Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

LordMM -> Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (8/17/2020 5:44:20 PM)

Hey folks, there is something which has always gotten me pissed about aircraft carriers in Space strategy games. Most of them seem to get it wrong on how they should be employed. Mainly because they directly convert how aircraft are used on our blue planet and directly employ the same methods in space. Except, converting them directly makes little sense as the role of an aircraft carrier is directly diminished to just "kill the other ship" role.

This reduces the utility, role, and the advantage a carrier has in Naval based operations.

Carrier-borne aircraft

Ill, try to make the comparison in terms of world war 2 so it will be much easier to put my views across. The Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter had a tremendous range of 2600km. Essentially means these fighters popped up all over the pacific front giving the impression that there was a lot more of them to the Americans than what was initially known. This means that these fighters from these ships could be employed in the entire pacific front instead of being isolated to a single battle or a single engagement.

What I propose is that there should be a complete overhaul in the way the fighters/bombers in these carriers should be used. Instead of this just being another weapon to kill ships. Carriers fighters/bombers should be overhauled completely with extra abilities.

1. A huge bonus to Bomb planetary facilities, armies and to assist in planetary invasions.
2. Fighters/bombers should be fitted with smaller hyperdrive units, giving the carrier the ability to be positioned in deep space and launch their fighters/bombers to engage targets in nearby systems. Basically I am talking about hyperdrives which are a lot faster than large ship-based hyperdrives but with a smaller range, maybe 1/3rd or 1/4th of its range .
3. The increased complement of fighters and bombers so that these carriers can actually be a very potent force. I am talking about at least 100 fighters. Though I don't know how feasible that is visual without breaking the computer.


This is what Erik had said about fleet carriers last year in December.

"Fleet Carrier will support many more sensor slots, some of them capable of support larger (like Long Range Sensors that can see across multiple systems or even an entire sector)"

Now, Imagine you are fighting the gizzureans or the Dhayuts along a distant front. They deploy a carrier fleet with two massive carriers totaling around 200-250 carrier based fighters/bombers. Assuming these fighters have a range of 1.5 - 2 sectors.

1. They get to deploy their fighters with the ability to attack multiple locations. Refueling stations, mining stations, transports, freighters. Generally being an absolute nuisance in the entire sector.
2. Having a bonus on planetary invasions makes them a lot more useful during offensive campaigns.
3. Locating these carriers in deep space will become a lot more important for the defending side. Forcing the player to make use of long-range sensors.
4. Allowing fighters to have hyperdrives, also means you could actually have fighter bases in deep space with the range to defend multiple nearby systems.

This should allow you to have a great deal of flexibility. Basically making carriers something to be feared and envied.



Retreat1970 -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (8/17/2020 8:47:16 PM)

Unsure. The bomb troops and hyperdrive might work but I would have it racial or end tech. My PC wants to die on heavy fighter battles.

You can put LRS on them now if you want. The AI uses LRS early (AI Imp mod, Retreat).

If carriers became this good I'd doubt I'd use anything else tbh. Fighters are OP as it is.



swizzlewizzle -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (8/18/2020 8:44:48 AM)

Hope we get carriers and small craft in DW2... it seems that the pathing and combat stuff for fighters and other small craft need to be handled separately (different simulation) compared to normal ships to keep the sim speed decently high.

Here's hoping. :)



RogerBacon -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (8/18/2020 12:55:55 PM)

Most of what the OP wants is beyond the scope of DWU. I assume he knows that and is just posting his hopes for DW2. Secondly, as Retreat1970 said, such changes would make carriers the end-all be-all and no one would make anything else.

In my Bacon mod I tried to make carriers work a little bit more like WW2 carriers and I think I succeeded. The increased range (10x default) really allows bombers to strike without putting the carrier at risk, espicially if your target is inside the gravity well. Also, the 10x increase in fighter bomber manufacturing makes careful management of your fighters a little big mroe important. They are no longer just throwaway units.
If you haven't tried it out (and assuming your Windows 10 hasn't received the mod-breaking 2004 update) you should try it out.



LordMM -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (8/18/2020 8:54:59 PM)

Yeah, I was posting merely in hopes of DW2. Carriers are meant to be OP. Probably why America has almost 11 of them. I feel they should be costly as hell to build and time-consuming. As in, It should be difficult for an Empire to deploy more than a handful of large carriers without sacrificing its economy too much. We are basically talking about late-mid to late game weapons.

Actually the entire idea came after watching a documentary on the war on the Pacific and the employment of carriers, thought it would be quiet cool if something similar could be emulated in any future iterations of Distant Worlds.



Retreat1970 -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (8/19/2020 1:27:50 AM)

Or maybe options too. One research path for a big, slow carrier(the Empire and Tie fighters) or local fighters. The opposite then would be like X-wings that can warp but a smaller more nimble carrier.



LordMM -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (8/19/2020 6:32:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970
Or maybe options too. One research path for a big, slow carrier(the Empire and Tie fighters) or local fighters. The opposite then would be like X-wings that can warp but a smaller more nimble carrier.


Erik did mention we can design fighters in DW2. So creating bare-bones tie fighters/ fully armed, shielded X wings is something of a possibility. I believe the real issue is balancing the carrier correctly to make it expensive, useful but also vulnerable if detected without a sizable carrier task force to protect it.



