[StratComm]

The whole subspace tracking thing sort of negates the idea of a carrier "hiding somewhere" and sending in fighters.  It's just as likely that the ship being attacked picks up on the incoming vectors of the fighters and just hops on over and takes on the carrier directly.  I've also always gotten the impression that turrets and the like could be repaired without taking the ship in to port (though I'm not quite sure how when they can be blown off completely, it does happen in the Campaign none the less), while replacing fighters would require a new shipment to be brought up to the front lines.  If you've got harassment on supply lines or blockaded jump nodes, that prospect is not a very viable one.  And in replacing the warship role of the destroyer with a corvette, I again ask you to show me a corvette that can go toe-to-toe with a destroyer and win.

[Ghostavo]

When I say "Actually... see the costs of those 10 wings of heavy bombers (plus the bombs)." I mean for you to compare the costs of those 10 wings of heavy bombers plus their loadout and multiple resuplies to the Colossus cost. It is significant.

Heavy damage to a fighterbay would result in what the Colossus experienced on his only bay... so while one bay may not be such a big loss... if one can disable all of it's bays...

As for the coolness factor... this is my view

corvettes > capital ships (destroyer > carrier) > cruiser

The Ravana could also hide...

[StratComm]

Not to mention that the Ravana could track the destination of the excaping Carrier, relay it back to shivan command, and itself jump somewhere else (with no fighters around, no one would know).  The carrier could still be attacked, while having no idea where the Ravana went.

[ChronoReverse]

Actually, the Colossus' bay wasn't actually disabled... it was merely obstructed by debris.  A hole in the fighterbay doesn't construe as an obstruction.  A big bomb to the doorway would.


Hmm, considering how long it took to implement helios bombs and bakha bombers (considerably less than the 20+ years to build the Colossus) and the fact that the Colossus carried similar weaponry (as does every other destroyer), I'd be inclined to believe that bombers and bombs (helios or not) wouldn't be as expensive as building an entire destroyer.

Also, because you would build more of them, economies of scale would take effect and the cost per fighter and bomber would drop as you build more of them to supply the carriers.

The whole subspace tracking thing sort of negates the idea of a carrier "hiding somewhere" and sending in fighters. It's just as likely that the ship being attacked picks up on the incoming vectors of the fighters and just hops on over and takes on the carrier directly. I've also always gotten the impression that turrets and the like could be repaired without taking the ship in to port (though I'm not quite sure how when they can be blown off completely, it does happen in the Campaign none the less), while replacing fighters would require a new shipment to be brought up to the front lines. If you've got harassment on supply lines or blockaded jump nodes, that prospect is not a very viable one. And in replacing the warship role of the destroyer with a corvette, I again ask you to show me a corvette that can go toe-to-toe with a destroyer and win.

Very true, except subspace tracking has always taken the exit vector.  Has there been any canon evidence of the opposite?

In any case, why not have the fighters do two shortjumps?

Is there any reason why fighters cannot be transported using the same transports that supply destroyers normally?  I mean, those containers are big enough to carry more than one bomber.  And pilot replacements can fly their own craft in.


As for in flight repair.  I haven't seen any evidence that subsystems can be repaired quickly when completely destroyed.  I've also never seen any situation where beam turrets are repair after being completely destroyed.  The one time a subsystem repair was required (that I remember), the parts were brought in by a transport.




Another question, are the subspace trackers capable of being mounted on a fighter?  I don't think so, but if they can....

Also, the carrier would obviously move after jumping (and probably jumping again).  Fighters can spread out in search patterns.  With much more fighters at its disposal, a carrier is much more likely to find an enemy while still being able to respond.



In any case, doesn't it seem much less likely for a Ravana to jump out?  Even when it was being harrassed by the GTVA fleet, it still didn't bother jumping out.  It doesn't seem like the Shivans ever jump out even against impossible odds.


Rebels and pirates would probably be smarter and jump out at the sight of a swarm of snubfighters, but then how would they find the carrier that sent them?

[StratComm]

What I am actually refering to is the holdover on lost subsystems from one mission to another.  The only time that destroyed turrets stayed destroyed from multiple appearances of the same ship was the Sathanas, and I don't even think it is specific to which turrets are destroyed.  It's more a campaign limitation than a intentional thing, but it's close enough to canon.  Also, there are repeated mention of field repairing the hull of a ship, so I'd assume replacing blown off extensions would fall under that capacity.

