Carriers Worth It?

[Borealis4x (OP)]

So I was reading Vandermeer's informative guide on how to use carriers and it got me wondering as to whether all this extra effort was worth it in the end.

My initial thinking was that since carriers dominate today, they would also dominate in space, but then again we are in space using magic rocks that break the laws of physics.

So do carriers properly managed, built, and outfitted actually preform better than missile or beam fleets?

[ChildServices]

Carriers can be a missile or beam fleet in of themselves depending on what you arm their parasites with. At the moment I've got a very strong appreciation for "bomber"-FACs carrying large missiles. The main advantage of carriers is the difficulty in actually detecting the ships which you're using to kill the enemy. I took a peek out of curiosity in SM mode at what the AI was seeing and half of the time they couldn't even notice my bombers discharging their payloads at 15-20mkm. It's especially deadly when those torpedoes are going at 54000kms

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Carriers can be a missile or beam fleet in of themselves depending on what you arm their parasites with. At the moment I've got a very strong appreciation for "bomber"-FACs carrying large missiles. The main advantage of carriers is the difficulty in actually detecting the ships which you're using to kill the enemy. I took a peek out of curiosity in SM mode at what the AI was seeing and half of the time they couldn't even notice my bombers discharging their payloads at 15-20mkm. It's especially deadly when those torpedoes are going at 54000kms

Could you by any chance post the FAC your talking about and the missile they use? I'm trying to get a sense as to what they should look like.

[MarcAFK]

I'm a big proponent of small ships and frequently I'm amazed by what I can get away with using a kilotonner.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I'm a big proponent of small ships and frequently I'm amazed by what I can get away with using a kilotonner.

I don't see how you could get away with not having >1000 ton ships. I mean, you still need a carrier.

[MarcAFK]

I didn't say I use them exclusively. But small ships can generally sneak around hostile systems with impunity, as long as the enemy has actives off.

[ChildServices]

I posted them in the ships thread over in the bureau awhile ago but here it is:

Code: [Select]

Achilles II class Bomber    1,000 tons     3 Crew     396.4 BP      TCS 20  TH 69.12  EM 0
14400 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 12
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 123    5YR 1842    Max Repair 288 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.05 months    Spare Berths 2   
Magazine 80   

Vishnevsky Space & Security 288 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 288    Fuel Use 293.06%    Signature 69.12    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (23 hours at full power)

Kurz & Wecker Size 8 Box Launcher (10)    Missile Size 8    Hangar Reload 60 minutes    MF Reload 10 hours
Stiletto Missile Fire Control FC86-R100 (50%) (1)     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
Stiletto Mk2 (10)  Speed: 54,000 km/s   End: 9.3m    Range: 30m km   WH: 25    Size: 8    TH: 630/378/189It also comes in a "squad leader" variant which carries one less bomb but holds this active sensor:

Code: [Select]

Stiletto Active Search Sensor MR86-R100 (50%) (1)     GPS 3600     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
For propulsion I use the maximum power multiplier available for every single one of my strike craft. In addition to doing that, you want box launchers. If you don't have box launchers, don't even bother designing a bomber. Bombers also don't need more than one fire control because, remember, you have multiple ships in a wing. If you need to split your fire, have each ship fire at a different target.

I also have, to match "Achilles", a ship called the Hector, which is an escort ship that each of my heavy carriers has four of. It's basically an AMM platform.

Code: [Select]

Hector III class Gunboat    1,000 tons     7 Crew     689 BP      TCS 20  TH 34.56  EM 0
7200 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 9
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 123    5YR 1845    Max Repair 270 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.05 months    Spare Berths 6   
Magazine 54   

Vishnevsky Space & Security 144 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 144    Fuel Use 302.42%    Signature 34.56    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 0.6 billion km   (22 hours at full power)

Kurz & Wecker Size 1 Missile Launcher (50% Reduction) (18)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 20
AMM Missile Fire Control FC129-R1 (50%) (1)     Range 129.6m km    Resolution 1
Sandpaper Mk3 (54)  Speed: 72,000 km/s   End: 3.2m    Range: 14m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 792/475/237

Hector Active Search Sensor MR20-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 84     Range 20.2m km    MCR 2.2m km    Resolution 1This one carries its own magazine and doesn't use box launchers. I was gonna go for boxes, but the hangar reload on size 1 box launchers is slower than the refire rate that I got out of shrinking the launchers a little. It doesn't need to be as fast as the Achilles since it doesn't actually have to go anywhere that isn't within 10000km of its carrier.
I'm not really sure how good they are though, since I haven't actually had to use them yet. I'm sure somebody'll be eager to tell me how effective they are.

