've seen some competence in the aeronautic field. I would be tempted to go into that but would be really by far off-topic

gherardo