[Ghostavo]

Trinity... Aquitane... etc etc etc... (subsystems repair that is....)

[ChronoReverse]

Trinity required a part to be carted in.

The Aquitane was to "jury-rig a solution" so that they can jump out.  If you want to give credit to this, then a merely obstructed launchbay ought be able to be cleared too.

I'm more inclined to say that either would take a while normally.


@Stratcomm

Ah yes, you're right, it seems that turrets are repaired between battles.  But they're never repair during a battle and the bomber swarm isn't going to go away and let them repair.

[StratComm]

That wasn't my point.  It's a logistical maintanence and resupply issue, a carrier is fundamentally harder to keep supplied than a destroyer because of its larger crew compliment, munitions drain, and fighter losses.  It doesn't have any bearing on a tactical situation.

Gah... this isn't a discussion, as no one is being persuaded.  If you want to make a carrier mission, then great.  I've said that they have their place.  But don't try to tell me that my destroyer is inferior because of its design, as I can script a mission involving both (or arm both) to produce the results as I see fit.  I happen to think that the way Freespace combat works, a destroyer is far better suited to unknown combat operations than a dedicated carrier.  And it is a game.

[Ghostavo]

Actually... when I posted this I was trying to confirm what you said... and an obstructed launchbay can be cleared too... at least they say so in the mission where the big C bites the dust.

[ChronoReverse]

*shrugs

I suppose when both sides don't want to budge that happens.

Maintenance may be more expensive (heck, the Colossus had crazy maintenance) but since fighter technology has progressed to the point where wing of snubfighters can in fact take down a destroyer, a carrier starts to make sense (whereas they wouldn't during the TV War)

@ghostavo

Yeah, they were trying to clear it as soon as possible... they didn't work fast enough XD

[karajorma]

Chrono you won't convince me of anything while you keep ignoring my comments.

For the last time. How would your supposedly superior carrier fleet defeat an equal tonnage of destroyers blockading a node it was trying to enter by.

It couldn't. It would be completely useless at such a task unless you're willing to throw ridiculous amounts of money at the problem by launching your fighters in subspace.

Originally posted by ChronoReverse
And pilot replacements can fly their own craft in.

Not if the destroyer is in another system. Think about how long did the Aquitaine spend in Capella as opposed to other systems?

[ChronoReverse]

Now why on earth would you need an equal amount of carriers as compared to destroyers?  The whole point was that you can have less and smaller ones (which still hold more fighters than a destroyer can) and that it would be supported by specialized beam corvettes and AA cruisers.



Let's say that three destroyers were blockading a node.  Two smaller carriers (which have the armor protecting the critical reactors, hence can take a beating close to, but less than that of an Orion) jump in along with four corvettes.  Is this close enough to similar tonnage?

Obviously the destroyers would try to take out the carriers first.  But in the few minutes it takes for that, the carrier being torn to pieces (which specializes in launching snubfighters) would have launched enough wings to defeat the fighter screen already existing.  Although the carrier would go down, the other one is still standing (of course, it'll now be attacked, but it's already launched a large number of snubfighters).  By the time the second carrier is close to being destroyed, there should be enough fighters and bombers launched to take out the destroyer's beams and for the corvettes to start doing some damage.

Farfetched?  Perhaps.

Too costly?  Definitely.

Unlikely to succeed?  Certainly.

But considering how the track record of terrans and vasudans attacking blockades, the destroyers don't do a very good job either.

The Colossus could do it, but it's an immense ship within which you could hold 12 Lucifer class destroyers.  And I'm sure that 12 unshielded Lucies could take out Colossus.

Of course, the Shivan have a history of demolishing blockades with a single ship, their ships are just that powerful =/


And you know, for someone claiming I'm ignoring, you haven't even noticed me iterating that the carrier in question wouldn't have to be 1.6KM in length (i.e not nearly as large as a destroyer would be).



Hmmm, RBCs are expensive, but I wonder how much so.  I wonder if it would be possible to tow them along.  That way if a mothership is destroyed, they can still fight.

[Knight Templar]

Everyone in the thread-



Kthxloveyabye.

[Mr.Garibaldi]

LOL well said Knight Templar!