Kingah -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (9/15/2020 9:05:48 AM)

I'm a big fan of the sprawling space where every astroid is colonised and civilizations have the ability to build gargantuan spaceships capable of transporting vast amounts of drones and starships to rain hell upon an entire unprotected sector. This type of almost mobile starbase of sorts sounds like a really cool idea. But as you people say, should be a massive expendature of resources and money to balance it out :P



Retreat1970 -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (9/15/2020 6:21:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kingah

I'm a big fan of the sprawling space where every astroid is colonised and civilizations have the ability to build gargantuan spaceships capable of transporting vast amounts of drones and starships to rain hell upon an entire unprotected sector. This type of almost mobile starbase of sorts sounds like a really cool idea. But as you people say, should be a massive expendature of resources and money to balance it out :P


I agree, but we can make big ships now to the limits of construction tech and there are always PK's to find...



MatBailie -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (9/20/2020 9:35:13 PM)

Carrier based craft having a range of more than the local system seems bizarre to me. That would mean they'd need hyperdrives... At which point, they're just normal ships (albeit small ones)...



RogerBacon -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (9/21/2020 1:28:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LordMM



Erik did mention we can design fighters in DW2.


This post inspired the latest addition to the Bacon mod: custom bombers.



Snowma130 -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (9/22/2020 10:16:56 PM)

Well the fighters should be a completely separate unit starting off as a planetary based unit with non hyperdrive capability which can engaged near space defense around the planet. As you unlock tech for larger ships which can provide housing and repair bays for fighters and carrier tech becomes available. if the devs do something similar to this make them capable of housing a very small hyperdrive. The fuel capacity should still limit these small fighters to 1 or 2 system jumps tops and have a max range of no more than half a sector from their home base.



LordMM -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (9/25/2020 4:05:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RogerBacon


quote:

ORIGINAL: LordMM



Erik did mention we can design fighters in DW2.


This post inspired the latest addition to the Bacon mod: custom bombers.


Brilliant, Glad my idea has inspired you to make this. [:)] Your mod is a life saver...



U235 -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (10/17/2020 4:52:18 PM)

What always baffles me in 4X space games is that carriers typically only have two types of "Air Wings", fighters and bombers. If they are going to base them on earth-based ocean-going aircraft where are the EW craft? Refueling craft (provided they use an expendable fuel), the AWACS craft? There is a reason our fighters and bombers can do everything. No submarinines in space, but it might be cool to be able to deploy radar bouys (like sona-bouys). SAR craft after a battle or do you just clone an experianced pilot (provided the craft is manned)? Transport craft (assuming the carrier doesn't build its own munitions and other consubables). Might not be doable, or maybe it is just to simplify operations, but to someone serving on carrier flight decks for 24 years, it seems flat and unrealisic. I fully understand the appeal of playablility over details, but stepping out behind the cookie cutter carriers must have some appeal to those that want there fleets to do things outside of the thick of combat.



RogerBacon -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (10/17/2020 5:12:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: U235

What always baffles me in 4X space games is that carriers typically only have two types of "Air Wings", fighters and bombers. If they are going to base them on earth-based ocean-going aircraft where are the EW craft? Refueling craft (provided they use an expendable fuel), the AWACS craft? There is a reason our fighters and bombers can do everything. No submarinines in space, but it might be cool to be able to deploy radar bouys (like sona-bouys). SAR craft after a battle or do you just clone an experianced pilot (provided the craft is manned)? Transport craft (assuming the carrier doesn't build its own munitions and other consubables). Might not be doable, or maybe it is just to simplify operations, but to someone serving on carrier flight decks for 24 years, it seems flat and unrealisic. I fully understand the appeal of playablility over details, but stepping out behind the cookie cutter carriers must have some appeal to those that want there fleets to do things outside of the thick of combat.


I believe most 4x space games base carriers not on modern carriers but on WW2 carriers. Thus the fighters, bombers, torpedo bombers distinctions.



Whiskiz -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (1/4/2021 3:33:47 PM)

Both being on the giving and receiving end of AFK units sending swarms of fighters and bombers out randomly attacking stuff in random different solar systems, doesn't sound like fun.

Can hyperdrives even fit on fighters/bombers?

Can space built ships even go into atmosphere to help planetary stuff? In kerbal space program you need whole other engine types etc to go from atmosphere to space, more equipment being further inaccessible to such small ships.

There's probably a reason why no-one does these things in a game..

Guerilla tactics on random solar systems could be fun, maybe an enemy sets up a station nearby in the dead space that they sortie from - but having it be a swarm of ants (fighters and bombers) from out of nowhere is kinda meh.



Galaxy227 -> RE: Aircraft carriers should be lot more than just another capital ship. (1/4/2021 5:50:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RogerBacon

In my Bacon mod I tried to make carriers work a little bit more like WW2 carriers and I think I succeeded. The increased range (10x default) really allows bombers to strike without putting the carrier at risk, espicially if your target is inside the gravity well. Also, the 10x increase in fighter bomber manufacturing makes careful management of your fighters a little big mroe important. They are no longer just throwaway units.
If you haven't tried it out (and assuming your Windows 10 hasn't received the mod-breaking 2004 update) you should try it out.


I would like to add that the Bacon mod is my favorite representation of carriers in space games, probably ever. Really well done there.

Also, I just want to join the crowd (even though this thread is a tad old), and say that I disagree with LordMM's carrier suggestions. Again, if I had to pick what works well, Bacon mod does it best IMO.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625