Mega Carriers

[METhomas]

I think the idea of having open-hulled "mega-carriers" is a good one because of the costs related to FTL drives. A mammoth carrier packed with four star system defense, battleship-sized monitors would allow the player to pack more weapons on those monitors, making them, in some ways, more combat effective than FTL-equiped battleships.

A mega-carrier could simply be one giant engine, shield generator, point defense beam weapons, and crew compartment. They would be able to protect their cargo with their shields rather than with their hull. They could go into a system, drop their monitors, and leave the system again for its own protection, and then, after the battle, pick up survivors and take them to the next battle.

[Sapphire Wyvern]

I think this thread is a wonderful argument in favour of not having separate FTL and normal-space engines. IMO, this is one level of complication that FO doesn't need at all.

[jmercer]

I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.

[Geoff the Medio]

I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.

His point, I think, is that once you say you can have separate FTL and in-system drives, people decide they need to extrapolate from this and come up with overly complicated suggestions such as those of this thread. It's not that having just FTL and in-system drives is so compliated; it's that having them makes people want even more.

[skdiw]

Having one 'engine' rather than an engine on each ship.

see example.

Below I have both methods, a mega carrier and two small ships carried within and Just having a Large ship and two Small ships with best engines.

Mega Carrier carrying 2xSmall Ship. This method will have less weapons, but the cost per weapon will be less. The cost is equal to the space used by the contents of each ship. In this case the cost of the carriers engine, the small ships engines and weapons.
[9 Weapons Cost=12, 1.333 Per Weapon]

Large Ship - Mega Carrier - Space=12
------------
Small Ship x 2 = 10 Space Used
L Engine x 1 = 2 Space Used

Small Ship - Carried In Mega Carrier - Space=5
------------
S Engine x1 = 0.5 Space Used
Weapons x4.5 = 4.5 Space Used

Large Ship & 2xSmall Ship. This method will have more weapons, but the cost per weapon will be greater. The cost is equal to the space used by the contents of each ship. In this case the cost of the Large Ships engine and weapons, the small ships engines and weapons.
[16 weapons Cost=22, 1.375 per weapon]

Large Ship - Weapons - Space=12
------------
L Engine x 1 = 2 Space Used
Weapons x 10 = 10 Space Used

Small Ship - Space=5
------------
L Engine x1 = 2 Space Used
Weapons x3 = 3 Space Used

So you see, Carriers are more economical.

you compared large ship vs. small ship. of course large ship is more econmical. you want to compare apples with apples, so large ship carrier with small ships and large ship loaded with weapons. In your analysis, you'll find carriers makes no sense.

I think the idea of having open-hulled "mega-carriers" is a good one because of the costs related to FTL drives. A mammoth carrier packed with four star system defense, battleship-sized monitors would allow the player to pack more weapons on those monitors, making them, in some ways, more combat effective than FTL-equiped battleships.

A mega-carrier could simply be one giant engine, shield generator, point defense beam weapons, and crew compartment. They would be able to protect their cargo with their shields rather than with their hull. They could go into a system, drop their monitors, and leave the system again for its own protection, and then, after the battle, pick up survivors and take them to the next battle.

But you see, I proved to you all that it is NOT more combat effective.

Carried ships could return to the carrier for repairs, more missiles, more crew and could keep returning for raids, etc.

that's why supply ships (if we have them) are for.

Yeah, IF we have them. And I guess we don't.[/quote]

I support no support ships just as with support ship. However, super carrier is even worst than support ships. In moo, the missiles recharge after the battle, there is no reason why FO can't do the same.

I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.

Except when you actually play the game, you'll find out there is a difference in annoyance. Say you want to move your ship from A to B, in moo, you can do that easily. However, in moo3 where there is distinqution between FTL and non- you have to manually pick out which ships that has FTL and which don't and then move your ship. That makes the game a lot harder to control. With maybe 20 different designs, that's a lot of memorization of what ship has FTL and what doesn't. Then with all the TF idea, you have to ungroup each time you decide to move. Even if you have AI assistance, it's not evident on the galaxy map so you have to do some micro. Bottom line, it's more headache than you think.

That's why I am in favor of moo's design of missile bases for defense and ships are all FTL capable, rather than system ships for defense, some natural defense, and FTL ships.




Last point, FO is not sum of its elements. How one element interact with another is very important and perhaps the most important. Meaning that if you design one element, it will affect how you need to design another. So it's important to constantly keep the big picture and our goals in mind. If you have a good idea, but it doesn't go with rest of the game, the idea is bad; either that or the foundation of the game is bad, hopefully that's not the case.

[Dreamer]

I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.

His point, I think, is that once you say you can have separate FTL and in-system drives, people decide they need to extrapolate from this and come up with overly complicated suggestions such as those of this thread. It's not that having just FTL and in-system drives is so compliated; it's that having them makes people want even more.

For myself. The best reason not to have separate FTL drives is GUI. As pointed in other places. What appears on the main screen and what not?

[guiguibaah]

Why not have a "mega carrier" as a type of ship that ends up being researched in the 'Titan' class. This way you don't need to seperate FTL ships with non-FTL ships, and you satisfy the science fiction crowd who point that not all ships need FTL drives.

Simply put, mega carriers would shoot out frigates - but for all aspects the game would treat them in the same logic as a standard carrier would treat its fighters. No need to design the frigates, they just come with your best beam weapon and pretty much swarm the enemy. Only they are a lot bigger, take more damage, and you can lose a pocketload of them and don't care since the megacarrier just builds them all after a fight anyway.

[Sapphire Wyvern]

I didn't find this extra level of complexity confusing in MOO1. There you had Engine and Maneuver... FTL and normal-space engines.

His point, I think, is that once you say you can have separate FTL and in-system drives, people decide they need to extrapolate from this and come up with overly complicated suggestions such as those of this thread. It's not that having just FTL and in-system drives is so compliated; it's that having them makes people want even more.

Precisely. If the technology for in-system and hyperdrive is the same thing (eg Honorverse) then there is no "fluff" reason to justify complex game elements like system ships and carriers that carry entire warships - which might be sub-carriers in their own right (oh, the horror...)

If we really want to have some diversity in the two elements, have all ships equipped with both in-system and hyperdrive with Special Equipment available for ships with "Exceptional Maneuverability" and "Exceptional Hyperspace Speed". Like Augmented Engines from MoO II.