I sure you all have valid points but... it is a game it is not real so don't fuss about this ****... just play the game and be happy it was even made in the first place!

The first person in this thread to make a mod w/o destroyers wins

[Liberator]

Your example, the destroyers, lets say Orion class, vs. 2 strike carriers with 4 support corvettes(2 for each carrier).

The destroyers scramble the rest of their fighters to compensate for the massive onslaught of the opposing fighters.  The destroyers themselves focus their fire on the corvettes first because they are the threat.  

The Carriers in your example are centered around bomber/anti-cap defense, they have little if any offensive ability against a destroyer, save for their bombers.

The corvettes would be destroyed in the first or second volley, leaving the carriers vulnerable.  The carriers must either jump away or be destroyed.  One perhaps two of the destroyers might be lost, but the destroyers still win.

I've got to ask, why such a mad-on against destroyers?

[StratComm]

Chrono, I think you are interpreting our comments as us not understanding the function of your carrier group.  We do.  However, your reasoning has consisted soley of this carrier group idea and the ability of one of these carriers to launch seemingly endless waves of fighters.  We're saying that either that wouldn't be possible or wouldn't matter, given the conventional FS fleet deployment protocol.

My list of gripes still to be addressed:
[list=1]

• Fighters are EXPENSIVE.  Look at todays Navy; the cost of the aircraft onboard an aircraft carrier is a significant percentage of the cost of a whole carrier (on the order of 25-30% of its total cost) and the carriers do not have a tremendous amount of shipboard weaponry.  You advance that figure to a space-based carrier, and you are looking at fighters that are almost prohibitively expensive to manufacture (read the tech description of the Ursa in FS1) and which require a lot of support to be effective.  The ability of a carrier to quickly launch a few wings of fighters (lets say, generously, 10 wings) on entering a combat zone is all well and good, but the average lifespan of a fighter in Freespace is approximately ninety seconds.  Those aren't really good numbers for something that you are basing all of your offensive capabilities from.  After a sortie with such massive numbers of fighters, you'd be lucky to get half of them back.  So where, pray tell, are the replacements for these fighters and bombers coming from?  That question still has not been satisfactorily addressed.
• Almost all fighter weaponry is projectile (missile) based.  Carriers being more impervious to enemy fire has been one of their proposed benefits, but those munitions have to be stored somewhere.  If they are hit by an exploding warhead, no more carrier.  Fighters also require fuel that will react in a vacuum, thus it is an explosive store or some form of fusable material, which (at best) would be subject to explosive decompression if the containment vessel is ruptured.  I also don't understand the reasoning that a carrier would necessarily have more armor around its reactor than a destroyer, which is designed to absorb weapons fire anyway.
• Subspace.  A lot of the proposed deployment arrangements for carriers has been dependent on being able to enter subspace at a moments notice.  There is very little evidence to support the conclusion that ships can do this, much less that it would be efficient to do so.  The few instances we have of ships entering subspace on short notice include the Iceni after being broken out of the Boedicia installation (where the coordinates could have been plotted and the engines configured long in advance), the Lysander (I think, maybe it was the Actium) when operating in the Nebula (where it had not been in Subspace for quite some time, and one would expect a pre-plotted escape jump in an area as unknown as the nebula), and the NTF ships running blockades.  In the case of the blockade runners, maybe they were overloading their SS drives, or maybe intersystem and intrasystem jumps require different drives, but there is no example of a ship being able to enter subspace moments after first emerging.  In fact there is much evidence to the contrary.  Precisely what it is that keeps ships from jumping is a matter of debate, but there certainly is something.
  
• Space allotment inside a destroyer.  We see the outer hulls of the ships we go against in Freespace, not their pressure hulls or their support structures.  From the Colossus and Bastion anis, it would appear that not all of a ship above cruiser specs is even used.  If it is used, then that's a lot of space for extra armor plating, or hangers or whatever.  That also raises a concern with the Carrier design that is small and filled to the brim with hangers; what is supporting all of the open spaces inside the hull?  It seems to me that the more cavernous hangers you add (if they are significantly enough of the hull volume to warrent fewer decks in the same space), the more suceptible the ship is to a structural collapse inside the armor plating.
  
