I've never used Boat Bays before and am wondering if they'd be a good addition to my command ships. . .

That is true... but at that point you will not need that many of them to do the job well either, so whatever PD fighters you do have will work just fine. You certainly don't need dedicated PD fighters for that specific job.

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on May 24, 2020, 06:10:14 AM

And I agree that using beam fighters for PD as secondary role is perfectly OK and I do that too.

Carrier beam fighters get exceptionally interesting in a PD role against enemies with obsolete engine tech / missiles slow enough that your fighters can outrun them. Supported by a good enough missile sensor they can kill a disturbing number of missiles just following them along and picking of salvo after salvo.

I've never used Boat Bays before and am wondering if they'd be a good addition to my command ships to house sensor fighters to be the commander's eyes and ears. Might be a good replacement or supplement to the massive sensors I put on command variants. Only thing I'm worried about is if it will make the design too different to the point it can't share a shipyard with its standard variant.

Quote

One big advantage carriers have over ASM ships is that a carrier strike group can strike its target from a different bearing than the carrier.  If ASM ships manage to remain undetected, it doesn't really matter.  The missiles will still fly straight towards the target.  Your enemy can easily follow that bearing right back to your missile ships.  But a carrier strike group can launch its missiles from the flank.  Imagine you've hidden your carrier north of the target.  The strike group flies off to a side and strikes the target from the east.  The enemy head east, planning on counter-attacking your missile ships.  But they find nothing, because you were actually to the north all along.

~Barkhorn

Quote

This is no different from an ASM group firing a barrage and then moving to a new location, beyond the fighters having stealth and speed advantages.  While the AI isn't smart enough to do it, it should be an effective way to draw defenders away from a high value target.

~SpikeTheHobbitMage

What Barkhorn is driving at is that a carrier can be in one place and attack from another. If your ASM ships fire, then the fire comes from them, if they move away they inexorably move from the point of firing. The carrier has no such trouble, and even against NPRs this can make a difference as even the NPRs will tend to attack the ships that are actually shooting at them rather than the carrier. "De-planing" the carrier may require you to produce more fighters, but replacing fighters is way cheaper than dedicated ASM ships. FACs notwithstanding of course, they're a different matter entirely.

One big advantage carriers have over ASM ships is that a carrier strike group can strike its target from a different bearing than the carrier.  If ASM ships manage to remain undetected, it doesn't really matter.  The missiles will still fly straight towards the target.  Your enemy can easily follow that bearing right back to your missile ships.  But a carrier strike group can launch its missiles from the flank.  Imagine you've hidden your carrier north of the target.  The strike group flies off to a side and strikes the target from the east.  The enemy head east, planning on counter-attacking your missile ships.  But they find nothing, because you were actually to the north all along.