--- As a fighter centric player I vehemently disagree with box launchers being the same size as 30% launchers. Unless a Fighter Only Box Launcher was implemented.
--- That said I would prefer that Box Launchers simply used the linear scaling rather that the square root scaling.
IIRC, this goes against the general sentiment Steve has of keeping things consistent.
I feel generally out of my depth in combat discussions since most of my campaigns stall out before getting past Precursors, but I read enough AARs to kinda understand the tactical level of the game.
Howrver, this is a war game and it models logistics appropriately well as wargames tend to do, and I feel like a lot of these super heavy numbers discussions miss the bigger picture of the fact that most wars are decided entirely by logistics and are already won or lost before the first time fleets make contact, but I digress.
30% being the same size as box launchers is an interesting idea, but thematically it's still a bit strange they would be the same size. Sure, you're gonna need magazines, but, in theory, couldn't 30% reduced be resupplied by a collier while box launchers need to be docked (or I may be mixing this one up). And if they're the same size, even regardless of cost, I'd probably just always throw 30% launchers on if they lack the explosion chance and give me the option to refit later on if I get extra HS with a micro magazine, to gain a few more alpha strikes without external resupply. Trying to play Devil's advocate, I guess.
Generally though the strength of the box launcher is in alpha strike, and the weakness is logistical overhead. Assuming I'm not wrong and you need a hangar to resupply box launchers (or maybe I am and they just take way longer, I forgot which), I think the changes to launcher size scaling (which I like) can be added while leaving box launchers alone, if you make them logistically more challenging. Like a switch to a hard need for military hangar space to reload them, which pretty much makes non-fighters a very tricky challenge to manage on that end (assuming I'm wrong and that's not already the case).
With that in mind I think the issue, as others have pointed out and Steve has admitted to designing towards, is carrier based craft with missiles in box launchers, which can be very effective. And if we take a page from naval history, that's pretty on the money for the current "meta" of IRL.
But we could also (and I acknowledge, at the risk of getting out of scope and getting a bit suggestion - y, although this is the suggestions forum), "nerf" missile fighters a bit by adding more logistical overheads, and especially (as is the case from history) making carriers more vulnerable to damage from fighters onboard getting hit.
Carriers in general, I feel, have always needed a logistical rework in line with what fuel and ammo got to make it less instantaneous and more "forward-planning" based. A large issue, especially during WW2 was carriers going up in massive conflagrations after getting hit while spotting an air wing, the term used to describe filling up the flight deck bow-to-stern with fueled and armed aircraft. Even in the modern era this is still very much a concern (USS Forrestal) and could bre an interesting design path for Aurora).
Now, fire mechanics are definitely out of scope (if interesting and perhaps worth discussion on their own), but having some more carrier systems with their own design tradeoffs (launch tubes, flight decks, maintenance bays, etc.) could open a path towards a "spotting" system. The basic idea is, fighters take time to launch, which can be problematic in an unplanned encounter. Having your wings "spotted" can drastically reduce this, at the cost of hugely more potential for secondary explosions from hangar hits. The rationale being fighters in the hangars being fueled and ammo being transferred from the carrier's magazines.
At the extreme end, this could be from the aforementioned "carrier systems" rework, and at the easiest end it could just be a flat "launching fighters takes a certain time based on already existing factors and the spotting button just speeds that up while adding risk".
I'm also not immediately recalling damage mechanics for fighters in hangars when hit, is there some mechanic for fighters taking damage when that happens and potentially causing secondary explosions? If not, that could be a first step.
Anyways, the size changes are good but the box launcher discussion seems fixed on fighters and small craft, which I feel could be handled in a deeper way, IMO. I may eventually open a thread on hangar and launch time mechanics, but I wanted to throw the idea out here because it could also assist with the box launcher conundrum as well.