Mega Carriers

[utilae]

What if we could have carriers that carried ships of varying sizes.


Let's say we have the following ship classes:
Fighter (smallest)
Frigate
Destroyer
Battleship
Titan
Doomstar (biggest)

We should then be able to fill a bigger size carrier with smaller size carriers (note that when you choose a ship to be carried you choose an existing design, ie you can design your fighters, titans to be carried, etc), eg

Doomstar Carrier holds 2 Titan or 5 Battleships or 100 Fighters.
Battleship Carrier holds 2 Destroyers or 1 Frigate or 10 Fighters.


Wouldn't that be an intresting factor in Carrier design. In the case where a doomstar can carry titans, point defense probably won't be effective against the titan, but heavy mounts would. While point defense would remain effective against fighters.

[Okami]

That is a really brilliant idea. In movies it is so easy to just place some ships into others, but for some reason only one game that I can think of actual allows you to use the small ship in big ship idea. Of course the bigger ship would be much, much more expensive, but let's say (running with utilae's classes) that the Doomstar could maybe manufacture some of the smaller ships. It would propally be best to say nothing bigger than a frigate, and I would image that the ships being made in such a matter would be made much slower than they would on a planet.

Also I suggest that nothing smaller than a battleship would be able to harbor ships and nothing smaller than a Doomstar or maybe a Titan could make a ship. Even then it would be very limited. And I think that it should be impossible for a large ship to harbor a ship one class smaller than it. Because then the large ship would have to sacrifice almost every thing to hollow itself out to carry a ship just a little bit smaller than it. Well that was my well spent two cents.

[jmercer]

I agree with the size restriction of what you can carry. Perhaps it can be cut off at 2 size classes below the carrier size class. In this case a destroyer can carry only fighters (and probably not many, a single squadron?).

Now, what happens when a carrier gets destroyed in combat and the ships it's carrying don't have FTL drives? Do the ships it carries get destroyed? What if a Titan which carries 10 destroyers gets blown up, I'm guessing the destroyers can no longer disengage from the battle. What if the side with the lost titan wins? What happens to the destroyers?

What I suggest is this:
Ships without FTL drives can't travel between systems on their own, in friendly systems they'd be considered system defence. They can travel between friendly systems at some cost and a very slow rate by basically packing them up and shipping them via existing trade routes. Once they've arrived at their destination they must be unpacked, inspected etc. All of this is done transparently from the user's point of view. Perhaps report on status such as packing (but a cooler sounding work), shipping and unpacking to let the player know what's happening.

If you have a mega carrier, you can skip the packing/unpacking and slow transit by loading them up explicitly and jumping to the new system at full speed.

Perhaps you can assign your empire funded carrier to a trade route between your system defence producing planet and a colony world which needs defence. That carrier would melt into the abstraction of freighters and you would no longer need to explicitly load and unload ships. you can recover the freighter at any point and it would appear X turns later at the planet it started at when you assigned it to the route.

Now, how about the 10 carried destroyers who were part of the victorious fleet that lost their carrier. The answer is simple, they can't move. You can either disband them or split your fleet and leave them behind. You have an issue of supply if they're in enemy territory. You can also leave some ships behind to gaurd them while you bring a rescue fleet with it's own empty carrier.

This idea of ships in enemy territory without the capacity of FTL engines brings up an interesting scenario. What if I'm attacking you with my new fleet assembled around some large battleship. We engage somewhere and I'm a lot more powerful than you. You can either retreat (which is what you would have done in MOO1) or you can concentrate fire on my battleship in hopes of damaging it's engines. Lets say you succeed. I'm now left with a problem. Do I continue on without my battleship or do I stay there and wait for it to get repaired. Same goes with lesser ships. Do I sacrifice them or are they important enough that I need to leave behind a defence force, splitting up my main fleet even more or perhaps even halting it.

I can also have my battleship's engine damaged so it no longer acts like a class 7 speed engine, but a class 3. My entire fleet must travel at the speed of the slowest ship if it wants to stay together.

One thing a carrier strategy might produce is fighters and carried ships with very weak FTL engines. They would rarely be used, but in the case of the carrier getting killed, the carried ships can limp back home without needing another carrier. This would introduce the idea of disposable carriers: Big shells with FTL engines and only enough armor to be able to eject it's load before getting blown apart.

