Carrier Warfare

[apoc527]

Sins of a Solar Empire is an incredible game. I feel like Stellaris takes Sins and just makes it way better (and more complex, obviously).

 

[Rectunator]

I'd like to think of the carrier combat, and hopefully of the space combat in general, along the lines of what it is in Honorverse. Your carriers are not launching fighters, they're launching enlarged B-52's. By that I mean large vessels packing enough punch and with a large enough crew to fight and die effectively, but still cheap enough to be used en masse instead of sacrificing a lot more expensive (and larger) vessels. A good analogy would be the modern supercarrier but instead of launching planes from its deck, it opens its sides and sends forth masses of small fast attack craft.

 

[Ulzgoroth]

Fun as it can be to argue about realistic space combat, we already know that baseline Stellaris isn't going to be that. This is space opera/space empire SF inspired space, not futurism-inspired space.

(Honestly, I'll be really impressed if anybody can wrangle the engine into supporting something close to hard-SF.)

 

[Koplin]

They vary between op and useless (as stated earlier), and the amount of cool they bring is not enough to justify their unrealism and generally poor balancing. I don't see the charm fighters have over big ass lasers, nor why designers must include fighters in scifi, it just grates on me.

Fun as it can be to argue about realistic space combat, we already know that baseline Stellaris isn't going to be that. This is space opera/space empire SF inspired space, not futurism-inspired space.

(Honestly, I'll be really impressed if anybody can wrangle the engine into supporting something close to hard-SF.)

IF they make them balanced and they fill a niche correctly...will you then suspend your disbelief?

I often share your view on hard vs soft SciFi, but ultimately suspend my disbelief if the mechanics in a game are balanced because really...hard SciFi is all conjecture as well...especially that far in time. But I will say this, when thinking about how research works in the game, some empires might not research the correct type of sensor/point defence/optical observation arrays to correctly combat a fighter craft launched from their carrier...so it can still be "hard" scifi in the universe of a game at any given moment

As for the "Hard SciFi" wrangling, they have a mod thread that discusses the merits of space battle in the year 2200...but honestly I myself think it will either be these ungodly moving fortresses using high powered nuclear energy blasts at ranges in excess of 10 AU's or these papier mache rigs that get decimated once shields are down and a stellar dust starts to penetrate hulls...but what do I know. So in essence, Hard SciFi sounds like fun for a select few.

So hopefully those fighters/bombers are well balanced into the other weapon types and we can all enjoy their ridiculousness together!

We old-timers must adapt to the language of the children these days. Our lexicon must increase in dankness in order to be truly on fleek. Or p good. Or whatever it is that we must now say.

As someone who has trouble keeping up with the slang my students use, this made me lol a great deal.

 

[Ulzgoroth]

As for the "Hard SciFi" wrangling, they have a mod thread that discusses the merits of space battle in the year 2200...but honestly I myself think it will either be these ungodly moving fortresses using high powered nuclear energy blasts at ranges in excess of 10 AU's or these papier mache rigs that get decimated once shields are down and a stellar dust starts to penetrate hulls...but what do I know. So in essence, Hard SciFi sounds like fun for a select few.

Neither shields nor 'nuclear energy blasts' (unless you mean nuclear warheads, which are less desirable than you might think for space combat) is something I'd call hard SF.

 

[apoc527]

Neither shields nor 'nuclear energy blasts' (unless you mean nuclear warheads, which are less desirable than you might think for space combat) is something I'd call hard SF.

Whipple shielding and bomb-pumped x-ray lasers. Boom. You MUST be the same Ulzgoroth from the GURPS forums.

 

[anomalacaris]

Sins of a Solar Empire is an incredible game. I feel like Stellaris takes Sins and just makes it way better (and more complex, obviously).

There wont be microing your capital ships killer laser anymore... Though frankly I just send me my ship, zoom in and watch my bombers do their thing nowadays. So i guess im ready for stellaris

 

[apoc527]

There wont be microing your capital ships killer laser anymore...

Yea, totally never did that anyway, so I've been ready for Stellaris since Sins first came out. I hate the "CPM" style micro that you see in games like StarCraft or, perhaps, the MOBAs that everyone seems to like (that I've never played, at all, aside from the original Warcraft 3 DOTA mod). OTOH, I totally like microing my starbases and my pops and my colony ships. But combat micro? No thank you. I'll never do it as well as the AI, so just let the AI handle all of it.

 

[Detjen]

From what we know the Cruiser and Battleship will have the same amount of hull segments. So it will be interesting to see, if the Battleship Carrier varriant really offers more capacity for fighters and bombers or will just become a more heavily armed and armoured Carrier. In that case a pure stand-off Carrier might be best build in a Cruiser since thos ealso have higher acceleration (speed) and thus can more easily keep their distance.

You are right, for some reason I thought Cruisers were smaller hull segments. well then assuming they both can moutn the same number of hangers then ill drop the battleship carrier. I do not intend for them to be in the fight so I would like the speed ot keep them out of trouble.

