In our water navies, the carrier is definitely a High Value Asset since it carries fighters that can have a range of a thousand miles for ferry and more importantly travel at least 30x faster than the rest of the convoy. And a plane at sea without a carrier is just fish food.
The carrier there is a HVA.
In the X world, not so much. It's an Expensive Asset. Just not High Value.
The fighters (now) go somewhat faster than the carrier, but something like double, not 30. And not always faster than the Corvette. But the range of operations too is not "Well over the horizon", but within 50 km, where engagement may still be possible before your fighters get there and distract. And, able to see you themselves, they know where the HVA is.
Much like the scouts: there's no space needed along a convoy route for a scout to be a necessary asset.
And a fighter in space without a carrier will not have jump capability, but is still 100% viable, so the value of a carrier is in the fighters, not the ship.
So why does it cost a 100 mil?
Because carriers in our world cost more than destroyers and battleships.
Apart from cutting the cost waaay back, I can think of two things that would bring the Carrier back up to at least Valuable Asset, if still Overpriced Asset:
1) Large hangar means space for a workshop. So have carriers rebuild broken hulls of docked ships. More limited space means it takes longer, but the carrier makes your fighter wings more durable and valuable. And it ensures you can run on patrol longer. A force multiplier again.
2) Make it a fleet resupply. So up that cargo bay big time. Still only XL cargo, so no need for the huge bays required for ingress and egress of a ST sized cargo object. Since it will need components to repair ships, even merely doubling won't make it a VA. But a carrier with fleet resupply is another force multiplier: you don't need to stop at dock as often, making your fleet operations more efficient, reducing the need for a duty roster.
Or just pick one and reduce the price to less than a destroyer, most explicable would be a slow repair dock. Fleet resupply would demand some well shielded or defended TS class ships with ore, components, teladianium, et al.
Carriers. They're not really worth it, are they.
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
Sterling Work
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed, 1. Feb 12, 12:37
-
Sterling Work
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed, 1. Feb 12, 12:37
Aye, it would be nice to have a reason for it though
Because that's what I'd do if I used a TL like X2's Paranid or Split. Have it jump in, drop fighters, jump out, watch war on monitor and jump back in at the end.
Apart from the jumping back out, and that only necessary if there is a cap ship or three there close enough to decide the TL was a nice target, the same as a carrier.
But 1/5th the price.
So you have to wonder why the other races bought one.
Because they don't pay for them isn't really satisfying. Especially for pirates now with capital ships: since they get blown to bits every time they try to sell stuff, why do they bother? And how can they make enough profit to keep their cheapest M5s going, never mind a carrier!
But that economy oddity aside, what point do they see in it?
A fully stocked carrier will put you back 200 million.
For the same price you can get 20 corvettes. More deadly in a furball.
Harder to organise than one carrier for jumping, but far more durable than their 2 million a pop M3 alternatives, and easier to organise a replacement.
Even if the carrier repair rate were low enough you'd just personally trade your broken fighter to your HQ or sell the hulk, you'd see a reason why a government would have one.
Apart from the jumping back out, and that only necessary if there is a cap ship or three there close enough to decide the TL was a nice target, the same as a carrier.
But 1/5th the price.
So you have to wonder why the other races bought one.
Because they don't pay for them isn't really satisfying. Especially for pirates now with capital ships: since they get blown to bits every time they try to sell stuff, why do they bother? And how can they make enough profit to keep their cheapest M5s going, never mind a carrier!
But that economy oddity aside, what point do they see in it?
A fully stocked carrier will put you back 200 million.
For the same price you can get 20 corvettes. More deadly in a furball.
Harder to organise than one carrier for jumping, but far more durable than their 2 million a pop M3 alternatives, and easier to organise a replacement.
Even if the carrier repair rate were low enough you'd just personally trade your broken fighter to your HQ or sell the hulk, you'd see a reason why a government would have one.
-
brucewarren
- Posts: 9243
- Joined: Wed, 26. Mar 08, 14:15
are we really going to see a carrier QQ thread every 12 hrs now?
Just saying it forward: I give everyone 2 posts to make good, in context posts(proper english, as always, is optional). After that I'm ignoring what you have to say in that thread that's directed to what we previously were talking about.
-
Sterling Work
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed, 1. Feb 12, 12:37
I don't know. What is the Q Q thread?