This may be useful when trying to crack a well defended planet. A few large captial ships would get chewed apart, they're very easy to hit. But a few large disposable carriers which erupt into a cloud of fighter/bombers might be a lot better against fixed emplacements. They can go drop their two bombs each and "hyperspace" to the nearest friendly world.

About the freighter carrier. One problem with that joining the local trade route is a good way of hiding a fight. I guess that if your ship joins the trade route it now can be destroyed as easily as the other abstract freighters. If one of the endpoints is captured or occupied by an enemy, it could be lost without a fight.

[Dreamer]

I hate to be the one against again.... but what are the advantages of packaging your ships like this? The only fair reason why a carrier is needed is because small figthers don't have FTL drives and thus can't go from one system to another. Are you in fact proposing a clear distinction between FTL drives and normal drives so you can in fact carry big ships without FTL drives?

I wouldn't go agains it and in fact it seems a good idea for transporting even system defenses. But you Do need to adress this issue.

[utilae]

Now, what happens when a carrier gets destroyed in combat and the ships it's carrying don't have FTL drives? Do the ships it carries get destroyed? What if a Titan which carries 10 destroyers gets blown up, I'm guessing the destroyers can no longer disengage from the battle. What if the side with the lost titan wins? What happens to the destroyers?

The ships without FTL drives are stuck in the system, they have to fight. If you win, then the ships are stuck on the planet. They blocade or defend a captured world.

Ships without FTL drives can't travel between systems on their own, in friendly systems they'd be considered system defence. They can travel between friendly systems at some cost and a very slow rate by basically packing them up and shipping them via existing trade routes. Once they've arrived at their destination they must be unpacked, inspected etc. All of this is done transparently from the user's point of view. Perhaps report on status such as packing (but a cooler sounding work), shipping and unpacking to let the player know what's happening.

If you have a mega carrier, you can skip the packing/unpacking and slow transit by loading them up explicitly and jumping to the new system at full speed.

Yes, that would be good to move non FTL ships between friendly worlds, along trade routes. There would be a cost involved. Maybe your average freighter fleet needs larger sized carriers to lower the cost. So if you upgrade you freighters through tech, etc then the more mega freighters they have, the cheaper the cost is to freight ships with no ftl dirves.

Yes, Carriers (except those that carry fighters) should be built without ships. So you have to build the ships to put in them. Though I guess you can have the option to build the ships to be carried as well. And if a carrier has no ships, you can put ships of the right size in.

Perhaps you can assign your empire funded carrier to a trade route between your system defence producing planet and a colony world which needs defence. That carrier would melt into the abstraction of freighters and you would no longer need to explicitly load and unload ships. you can recover the freighter at any point and it would appear X turns later at the planet it started at when you assigned it to the route.

No, don't worry about this idea. We do not want to get too involved with putting your millitary carriers into trade routes etc.

One thing a carrier strategy might produce is fighters and carried ships with very weak FTL engines. They would rarely be used, but in the case of the carrier getting killed, the carried ships can limp back home without needing another carrier. This would introduce the idea of disposable carriers: Big shells with FTL engines and only enough armor to be able to eject it's load before getting blown apart.

This may be useful when trying to crack a well defended planet. A few large captial ships would get chewed apart, they're very easy to hit. But a few large disposable carriers which erupt into a cloud of fighter/bombers might be a lot better against fixed emplacements. They can go drop their two bombs each and "hyperspace" to the nearest friendly world.

This is interesting, but shouldn't this strategy have been expected with carriers anyway. I guess Moo3 didn't quite live up to this idea.

The only fair reason why a carrier is needed is because small figthers don't have FTL drives and thus can't go from one system to another. Are you in fact proposing a clear distinction between FTL drives and normal drives so you can in fact carry big ships without FTL drives?

I think when you design a ship you should be able to choose the engine, eg
FTL drive - travel between system, lots of space.
Non FTL drive - system only, saves space.

With different sized engines we can create ships such as Battlships that have non FTL drives and would be able to fit more weapons onboard as a result. Mega Carriers would be able to carry these Battleships.

[Yeeha]

I think carrier should carry unleast 3 classes smaller ships. Its strange that just one class bigger ship can put 2 1 class smallers in, I mean u got to have lot of power, ftl engines, massive ship bays & so on.Ofcourse that depends how great is size difference between classes in this game.And it probably wouldnt be smart idea too because bigger ships usually cost more & bigger ships should be less manuverable & accelerate slower & stranded danger so strategically it shouldnt be wise to make doomstar for titans.