• The Lucifer.  We cannot forget why mounting beam weaponry on Freespace ships became a necessity (by the storyline anyway).  If conventional weaponry (lasers/plasma and bombs) couldn't penetrate the Lucifer's shields, then how would any size of carrier be able to do anything about another Lucifer-class shielded destroyer?  That's not a job I'd want to rely on corvettes for.
• Blockades.  Kara's said it a million times.  The reason ships appeared to be so ineffective at running blockades is that when you see that situation in the main campaign, the capital ships charging through a node never even power up their beam cannons.  They just try to jump in and jump out.  A destroyer, properly deployed through a node, could create a lot of havoc for the defenders, particularly if it catches them by suprise.  By the time a carrier could launch it's first wave of fighters, a destroyer could already have used it's forward cannons to rip through defenders.  And those beams are NOT subject to being intercepted by point defenses and fighter screens.  You have to remember that even at the end of FS2, there is a substantial distinction between fighters and bombers, in that bombers can cripple or destroy larger ships if properly supported while fighters cannot.  The launches from a carrier would only be able to do significant damage to destroyer class vessels about 1/3 of the time, where as main beam cannons do equivalent damage 100% of the time.

I think that's it, though I'm sure more will come to mind later.

[DeepSpace9er]

I know FS2 isnt realistic, and that its a sci-fi game with subspace and photon beam cannons, but its the 24th century so thats somewhat believable, but going back to mid 20th century tactics is not what i call "sci-fi"

Yeah sure the big beams look cool and the big 'splosions are really exiting and fun to watch. Basically what im trying to say is that the Destroyers arent balanced enough. They should take many many more bombs to take out and be a big deal, like the Taranis was a big deal in FS1.

[StratComm]

Now that I agree with.  Destroyers are too weak in FS2, especially compared to the much smaller Corvettes.

[ChronoReverse]

@Stratcomm

Perhaps.  But seriously, I thought that you simply thought that destroyers are more effective and versatile (while I think carriers are less versatile, but ought be have more striking and staying power in situations where they're the aggressor).

@1

Hmm, you're right.  Fighters and bombers are expensive.  Then again all military hardware tends to be expensive.  At least you can manufacture fighters and bombers en masse and exploit economies of scale.


@2

Erm, don't normal hybrid destroyers also carry these same munitions?  Come to think of it, aren't ursa bombers full these bombs too?  But when you kill one or see one collide and die against a cruiser, you don't see a huge explosion, nor does the cruiser get wiped out.

So I'm not convinced of this one.

As for why the carrier would have more armour protecting critical areas, it's because specialized carriers would have a smaller proportion that would be considered critical.  A single fighterbay is not critical since losing it would not directly cause the ship to explode (even if you don't take into account my belief that a hole through a fighter bay wouldn't completely disable its function).  A bay full of heatsinks, plasma cores and power conduits for the beam weapons would.

Why would the fighters need fuel that react in a vacuum?  If they used fusion, it wouldn't.  If they used fission, it doesn't matter if it's in vacuum or not.  Ion engine propellent isn't volatile.  The fighters can't possibly be using liquid-fuel-combustion since their ranges are so great.


@3
Indeed.  Part of the reason why I even think that a carrier class is feasible is because it seems that by the time of FS2, it is indeed possible to make relatively accurate shortjumps and the ability to make _one_ jump quickly at a moments notice (not to mention that the snubfighters have started to accrued weaponry that are very effective at killing beam turrets very quickly).

I believe that both are possible since the pilot's chatter seem to indicate that shortjumps should not land one 5 km from a target and because capital ships such as the Pheonicia was able to jump out quickly (and the Colossus was all of a sudden ordered to jump out[they refused]).

However, two jumps in succession would probably be only an emergency technique.

This still leaves the problem of being followed when running away, but a carrier group should be caught by surprise so easily anyways.  Come to think of it, none of the destroyers in FS ought to be jumped so easily, but they seem to have to mentality of trying to slug it out (except for the nebula missions).


@4
Hmm, it could be true, but I'd be more inclined to believe that a geometric "honeycomb" of structural supports (similar to geodesics) would provide sufficient structural strength.  Especially since strain always generated by acceleration of the ship.

And the Colossus being mostly empty?  Doubtful, it would be a tremendous waste of space that could be used for more reactors, fuel, fighter space or perhaps most importantly, heatsinks.


@5
I've always wondered if beam weapons could actually penetrate capital shielding.