'cos I'm betting that it didn't include an idea for making carriers not pants.
-
angry boron
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed, 18. Jan 12, 17:35
-
Xander Cade
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Thu, 21. Feb 08, 02:38
You are forgetting the extra firepower of a carrier.
A Titan can bring 24 PPC to a fight, along with 8 IBL and 8 Flak/CIG.
A Colossus, on the other hand, only comes with 8 PPC, 4 IBL and 8 Flak/CIG. BUT The Colossus can also bring up to 600 HEPT which puts the Colossus "main guns" of 8 PPC and 60 Venti on par with the 24 PPC main guns of the Titan. It is almost twice as fast as a Titan (49 vs 79 m/s ), and even the slowest M3s are faster again. That speed of the fighters is important because it means that more than half of the Colossus' primary weapons are doing damage long before the carrier itself comes into PPC range and three to four times earlier than the Titan. This is a distinct advantage.
To put it another way, compare the Tiger with the pre-patch (even post-patch) Panther. Those fighters make a huge difference.
Look at the loss of a fighter as hull damage and it makes sense, even if it is an annoyance to re-equip the losses.
If I were to adjust the M1, I would increase the fighter capacity so that the "main guns" (ie PPC batteries + fighters) are not just on par with Destroyers, but far exceed them. In fact, I would go so far as to replace the forward battery with Hammer missile tubes (but not Flail) to give it even more long-range punch, because a Carrier isn't meant to be "in the thick of it". The sheer cost of maintaining the fighters would more than make up for the extra firepower... and you can't just make a huge Venti 'plex to maintain a carrier at full power as you can for an M7M.
I would also add the workshop. IIRC that is available with CODEA or MARS.
A Titan can bring 24 PPC to a fight, along with 8 IBL and 8 Flak/CIG.
A Colossus, on the other hand, only comes with 8 PPC, 4 IBL and 8 Flak/CIG. BUT The Colossus can also bring up to 600 HEPT which puts the Colossus "main guns" of 8 PPC and 60 Venti on par with the 24 PPC main guns of the Titan. It is almost twice as fast as a Titan (49 vs 79 m/s ), and even the slowest M3s are faster again. That speed of the fighters is important because it means that more than half of the Colossus' primary weapons are doing damage long before the carrier itself comes into PPC range and three to four times earlier than the Titan. This is a distinct advantage.
To put it another way, compare the Tiger with the pre-patch (even post-patch) Panther. Those fighters make a huge difference.
Look at the loss of a fighter as hull damage and it makes sense, even if it is an annoyance to re-equip the losses.
If I were to adjust the M1, I would increase the fighter capacity so that the "main guns" (ie PPC batteries + fighters) are not just on par with Destroyers, but far exceed them. In fact, I would go so far as to replace the forward battery with Hammer missile tubes (but not Flail) to give it even more long-range punch, because a Carrier isn't meant to be "in the thick of it". The sheer cost of maintaining the fighters would more than make up for the extra firepower... and you can't just make a huge Venti 'plex to maintain a carrier at full power as you can for an M7M.
I would also add the workshop. IIRC that is available with CODEA or MARS.
"What he doesn't understand is that the Welsh are a subject people, put on Earth to do menial tasks for the English." - John Cleese
-
Sterling Work
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed, 1. Feb 12, 12:37
Those 600 are nearly one-shot weapons, though
In a capital-ship engagement, your 600 HEPTs die pretty quickly because the frame they're sitting on just got blown up.
20 Corvettes, mind, last longer. A lot longer. A 10-1 ratio is needed to flatten a corvette with AI controlled M3s. And they'll bring in 125 HEPTs that will still be there at the end of the fight.
Your 600 HEPTs are now 400, and you just spent 50 million killing a 90 million ship just to replace the guns. Never mind the shields, hulls, pilots.
Tactically, carriers don't make sense. The sphere of operation is not greatly increased, unlike real-world carrier groups, which are dominant forces on the ocean and dominated by the carrier. A nuclear cruise means that the smaller groups are making more sense tactically, but we already have several equivalent torpedoes in X universe.
And you don't need the carrier to put those 600 HEPTs there either. Unlike planes at sea, spaceships in space still operate in their medium, not sink into the wrong one... So saving the 100 mil for the carrier, you can put 1200 HEPTs into play.