[skdiw]

Lets see... you can build a large ship that carries two small ships. Instead of building a large ship that hulls weapons, you chose to build a ship to hull ships (engines, ship armor, and weapons) so your fleet can be less effective? If you build a large ships to hull non-FL ships, why just through an engine onto the ship? If you can hull non-FL ships with a freghter cost, what's the whole point of mega carriers? Did even you think this through?

[utilae]

Instead of building a large ship that hulls weapons, you chose to build a ship to hull ships (engines, ship armor, and weapons) so your fleet can be less effective?

Yes, the mega carrier would carry ships, though non FTL ships. Believe me, your fleet will still be effective. I'm comming from the point of view where non FTL engines are very cheap and take little space, but FTL engines are very expensive and take lots of space. Also as a result of big non ftl ships being carried, those big ships can hold more guns.

If you can hull non-FL ships with a freghter cost, what's the whole point of mega carriers? Did even you think this through?

That idea was for getting your non FTL ships between your own worlds. A mega carrier is for yours and enemy worlds. Plus the freighter fleet have to have the capacity to carry very large ships, ie they need some mega carriers, civilains can build there own though. Your mega carriers are for millitary use.

[Sandlapper]

While the armoured hull of a carrier definately has it's protective benefits, I would never spend the exorbinant costs of building such a large ship, when I can achieve the same results of moving a non-ftl ship(s) with a detachable ftl tug(which would have a paltry cost in comparison).

[skdiw]

Instead of building a large ship that hulls weapons, you chose to build a ship to hull ships (engines, ship armor, and weapons) so your fleet can be less effective?

Yes, the mega carrier would carry ships, though non FTL ships. Believe me, your fleet will still be effective. I'm comming from the point of view where non FTL engines are very cheap and take little space, but FTL engines are very expensive and take lots of space. Also as a result of big non ftl ships being carried, those big ships can hold more guns.

If you can hull non-FL ships with a freghter cost, what's the whole point of mega carriers? Did even you think this through?

That idea was for getting your non FTL ships between your own worlds. A mega carrier is for yours and enemy worlds. Plus the freighter fleet have to have the capacity to carry very large ships, ie they need some mega carriers, civilains can build there own though. Your mega carriers are for millitary use.

Okay, you didn't read carefully or missed my point. Instead of carrying non-FL ships, assuming expansive engines and takes space, that very space goes to making room for arnaments for the large ship. Those weapons don't carry engines and you will be paying more for armors for the small ship. Concret example, large ship holds 12 spaces and small ship holds 5 spaces. your large ship can hold 2 small ships. assume big engine takes 2 spaces and weapon take 1 space each. The best you can do is to use the large ship to hold 2 small ships, with each carrying 5 weapons; but that is the same as making the large ship, maxing out the weapons plus an engine. Example aside and being a bit more actual to reflect the real game, facotring armor, shields, specials that you paid for those small ships but not using, mega carriers is just lame. There is no point of having mega carriers from military standpoint.

The only purpose of mega carriers is for logisitical purpose, which even then the idea is still very weak.

[utilae]

Instead of carrying non-FL ships, assuming expansive engines and takes space, that very space goes to making room for arnaments for the large ship. Those weapons don't carry engines and you will be paying more for armors for the small ship. Concret example, large ship holds 12 spaces and small ship holds 5 spaces. your large ship can hold 2 small ships. assume big engine takes 2 spaces and weapon take 1 space each. The best you can do is to use the large ship to hold 2 small ships, with each carrying 5 weapons; but that is the same as making the large ship, maxing out the weapons plus an engine. Example aside and being a bit more actual to reflect the real game, facotring armor, shields, specials that you paid for those small ships but not using, mega carriers is just lame. There is no point of having mega carriers from military standpoint.

The only purpose of mega carriers is for logisitical purpose, which even then the idea is still very weak.

I've seen weaker ideas. All I am saying (to sum it all up) is that the player should have the flexibility in designing a carrier that can carry ships of any size, rather than just fighter size.

I think it would be interesting to see people trying out different sized ships to be carried by their carriers. One player might try the classic fighters, while another might try a carrier that can fit battleships, etc.