Point taken, you're right.  Of course, my proposed dedicated beam ships still have their beams.  Perhaps a smaller destroyer class should be included, dedicated to anti-capital beams.

I guess destroyers are still useful.


@6
Yes definitely.  But we also see how quickly _fighters_ carrying Stilletto IIs can cripple an orion's beam weaponry.  Stilletto IIs kill beam weaponry of normal destroyers fast and they're heat-seaking too.  It would be nightmare trying to stop three wings of Herc IIs unloading Stilleto IIs like there's no tomorrow.

A destroyer would have an advantage in a surprise attacks compared to a carrier trying to mount a surprise attack.


@Liberator
If you attack the corvettes first, then the carriers would have launched more fighters than you have launched AND bombers.  enough to tie up your fighters AND disable all your beam turrets before you've killed the carriers.

This is assuming it takes two volleys of beams from one orion to kill one corvette.  There's still the fourth one in any case.

If a destroyer is allowed to fire as soon as it leave subspace, why not have the carriers launch four wings as soon as it leaves subspace?

Finally

@Knight Templar

Yes we should all shut up and never talk about anything in this forum.  Sheesh, if I was going on and screaming at people, saying how they're all stupid for not listening to me, then you've got every right to say that.

But I'm not.

Despite what it seems, I'm actually reading every single post.

So why be so uptight about this?



[edit]  The reason I even continued talking about this is because destroyers in FS2 seem SO weak and vulnerable.  I remember a mission where you're hunting Bosch...

"Command, I don't see the Iceni, it must have jumped out.  I see a destroyer, Orion class, dead ahead.  Should we abort?"

"Negative alpha 2, proceed with the attack, Command will send other resources to apprehend Bosch"

"Okey, dokey, time to blow up this Orion"

***4 minutes later the orion explodes under the firepower of no more than 1 corvette, 1 fighter wing and 2 bomber wings.***


All I did was fire a single pair of helios and then I just sat back and fired interceptors at the loki fighter swarm. [/edit]

[StratComm]

1) It's replacing the fighters as they are lost.  I assume that the "turrets" that you see getting blown out are actually optics, which are fairly simple to replace.  The main beam generators are well inside the hull.  Capital ships are capable of recovering from damage, fighters, well, can't.

2) Destroyers carry less of the munitions than a dedicated carrier would.  And support ships do go boom in a nice big fashion, only carying a limited amount of weapons.  Deployment ships (destroyers and carriers) carry a lot more.  The fuel issue comes from the fact that the energy that powers fighters has to come from somewhere if you are going to take the realism argument, and that energy could easily be released if the containment vessel was breached.  It'd be like an extra reactor, but where the reaction couldn't be contained.  I've actually always perceived that fighter fuel is drawn off of the destroyer's main stores, where a carrier with a smaller reactor would actually need more stores.

And I still don't get why destroyers would skimp on the armor in places just because there was more to cover up.  They seem pretty uniformly covered to me, since the only time taking out a subsystem leads to the destruction of the ship is the Lucifer.

3) Again comes the issue of energy.  If the Destroyers shut off their weapons in order to make quicker jumps (pointing to recharge times, see the blockade missions where capitals hardly fire) then they should have greater capacity to quickjump than a carrier which is not built to power high-energy weapon systems.  If you give the carrier equivalent reactors to a destroyer, then why not mount destroyer weaponry on them as well.  You didn't see the Phonecia jump in, so you don't know how long it had taken to recharge its drives, and it probably had escape coordinates laid in ahead of time.  The only reason I didn't count it with the other examples is because it is almost exactly like the Lysander for the scenario.

4) You didn't watch the Colossus or Bastion ani's, now did you  They both clearly show huge sections of hull unoccupied by crew, on the outside of the ship, and not near any weapons or engines.  I'm not speaking in hypothetical terms here, there really is that much free space inside the things.

6) We cannot count Stilleto's in this discussion.  They are vastly overpowered, and we never actually get to use them in a situation where they would be truely useful.  It still also doesn't account for where all of these blasted fighters are coming from, unless you are going homeworld style and putting construction facilities inside the carriers.  Supply in Freespace is not a constant thing, it comes in intervals and ships must be self-sufficient between resupplies.  Carriers simply would consume their resources faster, or waste a lot of space storing them for the same offensive punch as a destroyer.