But if after the fight, your fighters have a 30% casualty rate and are damaged enough to be unviable in combat for 40% of them, you must now retreat.
If a carrier were there and able to repair hulls, your losses are only the ones dead. Time will bring you back up to strength on the remainder.
Then there's a reason to bring a carrier into the picture.
Lastly, two Elephants will bring in 600 HEPTs and cost 30 mil. Why the carrier?
Well, if it can repair hulls and a TL can't...
20 Corvettes, mind, last longer. A lot longer. A 10-1 ratio is needed to flatten a corvette with AI controlled M3s. And they'll bring in 125 HEPTs that will still be there at the end of the fight.
Your 600 HEPTs are now 400, and you just spent 50 million killing a 90 million ship just to replace the guns. Never mind the shields, hulls, pilots.
Tactically, carriers don't make sense. The sphere of operation is not greatly increased, unlike real-world carrier groups, which are dominant forces on the ocean and dominated by the carrier. A nuclear cruise means that the smaller groups are making more sense tactically, but we already have several equivalent torpedoes in X universe.
And you don't need the carrier to put those 600 HEPTs there either. Unlike planes at sea, spaceships in space still operate in their medium, not sink into the wrong one... So saving the 100 mil for the carrier, you can put 1200 HEPTs into play.
But if after the fight, your fighters have a 30% casualty rate and are damaged enough to be unviable in combat for 40% of them, you must now retreat.
If a carrier were there and able to repair hulls, your losses are only the ones dead. Time will bring you back up to strength on the remainder.
Then there's a reason to bring a carrier into the picture.
Lastly, two Elephants will bring in 600 HEPTs and cost 30 mil. Why the carrier?
Well, if it can repair hulls and a TL can't...
Re: Those 600 are nearly one-shot weapons, though
Sterling Work wrote:In a capital-ship engagement, your 600 HEPTs die pretty quickly because the frame they're sitting on just got blown up.
20 Corvettes, mind, last longer. A lot longer. A 10-1 ratio is needed to flatten a corvette with AI controlled M3s. And they'll bring in 125 HEPTs that will still be there at the end of the fight.
Your 600 HEPTs are now 400, and you just spent 50 million killing a 90 million ship just to replace the guns. Never mind the shields, hulls, pilots.
Tactically, carriers don't make sense. The sphere of operation is not greatly increased, unlike real-world carrier groups, which are dominant forces on the ocean and dominated by the carrier. A nuclear cruise means that the smaller groups are making more sense tactically, but we already have several equivalent torpedoes in X universe.
And you don't need the carrier to put those 600 HEPTs there either. Unlike planes at sea, spaceships in space still operate in their medium, not sink into the wrong one... So saving the 100 mil for the carrier, you can put 1200 HEPTs into play.
But if after the fight, your fighters have a 30% casualty rate and are damaged enough to be unviable in combat for 40% of them, you must now retreat.
If a carrier were there and able to repair hulls, your losses are only the ones dead. Time will bring you back up to strength on the remainder.
Then there's a reason to bring a carrier into the picture.
Lastly, two Elephants will bring in 600 HEPTs and cost 30 mil. Why the carrier?
Well, if it can repair hulls and a TL can't...
you only buy carriers when you dont care about the costs
I find the effectiveness of Carriers depends on what you send them against.
Xenon? Don't even bother launching them, PBEs will skin them alive.
Kha'ak? As long as you can keep the Capitals distracted they work fine, kinda screwed otherwise.
Varies a bit with the other races depending on how their ships are kitted out.
Having the mod that lets Marines with Engineering and/or Mechanical repair your docked fighters also helps.
Xenon? Don't even bother launching them, PBEs will skin them alive.
Kha'ak? As long as you can keep the Capitals distracted they work fine, kinda screwed otherwise.
Varies a bit with the other races depending on how their ships are kitted out.
Having the mod that lets Marines with Engineering and/or Mechanical repair your docked fighters also helps.
-
Sterling Work
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed, 1. Feb 12, 12:37
So the government races are extravagant?
[quote]you only buy carriers when you dont care about the costs[/quote]
So I can understand why the player, the center of the universe, is "willy-waving" with an expensive carrier.
But why are the races doing it?