 

[Vasious]

You are right, for some reason I thought Cruisers were smaller hull segments. well then assuming they both can moutn the same number of hangers then ill drop the battleship carrier. I do not intend for them to be in the fight so I would like the speed ot keep them out of trouble.

The Cruiser and the Battleship seem to have different options for their sections, so they might both have three sections but have different setups and the Battleship might have sections that offer more than one hanger bay

 

[Koplin]

Neither shields nor 'nuclear energy blasts' (unless you mean nuclear warheads, which are less desirable than you might think for space combat) is something I'd call hard SF.

So what would you consider hard sci fi?

Yea, totally never did that anyway, so I've been ready for Stellaris since Sins first came out. I hate the "CPM" style micro that you see in games like StarCraft or, perhaps, the MOBAs that everyone seems to like (that I've never played, at all, aside from the original Warcraft 3 DOTA mod). OTOH, I totally like microing my starbases and my pops and my colony ships. But combat micro? No thank you. I'll never do it as well as the AI, so just let the AI handle all of it.

I'm with you here. I hate the microing aspect of those games. I would much rather micro the fleet movements and engagements over anything else. So a GSG in space suits me a great deal.

 

[Fonz]

I would be highly disappointed if the battleships don't have a module for 3-4 hangars per section, I.e 9-12 squadrons per battleship.

 

[Koplin]

You are right, for some reason I thought Cruisers were smaller hull segments. well then assuming they both can moutn the same number of hangers then ill drop the battleship carrier. I do not intend for them to be in the fight so I would like the speed ot keep them out of trouble.

I'm pretty sure the battleships from the streams could have one more wing of fighters than the cruisers, but don't quote me on that one. I know the fortress could have three so that seems like an interesting use of bombers or fighters for those of us who plan on turtling in our first play through.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

As someone who has trouble keeping up with the slang my students use, this made me lol a great deal.

Was that intended ironically?

 

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

I cannot recall any space 4X where carriers were efficient. Definitively not MoO2.

Actually carriers are effective in early game. Cruiser hulls loaded with interceptors (a sort of escort carriers) can kill early battleships and starbases (and also some space monsters) easily: launch fighters and keep the carriers out of beam weapon range. They soon became ineffective as PD beams weapons became more powerful and especially defensive weapons like lightning field became available.

I agree with some of the posters in that for the game to be interesting, it would be best to set up rock-paper-scissors type balance, so that players who recon and quickly adapt their fleep composition and tactics are rewarded in combat. (of course within a reasonable tech level mismatch - tactical advantage should be nuffilied with sufficiently large tech superiority)

'All crews are reporting.' - battlecruiser
'A carrier has arrived.' - carrier
'Teleport successful!' - scout

 

[Ulzgoroth]

So what would you consider hard sci fi?

Attack Vector: Tactical or stuff by Charles Stross tends to be close. (Aside from occasional FTL.)

You MUST be the same Ulzgoroth from the GURPS forums.

True! Not aware of anybody else using the name online, though it's not impossible...

 

[wingren013]

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.

SOTS2 BR duels were like that.

 

[The_Red_Star]

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.

While I will strenuously agree with you on scifi fighters not being useful in realistic space combat; frankly I'm more than happy to see guardians of the galaxy/star wars/warhammer 40000/metroid/halo esque shenanigans going on in my game rather than realistic space combat. Stellaris is already quite clearly a somewhat tongue in cheek pulpy science fiction setting with psychic powers, organic fleets, and basically every space opera trope there is crammed into it. And to be honest; I'm quite fine with space opera over hard scifi, I mean I've logged hundreds of hours into Gal Civ III.

 

[Murmeldjuret]

While I will strenuously agree with you on scifi fighters not being useful in realistic space combat; frankly I'm more than happy to see guardians of the galaxy/star wars/warhammer 40000/metroid/halo esque shenanigans going on in my game rather than realistic space combat. Stellaris is already quite clearly a somewhat tongue in cheek pulpy science fiction setting with psychic powers, organic fleets, and basically every space opera trope there is crammed into it. And to be honest; I'm quite fine with space opera over hard scifi, I mean I've logged hundreds of hours into Gal Civ III.

To me carriers are unfun. I don't find dogfight awesome enough to offset poor balance and lack of realism. With design you have to weigh the different factors, with the end goal of maximizing experience and or fun. Carriers, to me, improve neither experience nor fun. I am not saying other views are unacceptable, in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in this thread alone. I prefer scifi that tries to uphold the pretense of hard scifi to as much as degree as possible. I call Star Wars space fantasy, as they don't even uphold the pretense of consistent science or economics, yet I find Star Wars awesome. I find Kerbal very fun. But if I want to play an interstellar traveler game, FTL is more fun. Despite FTL being unrealistic, it does improve fun. Add FTL. I'd be the first to argue that FTL is impossible, and still vote include FTL. I would also be one of the first to argue carriers are unrealistic, but since I do not find they in any way improve the game, I would vote against including them.

 

[karolus10]

I wonder whether carriers may provide close air support during planetary invasions and thus enhancing ground forces efforts. I guess that it could be an interesting alternative to orbital bombardments.