[IronForge]

The fragile eggshell I'm proposing is supposed to remain hidden, and alligned to warp out. Its engines are primed, it hits the 'warp' button at the slightest sign of trouble. Patrols ensure the area is clear. Since jump drives on fighters arn't feasible to put on every ship, the eggshell serves only ONE purpose. Bring the fighters into the system, launch, hide behind a destroyer escort/installation or head back to secure space.
It isn't supposed to fight. But if that isn't your cup of tea, how about an eggshell made of iron. Same tank as a destroyer. Just instead of weapon systems, more fighter bays.
The goal is to have hard hitting ships with less crew that can take even more damage at the front lines.

[Dilmah G]

IF, you're missing the fundamental issue here.

You cannot hide in space.
You cannot hide in a universe where the enemy can jump into your backyard.
Your only alternative is to keep your pieces together and able to provide local security.

[IronForge]

But you CAN warp to a secure location defended by an installation. You CAN hide behind a line of destroyers, launch, get the hell out of there.

Like dilmah said, destroyers are useful in some situations, but having your entire capital fleet composed of them will not work. I'm now no longer suggesting egg shell thin carriers. I'm suggesting carriers that can survive long enough till a destroyer can come in to assist. Plus, it has a hold full of bombers. It should tank long enough for the scrambled fighterbombers to knock out enemy beams.

Point is, we want more beams and tank on the ships at the front line. There is no reason ships at the front should have large fighterbays when we can launch fighters from a distance. THe space can be put to better use mounting more weapons and hull.

EDIT: I must say egg shell thin carriers still have their uses though.

[QuantumDelta]

If you have to have destroyers babysit these things you may as well just use the destroyers as they are, while some variation isn't a bad thing overspecialisation always is, these things would be easy targets and logistics ships as seen in aoa are vulnerable enough even with a full battlegroup escort. In fs1 your idea might have worked but in fs2 with subspace tracking and high precision high power beam cruisers, corvettes and destroyers.... On the battlefield no matter how armoured you are only a target without cover. In space and subspace there is no cover. A surgical strike would gut such a ship.

[headdie]

i would have to agree with QD a comparatively defenseless ships in the FS universe as we understand it are nothing but big bullseyes, even with beams available to me i would probably prefer to just send a couple of wings of Medusas or even Zeus with a fighter escort and would expect to at least cripple the target ship, cyclops torpedoes are pretty powerfull. 

My battle plan against a carrier ship (assuming it has around corvette durability) would be to torp/stiletto the nav sub system on arrival to trap the ship, pick off any AAA beams and bomb the **** out of it, as secondary/bonus objectives for the pilots to destroy the engines and weapons subsystem. 

attack force would comprise of:
8 bombers with 4 in reserve to do the brute work,
8 heavy fighters to provide close fighter cover for the bombers and stiletto assault platform to maximise torpedo payload on the bombers again 4 in reserve.
4 interceptors to provide bomber escort by racing off to pick off threats before they get in weapons range with 4 in reserve.
I would also have a Lev or Aeolus in reserve with 4 superiority/intercept fighters for escort in case the enemy carrier has significant proportions of its fighter wing on deck/ready to launch or near by and we need to suppress their activity

[The E]

But you CAN warp to a secure location defended by an installation. You CAN hide behind a line of destroyers, launch, get the hell out of there.

No. Not when the enemy can warp out right on top of you. See "Their greatest hour" for reference.

Like dilmah said, destroyers are useful in some situations, but having your entire capital fleet composed of them will not work. I'm now no longer suggesting egg shell thin carriers. I'm suggesting carriers that can survive long enough till a destroyer can come in to assist. Plus, it has a hold full of bombers. It should tank long enough for the scrambled fighterbombers to knock out enemy beams.

You want another Destroyer then. One that, in addition to an integral fighter wing, carries enough heavy weapons to engage enemy ships at range with enough dps to destroy them. Because as we know from the game, it takes a long time to launch a fighter strike.

Point is, we want more beams and tank on the ships at the front line. There is no reason ships at the front should have large fighterbays when we can launch fighters from a distance. THe space can be put to better use mounting more weapons and hull.

There is no front. There are ships that are engaged and ships that are not.
While a dedicated capship killer might have a use, it's usually a good idea to carry at least a smallish figher wing to do Bomber intercept etc.

If you look at retail FS2, the two terran Destroyer classes can be divided into two categories. Hecates are Carrier ships, and Orions are dedicated ship killers. Note that the Hecate is so specialized in the Carrier role that it fails as a frontline combat ship. It is incredibly hard to defend, it has poor anti-capital armament, and her best defence is to turn tail and run away. Which would be fine, if Command used them appropriately. Instead, they get used in frontline deployments, in areas where an Orion or Hatshepsut might do better.


In conclusion, specialized ships are not a very good idea in a universe that does not allow for cover. If you lose one of your specialists, you suddenly lose all of the capability that ship provided. If your carrier gets gutted, you suddenly have nop air wing anymore. If your anti-ship ship gets hit, you lose your short-range defense and engagement platform. Building hybrids that can do well in both roles is a much, much better plan.

EDIT: I must say egg shell thin carriers still have their uses though.

Yes, every military has a need for live-fire target practice.

i would have to agree with QD a comparatively defenseless ships in the FS universe as we understand it are nothing but big bullseyes, even with beams available to me i would probably prefer to just send a couple of wings of Medusas or even Zeus with a fighter escort and would expect to at least cripple the target ship, cyclops torpedoes are pretty powerfull. 

