Carrier Warfare

[Jorgen_CAB]

I don't see how carriers in the game will upset the balance?

A fighter are just like a much smaller version of a corvette with a single weapon, higher speed and evasion.

If a fighter are unbalanced then most ships probably are too.

Since most people tend to think carriers are cool there are good reasons to include them even if the concept are a bit dubious in space.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Are we still having realism arguments?

@Murmeldjuret, you're my friend and I both like and respect you, but asking for Stellaris to conform to a purer, more physicsey vision at this late hour is perhaps not the most pragmatic of approaches. This is, as you call it, space fantasy. It will hopefully be internally consistent but that's the most that can be hoped for.

For myself, I am torn into two parts. The scientist in his early 30s may be sad at the inclusion of FTL and single-person fighters, but inside him there's an eight year old who's built a spaceship out of Lego and is flying it around making ZOOOOM PEW PEW PEW noises. I see Stellaris as a game that the two of them can enjoy together.

 

[Koplin]

For myself, I am torn into two parts. The scientist in his early 30s may be sad at the inclusion of FTL and single-person fighters, but inside him there's an eight year old who's built a spaceship out of Lego and is flying it around making ZOOOOM PEW PEW PEW noises. I see Stellaris as a game that the two of them can enjoy together.

Words to live by.

 

[Koplin]

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

From what I've read, Attack Vector seems to employ rail gun technology as a main weaponry in their game (which sounds hella cool btw). But I'm curious on why you think rail guns, or any projectile weapon, are to be considered hard sci fi? As cool as rail guns are to me, I feel like the relativistic speeds required to ensure a hit at large distances would require hadron collider like structures on ships to do so. I'm by no means a physicist, and I don't want to hijack this forums discussion, so maybe we could continue our discussion in PMs?

 

[Revan7719]

I am not fully sold on destroyers and corvettes being that useful after you discover larger ship classes so im gonna take a risk in my game and try a Battleship/cruiser fleet.
2 types of battleship, one carrier with pd on any open slots, and one just heavy guns.
2 maybe 3 types of cruisers, One battlecruiser which will just be a small battleship, maybe a cruiser carrier meant to supplement the battleship-carrier with another wing, and then cruisers with medium and small weaponry and a fair amount of PD weaponry.
Any destroyers and corvettes I build will still in homespace to discurage building in my territory.

Basically I am thinking I can put enough small weapons on a cruiser screen to overcome multiple destroyers and corvettes and some aid from strike craft to quickly tear the little ships apart. I of course could be horribly wrong but I wont know for sure for another week or so I guess.

I have thought the same thing exactly as you. In the Blorg stream, Martin only built one of each ship type. Having several cruiser and battleship types mixed in will negate the corvette charges i believe.

 

[Revan7719]

Oh unmanned drones are a very bad idea. You can see this already today where people hack military drones. This will only get worse in the future. It makes a lot more sense to have someone on that fighter. And a laser maybe good for long distance, but only if it knows where the target is. The fighter could employ effective ECM that are stronger the further away it is, which makes it sensible to have anti-fighter fighters (shooting on sight).

So, your dicison to see fighters as unrealistic only comes from your choosing what tech gets employed and what not.

Your point is a fair one, especially if you have a dedicated ecm bird with the fighters. Like the raptors in BSG. From jamming, extra radar coverage, and early warning detection. There could very well be a place for them.