As I recall, ship models are quite larger than they actually are in the game world so that the player can distinguish them.
That was not what I said or what I hinted at...
As I recall, ship models are quite larger than they actually are in the game world so that the player can distinguish them.
I don't remember who said that "The line between hard and soft scifi is whether they allow 1-man fighters." I personally don't enjoy carriers in scifi games, as it is just another weapontype that flips between useless and overpowering depending on the particular balancing. You can always balance any weapon with more armor, but whenever you add fighters/bombers designers seem inclined to force dogfights with fighters v fighters so they make bombers effective vs regular ship armors. This is the problem with carriers in most scifi, as they want to relive WW2 carrier dogfights. It makes good cinema, but little sense.
There is no reason not replace fighters with unmanned drones or missiles. They are smaller, more resistant, and better at snap judgement than life. And the best way to take out a fast small things is not another fast small thing, it is a laser. Even today laser is the viable anti-missile defence as it can disable missiles at hundreds of kilometers. Anti-missile systems can track and shoot down tennisballs at 5km. Unless computers and lasers get weaker in the future, the kill range for unarmored things is quite long. With no atmospheric interference decreasing laser strength, modern point defence systems will have kill ranges above 1000km for any modern day projectile. A current day point defence would kill battlestar galactica fighters at hundreds of kilometers range if no atmosphere dampens it. So this whole fighter vs fighter thing is unrealistic and counteracts my willing suspension of disbelief.
Carriers are one of my most disliked scifi tropes. I hope stellaris carriers do not force counterplay.
I think I'm going to build my raiding ships on cruiser hulls. Raiders need to be able to overwhelm their targets and then depart before the enemy can respond, so they're going to be loaded out with long-range weaponry and a single wing of bombers. My hope is that enemy civilian stations and rear-area systems will contain few if any defensive fighters, so the bombers will be able to wreak havoc.
I don't remember who said that "The line between hard and soft scifi is whether they allow 1-man fighters." I personally don't enjoy carriers in scifi games, as it is just another weapontype that flips between useless and overpowering depending on the particular balancing. You can always balance any weapon with more armor, but whenever you add fighters/bombers designers seem inclined to force dogfights with fighters v fighters so they make bombers effective vs regular ship armors. This is the problem with carriers in most scifi, as they want to relive WW2 carrier dogfights. It makes good cinema, but little sense.
There is no reason not replace fighters with unmanned drones or missiles. They are smaller, more resistant, and better at snap judgement than life. And the best way to take out a fast small things is not another fast small thing, it is a laser. Even today laser is the viable anti-missile defence as it can disable missiles at hundreds of kilometers. Anti-missile systems can track and shoot down tennisballs at 5km. Unless computers and lasers get weaker in the future, the kill range for unarmored things is quite long. With no atmospheric interference decreasing laser strength, modern point defence systems will have kill ranges above 1000km for any modern day projectile. A current day point defence would kill battlestar galactica fighters at hundreds of kilometers range if no atmosphere dampens it. So this whole fighter vs fighter thing is unrealistic and counteracts my willing suspension of disbelief.
Carriers are one of my most disliked scifi tropes. I hope stellaris carriers do not force counterplay.
Are we sure the fighters aren't drones anyway?
You know, back in my day "headcannon" was just called imaginationThat's probably a matter for RP and individual headcanon.
I don't recall ever encountering a Sci-Fi game where carriers-in-space really worked like WWII carrier warfare in the Pacific. The distinguishing feature of the latter was that the opposing carriers & escorts operated beyond sensor range of each other and aircraft had to be sent out to find the opposing fleet before a strike could be launched. Unless highly abstracted, that would make for very long battles for a 4X game. I'd probably enjoy it, but I doubt a majority of the 4X fan base would.
You know, back in my day "headcannon" was just called imagination![]()
Assuming the in-game tech descriptions don't state it outright.That's probably a matter for RP and individual headcanon.
Does Sins of a Solar Empire count as 4x?I cannot recall any space 4X where carriers were efficient. Definitively not MoO2.![]()
Does Sins of a Solar Empire count as 4x?
I always play Advent for the sole purpose of access to drone networks and drone carriers. If I get a big enough carrier fleet, I've still yet to lose to anything. Doesn't seem to matter what it is.
Its more like total war to me. So yes if think total war 4x.Does Sins of a Solar Empire count as 4x?
I always play Advent for the sole purpose of access to drone networks and drone carriers. If I get a big enough carrier fleet, I've still yet to lose to anything. Doesn't seem to matter what it is.
Vassari missiles are hard to disagree with, but I am particularly partial to the Advent drone research. The Drone host ships and the drone carriers combine to just produce so much stingy wasp death.Its more like total war to me. So yes if think total war 4x.
Incidentally isnt phase missile bombers (aka vasari) just better?
Space Empires V features the possibility for that kind of gameplay. Sensors had a limited range and fighters were able to operate as independent entities on the strategic layer once launched from their base as long as their fuel and munition stores lasted, so you could launch a fighter strike against an enemy force from the other side of a system in the strategic layer and the fighter attack would then be resolved in the game's tactical combat mode.I don't recall ever encountering a Sci-Fi game where carriers-in-space really worked like WWII carrier warfare in the Pacific. The distinguishing feature of the latter was that the opposing carriers & escorts operated beyond sensor range of each other and aircraft had to be sent out to find the opposing fleet before a strike could be launched. Unless highly abstracted, that would make for very long battles for a 4X game. I'd probably enjoy it, but I doubt a majority of the 4X fan base would.