Like I said in the opener, one of the pleasant things about the X games is that there appears to be a real universe, even though sandboxed, operating.
But carriers nerf it.
They could just price above the TL class, who already do sterling work as a cheap carrier. The carrier is then a logistical help, not a tactical one. 30-40 million.
[quote]Having the mod that lets Marines with Engineering and/or Mechanical repair your docked fighters also helps.[/quote]
For others reading this thread, got a link to that? Because it helps make your carrier more than just a dumper truck with gold plated hubcaps: you get a tactical benefit from them.
So I can understand why the player, the center of the universe, is "willy-waving" with an expensive carrier.
But why are the races doing it?
Like I said in the opener, one of the pleasant things about the X games is that there appears to be a real universe, even though sandboxed, operating.
But carriers nerf it.
They could just price above the TL class, who already do sterling work as a cheap carrier. The carrier is then a logistical help, not a tactical one. 30-40 million.
[quote]Having the mod that lets Marines with Engineering and/or Mechanical repair your docked fighters also helps.[/quote]
For others reading this thread, got a link to that? Because it helps make your carrier more than just a dumper truck with gold plated hubcaps: you get a tactical benefit from them.
Re: Those 600 are nearly one-shot weapons, though
Exactly.Jumee wrote:you only buy carriers when you dont care about the costs
And after the carrier has deployed 60 falcon haulers (which will wipe out everything in a sector), you get them to dock back at the carrier which then jumps out and heads for home just in time for tea. All in a good days work.
Re: Those 600 are nearly one-shot weapons, though
YOU'RE DOING IT WRONGSterling Work wrote:In a capital-ship engagement, your 600 HEPTs die pretty quickly because the frame they're sitting on just got blown up.
The only reason your M1 should EVER get destroyed in a M6+ engagement is if you didn't notice the enemy M7M or M8 target your M1. And if your M1 sat in one spot for the whole time it took for those missiles cross the sector, then refer to my first comment.
Your M1 should jump in, deploy its fighters/bombers, jump out, and ONLY return when the Hotzone is CLEAR.
Re: Those 600 are nearly one-shot weapons, though
or it should be an Odin or Woden which are mini-destroyers themselveseldyranx3 wrote:YOU'RE DOING IT WRONGSterling Work wrote:In a capital-ship engagement, your 600 HEPTs die pretty quickly because the frame they're sitting on just got blown up.
The only reason your M1 should EVER get destroyed in a M6+ engagement is if you didn't notice the enemy M7M or M8 target your M1. And if your M1 sat in one spot for the whole time it took for those missiles cross the sector, then refer to my first comment.
Your M1 should jump in, deploy its fighters/bombers, jump out, and ONLY return when the Hotzone is CLEAR.
also fighters die-rates depend on fighters - eclipses/falcon vanguard (especially sentinels)/fenrirs perform very well, also sometimes it is fun to launch 60 Ventises(ventii?) with mass drivers just for the lols
-
Sterling Work
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed, 1. Feb 12, 12:37
So which carrier carries 600 guns?
Really.
I think you're reading it wrong.
Those 600 HEPTs are on 60 M3 fighters that your carrier let off like a big happy fart.
M3 gets blown up? 10 HEPTs gone.
The only way you get to lose 600 HEPTs with the carrier being blown up is if you forgot to launch fighters.
But then that shows that the value of the carrier is in the fighter load. And since they can survive in space just fine, you can save a few quid and not have the carrier. It's hard for a jet plane (even a harrier jump jet) to operate on the open ocean. They sink a lot. This doesn't happen in space. It's all floating up there.
I think you're reading it wrong.
Those 600 HEPTs are on 60 M3 fighters that your carrier let off like a big happy fart.
M3 gets blown up? 10 HEPTs gone.
The only way you get to lose 600 HEPTs with the carrier being blown up is if you forgot to launch fighters.
But then that shows that the value of the carrier is in the fighter load. And since they can survive in space just fine, you can save a few quid and not have the carrier. It's hard for a jet plane (even a harrier jump jet) to operate on the open ocean. They sink a lot. This doesn't happen in space. It's all floating up there.
-
Xander Cade
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Thu, 21. Feb 08, 02:38
An Elephant can only carry 14 fighters, not 60...