While we're talking about bombers, has anybody had any luck designing something Homeworld-style with carronades instead of missiles?

[Haji]

So I was reading Vandermeer's informative guide on how to use carriers and it got me wondering as to whether all this extra effort was worth it in the end.

My initial thinking was that since carriers dominate today, they would also dominate in space, but then again we are in space using magic rocks that break the laws of physics.

So do carriers properly managed, built, and outfitted actually preform better than missile or beam fleets?

Yes and no. All my campaigns are role-playing ones, which means I play several nations at once and try to simulate them as real nations. I usually also have NPRs out there and here is a very simple rule that held true in all of my playthroughts so far - carriers absolutely wreck NPRs but are completely worthless against a player led empires.

The reason the carriers dominate against AI is that their parasites are usually impossible to detect, thanks to their small size, which coupled with rather bad anti-missile defenses of computer opponents means fighters can routinely wreck entire fleets for no loses.

Unfortunately when I play my own empires I routinely use box launchers on my ships and build anti-missile defenses that can stand up to it and in all my campaigns the result was the same - fighters simply could not get through a point defense of a properly designed player fleet. They simply don't have the numbers. Which should be expected. Large ships can carry missiles in box launchers, while carriers carry fighters which carry missiles. They can strike multiple times, sure, and avoid detection, but in most campaigns my way to deal with carriers was to survive the strikes, close in, and kill them.

I think I'll be giving carriers one last chance in the future but I may very well abandon them in my campaigns as simply unplayable against other player led empires. 

[ChildServices]

Would cloaked bombers be any good?

[Iranon]

@ ChildServices: Probably not, if you want your strike craft to be hard to dect it's generally more efficient to just make them smaller, down to a signle box launcher if that's what you want. Stealth is more useful for capability that you can't split between multiple ships, e.g. that provided by a huge sensor.

*

General usefulness of carriers: Imo, what's useful is small missile platforms, because they are hard to detect. There's actually nothing in the mechanics that discourages small long-endurance fighters. Carriers can have their place, but they seem superfluous in many implementations.

[lennson]

It seems the most important thing a carrier does for a fleet from a firepower perspective is that it enables combat reloading of box missile launchers.

Typically, this is used only for the bombers that the carrier brings in to combat with it but as carriers get larger it can also be used to re-arm box missile launcher destroyers or cruisers escorting the carrier. This makes is so that a carrier group can have an absolutely massive alpha strike if needed (all fighters plus all escorts) and can do this multiple times by cycling ships through the carrier for another full fleet volley.

However, against the AI this is unlikely to ever be needed since their missile defenses tend to have issues just dealing with carrier bombers. This is more a tactic of interest when role playing conflicting sides and might help make carriers more useful in situations such as those that that Haji's fiction puts them in.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I posted them in the ships thread over in the bureau awhile ago but here it is:

Code: [Select]

Achilles II class Bomber    1,000 tons     3 Crew     396.4 BP      TCS 20  TH 69.12  EM 0
14400 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 12
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 123    5YR 1842    Max Repair 288 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.05 months    Spare Berths 2   
Magazine 80   

Vishnevsky Space & Security 288 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 288    Fuel Use 293.06%    Signature 69.12    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (23 hours at full power)

Kurz & Wecker Size 8 Box Launcher (10)    Missile Size 8    Hangar Reload 60 minutes    MF Reload 10 hours
Stiletto Missile Fire Control FC86-R100 (50%) (1)     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
Stiletto Mk2 (10)  Speed: 54,000 km/s   End: 9.3m    Range: 30m km   WH: 25    Size: 8    TH: 630/378/189It also comes in a "squad leader" variant which carries one less bomb but holds this active sensor:

Code: [Select]

Stiletto Active Search Sensor MR86-R100 (50%) (1)     GPS 3600     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
For propulsion I use the maximum power multiplier available for every single one of my strike craft. In addition to doing that, you want box launchers. If you don't have box launchers, don't even bother designing a bomber. Bombers also don't need more than one fire control because, remember, you have multiple ships in a wing. If you need to split your fire, have each ship fire at a different target.

I also have, to match "Achilles", a ship called the Hector, which is an escort ship that each of my heavy carriers has four of. It's basically an AMM platform.

Code: [Select]

Hector III class Gunboat    1,000 tons     7 Crew     689 BP      TCS 20  TH 34.56  EM 0
7200 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 9
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 123    5YR 1845    Max Repair 270 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.05 months    Spare Berths 6   
Magazine 54   

Vishnevsky Space & Security 144 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 144    Fuel Use 302.42%    Signature 34.56    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 0.6 billion km   (22 hours at full power)

Kurz & Wecker Size 1 Missile Launcher (50% Reduction) (18)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 20
AMM Missile Fire Control FC129-R1 (50%) (1)     Range 129.6m km    Resolution 1
Sandpaper Mk3 (54)  Speed: 72,000 km/s   End: 3.2m    Range: 14m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 792/475/237

Hector Active Search Sensor MR20-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 84     Range 20.2m km    MCR 2.2m km    Resolution 1This one carries its own magazine and doesn't use box launchers. I was gonna go for boxes, but the hangar reload on size 1 box launchers is slower than the refire rate that I got out of shrinking the launchers a little. It doesn't need to be as fast as the Achilles since it doesn't actually have to go anywhere that isn't within 10000km of its carrier.
I'm not really sure how good they are though, since I haven't actually had to use them yet. I'm sure somebody'll be eager to tell me how effective they are.

While we're talking about bombers, has anybody had any luck designing something Homeworld-style with carronades instead of missiles?

You think it would be possible to make a fighter effective at 250 tons or even 100 tons?

[ChildServices]

These are bombers, not fighters. Think Freespace.

100 tonnes? Not until you're at higher tech levels. Engines can't be smaller than 50 tonnes, so that's already half of your space gone. From there the only box launchers that'll fit on it are between size 6 and size 1. Size 1 would be your best bet (since the size 6 is 45 tonnes), but only if you're at the tech level where you can fit damaging warheads inside of size 1 missiles. After that, you'll have to tailor make the bombs to whatever fire control will fit inside the bomber (as opposed to it being the other way around)

250 tonnes? I don't see why not. I'm pretty sure there's a whole thread where a guy shows us two fighter wings, and one of them was smaller or roughly around the size of this. They were more advanced than magneto plasma, though.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

These are bombers, not fighters. Think Freespace.

100 tonnes? Not until you're at higher tech levels. Engines can't be smaller than 50 tonnes, so that's already half of your space gone. From there the only box launchers that'll fit on it are between size 6 and size 1. Size 1 would be your best bet (since the size 6 is 45 tonnes), but only if you're at the tech level where you can fit damaging warheads inside of size 1 missiles. After that, you'll have to tailor make the bombs to whatever fire control will fit inside the bomber (as opposed to it being the other way around)

250 tonnes? I don't see why not. I'm pretty sure there's a whole thread where a guy shows us two fighter wings, and one of them was smaller or roughly around the size of this. They were more advanced than magneto plasma, though.

Well, my engine tech will be internal confinement and my missile tech cobalt warheads. I guess the missile doesn't matter as much since it can be replaced as tech gets better. And I was actually thinking about having small, fast bombers carrying a single missile, like an old WWII torpedo bomber.

[ChildServices]

Well if you can fit actual damaging warheads inside of size 1 missiles then bob's your uncle, you're practically unstoppable whether you decide to use bombers or if you just use big missile destroyers.