There are advantages. Hiding what ships, how many ships and what sized ships you are carrying. Having one 'engine' rather than an engine on each ship. An extra layer of armour and shields around your carried ships. The carrier can be cheaper then a ship full of guns. It's mostly space inside, with systems to support the carried ships, eg ammo, fuel, personnal, etc. The carrier could hide far out from the enemy ships in the system. Carried ships could return to the carrier for repairs, more missiles, more crew and could keep returning for raids, etc. Fighters may not be so good at this, since fighters have even smaller range then big ships and the carrier with fighters has to come right into the action.

As "Sandlapper" said, it would be good to have alternative methods of transporting ships, eg tugs, carriers, open hull carriers, 'pushers' (attachable engine ships). Each would have strengths and weaknesses.

[Dreamer]

Just to add to the conversation: In Dune or BattleMech books this idea of carriers was indeed used. In those books only huge ships could afford FTL engines (they where jump engines in both) and other ships needed to stuck to them to be transported. The idea is interesting and feasible. But be wary that for it to be worthy FTL engines should be large and expensive. So forget your early-game scout

[jmercer]

I really like the idea of mega carriers. They would allow players to employ a strategy similar to towed guns. Lets say you're blockading a system. What would be better, moving in a bunch of ships with FTL drives, or "towing" in some destroyers? You could even move in some orbital weapon platforms. Hey, if you want to blockade a planet, why not do it right?

If engine damage is considered in this game, why not tow in some defence ships. Your damaged doomstar isn't going anywhere anytime soon, why have FTL ships sit around? They can be attacking the enemy.

I think a tug, a pusher and a carrier can be considered the same ship except a carrier also protects it's cargo with it's hull. Perhaps when you add a "carrier" component to a ship, you can decide to add armor to that component, which would then make the ship a true carrier. An aircraft carrier (here on earth) would be considered a tug/carrier hybrid since it's carried ships are in and on it. If we were designing it in the game we'd have a few carrier components, some with armor. This may be a good strategy as you don't expect to get attacked until you've launched a few of your ships, in that case, why protect them?

Examples of non hybrids would be the C-17 cargo plane with an M1 inside for a true carrier and an HMMWV pulling a towed gun such as the M119 would be a true tug.

[skdiw]

I've seen weaker ideas. All I am saying (to sum it all up) is that the player should have the flexibility in designing a carrier that can carry ships of any size, rather than just fighter size.

I think it would be interesting to see people trying out different sized ships to be carried by their carriers. One player might try the classic fighters, while another might try a carrier that can fit battleships, etc.

People won't try it for long, because it's a dead option, as in that option is inferior to the alternatives, regardess if it's an option; that option because clutter, and that's something we don't want.

There are advantages. Hiding what ships

cloaks

how many ships and what sized ships you are carrying.

whatever it's inside, it's less effective then if you have them seperate.

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

see example.

An extra layer of armour and shields around your carried ships.

ships inside can't attack so the defense isn't helping you. All you are doing with extra armor is delay.

The carrier can be cheaper then a ship full of guns. It's mostly space inside, with systems to support the carried ships, eg ammo, fuel, personnal, etc.

A ship that basically do nothing? why would a player make a ship like that.

The carrier could hide far out from the enemy ships in the system.

A normal ship can't? If anything, large objects are easier to spot.

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.

Fighters may not be so good at this, since fighters have even smaller range then big ships and the carrier with fighters has to come right into the action.

the battle takes place in a system. even if you limit the range of the fighters, your ships + carrier is still inferior to have just "carrier" with weapons. See example.

As "Sandlapper" said, it would be good to have alternative methods of transporting ships, eg tugs, carriers, open hull carriers, 'pushers' (attachable engine ships). Each would have strengths and weaknesses.

I wouldn't want a whole ship class just for logistical purposes. supply ships is already plenty.

[utilae]

People won't try it for long, because it's a dead option, as in that option is inferior to the alternatives, regardess if it's an option; that option because clutter, and that's something we don't want.

So let's remove all options of ship design from Moo2, leaving only beam weapons, because we know that a ship loaded with beam weapons is always going to be better than a ship loaded with fighters or missiles.

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.

The carrier can be cheaper then a ship full of guns. It's mostly space inside, with systems to support the carried ships, eg ammo, fuel, personnal, etc.

A ship that basically do nothing? why would a player make a ship like that.

Yes, nothing but transport and holding supplies of ammo, people, etc.

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.