Just throwing this out there, but earlier tonight I sent a brand new Boreas, with the stock 200Mj of shielding, to the EQ in Lucky Planets. It was met by three Pirate M3s. By the time I read the message to see which ship was being attacked, 15 seconds had passed. By the time I opened up Lucky Planets to see the fight, that was about 12km away from the gate, the Boreas was down to a tiny sliver shields. By the time I jumped in it was at about 90% hull. By the time my flak killed off the three M3s the Boreas was at 82% hull. A Boreas has 4 million hitpoints on the hull so those three fighters did around 800k damage in little more than a minute.
Just throwing this out there, but earlier tonight I sent a brand new Boreas, with the stock 200Mj of shielding, to the EQ in Lucky Planets. It was met by three Pirate M3s. By the time I read the message to see which ship was being attacked, 15 seconds had passed. By the time I opened up Lucky Planets to see the fight, that was about 12km away from the gate, the Boreas was down to a tiny sliver shields. By the time I jumped in it was at about 90% hull. By the time my flak killed off the three M3s the Boreas was at 82% hull. A Boreas has 4 million hitpoints on the hull so those three fighters did around 800k damage in little more than a minute.
"What he doesn't understand is that the Welsh are a subject people, put on Earth to do menial tasks for the English." - John Cleese
Re: So which carrier carries 600 guns?
try jumping 60 fighters aroundSterling Work wrote:Really.
I think you're reading it wrong.
Those 600 HEPTs are on 60 M3 fighters that your carrier let off like a big happy fart.
M3 gets blown up? 10 HEPTs gone.
The only way you get to lose 600 HEPTs with the carrier being blown up is if you forgot to launch fighters.
But then that shows that the value of the carrier is in the fighter load. And since they can survive in space just fine, you can save a few quid and not have the carrier. It's hard for a jet plane (even a harrier jump jet) to operate on the open ocean. They sink a lot. This doesn't happen in space. It's all floating up there.
-
Sterling Work
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed, 1. Feb 12, 12:37
I've only played X2 so far
Two elephants could carry 60 fighters in X2.
And the other responses saying "the death rate depends on the fighter" really brings up the point: the fighter is more important than the carrier.
120 falcons are a better force than 60 falcons and a carrier.
But are they better than 20 Nemesises or Ospreys?
So what does the carrier bring to the party?
Logistical support: too expensive.
Repair shop? Interesting.
Or maybe something else? Ought to carriers be better armed to justify their price? I.e. you have a carrier as a light destroyer in a capital ship role, but if you need swarm control, release the hounds (which a destroyer cannot do)?
I gave a couple of suggestions that would make the carrier *make sense* in the universe.
I haven't heard anything that makes the carrier as-is make sense.
As to "try jumping 60 fighters around", not a problem. Wingman of wingman of wingman means you only need one command with five ships in a wing and you have 125 ships jumping.
And an easy split into five targets one level down.
Add to that the fact that it's only the Xenon and Khaak that jump into sectors (and by ordinary flight too) with carriers. Every other government keep them in their core sectors.
And the other responses saying "the death rate depends on the fighter" really brings up the point: the fighter is more important than the carrier.
120 falcons are a better force than 60 falcons and a carrier.
But are they better than 20 Nemesises or Ospreys?
So what does the carrier bring to the party?
Logistical support: too expensive.
Repair shop? Interesting.
Or maybe something else? Ought to carriers be better armed to justify their price? I.e. you have a carrier as a light destroyer in a capital ship role, but if you need swarm control, release the hounds (which a destroyer cannot do)?
I gave a couple of suggestions that would make the carrier *make sense* in the universe.
I haven't heard anything that makes the carrier as-is make sense.
As to "try jumping 60 fighters around", not a problem. Wingman of wingman of wingman means you only need one command with five ships in a wing and you have 125 ships jumping.
And an easy split into five targets one level down.
Add to that the fact that it's only the Xenon and Khaak that jump into sectors (and by ordinary flight too) with carriers. Every other government keep them in their core sectors.
Re: I've only played X2 so far
money in this game is worthless the only resource that matters is time thats why logistical support is pricelessSterling Work wrote: Logistical support: too expensive.
now ressuply all of themSterling Work wrote: As to "try jumping 60 fighters around", not a problem. Wingman of wingman of wingman means you only need one command with five ships in a wing and you have 125 ships jumping.