My battle plan against a carrier ship (assuming it has around corvette durability) would be to torp/stiletto the nav sub system on arrival to trap the ship, pick off any AAA beams and bomb the **** out of it, as secondary/bonus objectives for the pilots to destroy the engines and weapons subsystem. 

attack force would comprise of:
8 bombers with 4 in reserve to do the brute work,
8 heavy fighters to provide close fighter cover for the bombers and stiletto assault platform to maximise torpedo payload on the bombers again 4 in reserve.
4 interceptors to provide bomber escort by racing off to pick off threats before they get in weapons range with 4 in reserve.
I would also have a Lev or Aeolus in reserve with 4 superiority/intercept fighters for escort in case the enemy carrier has significant proportions of its fighter wing on deck/ready to launch or near by and we need to suppress their activity

You have a lot of confidence in your fighter pilots.

Basic reasoning here is that if you can send a Fighter, you can also send Cruisers (Lilith says hi!), Corvettes (BP's Bellerophons, for example) and Destroyers (Ravanas were built for this). Those ships can probably do the job faster and with fewer losses.

[Dilmah G]

i would have to agree with QD a comparatively defenseless ships in the FS universe as we understand it are nothing but big bullseyes, even with beams available to me i would probably prefer to just send a couple of wings of Medusas or even Zeus with a fighter escort and would expect to at least cripple the target ship, cyclops torpedoes are pretty powerfull. 

My battle plan against a carrier ship (assuming it has around corvette durability) would be to torp/stiletto the nav sub system on arrival to trap the ship, pick off any AAA beams and bomb the **** out of it, as secondary/bonus objectives for the pilots to destroy the engines and weapons subsystem. 

attack force would comprise of:
8 bombers with 4 in reserve to do the brute work,
8 heavy fighters to provide close fighter cover for the bombers and stiletto assault platform to maximise torpedo payload on the bombers again 4 in reserve.
4 interceptors to provide bomber escort by racing off to pick off threats before they get in weapons range with 4 in reserve.
I would also have a Lev or Aeolus in reserve with 4 superiority/intercept fighters for escort in case the enemy carrier has significant proportions of its fighter wing on deck/ready to launch or near by and we need to suppress their activity

You have a lot of confidence in your fighter pilots.

Basic reasoning here is that if you can send a Fighter, you can also send Cruisers (Lilith says hi!), Corvettes (BP's Bellerophons, for example) and Destroyers (Ravanas were built for this). Those ships can probably do the job faster and with fewer losses.

As do I. A cruiser or corvette may be able to engage a larger vessel and get the job done, but these vessels may be in use in other operations, perhaps to divert enemy attention away from the destroyer? So really, sometimes you can't send in a cruiser if you can spare 2 squadrons. /being a pain in the ass.

Agreed on all other counts, though.

[General Battuta]

But you CAN warp to a secure location defended by an installation. You CAN hide behind a line of destroyers, launch, get the hell out of there.

No you can't. There are no secure locations, and nowhere to hide. The enemy can jump anywhere.

There is no reason ships at the front

Front? What front?

EDIT: I must say egg shell thin carriers still have their uses though.

Target practice?

[jr2]

I think part of the problem here is people confuse inter and intra system jumps.  Once you're in a system, you can jump practically anywhere within that system with ease... So, you can easily jump to a position where you would be able to surprise attack a weak vessel once you know where it is.

[BlueFlames]

Specialized vs. multi-purpose ships?

Both have prons and cons.

Whatever it takes to keep crew morale high, right? 

[BengalTiger]

For an comparrioson,the BB 61 Iowa (276m in length) has a full crew complement of 1600.

Given that FS2 cruisers are roughly the same size, 2000 sounds about right.

Well the CG-47 Ticonderoga (173 meters long) has a crew of 387.

The Kirov class CB has a crew of 710 while being 252 meters long.

The GTD Orion has a crew of 10k and it's 2000 meters long (and it's also a big carrier).

I'd go with the estimates of a few 100 crewmembers per cruiser.

[Trivial Psychic]

I must say, all these "there's no where to hide" and "they can get you anywhere" arguments are a bit overstated.  Several times in FS, it has taken quite a lot of effort to locate an enemy cap-ship.  For example, if Command could simply jump to the NTD Repulse's location, there wouldn't have been the need for that elaborate set-up.  What it comes down to is whether the enemy knows the location of your cap-ship.  There is evidence for some degree of cap-ship tracking through subspace... and I'm not talking about tracking the Lucy, as this was an inter-system jump... I'm referring to the tracking of the Bellasarius after it ran the blockade.  I guess the best way to keep your ships safe would be to always double-jump out of any situation where the enemy might be able to track your escape.  Jump out to predetermined co-ordinates, then quickly jump to a second set of co-ordinates.  By the time the enemy has calculated your first jump and gone after you, you've already jumped again, preventing anyone from monitoring your 2nd jump and pursuing you further.

[Paladin327]

I must say, all these "there's no where to hide" and "they can get you anywhere" arguments are a bit overstated.  Several times in FS, it has taken quite a lot of effort to locate an enemy cap-ship.  For example, if Command could simply jump to the NTD Repulse's location, there wouldn't have been the need for that elaborate set-up.  What it comes down to is whether the enemy knows the location of your cap-ship.

only a fool will engage the enemy on a battlefield of their enemy's choosing

[IronForge]

You want another Destroyer then. One that, in addition to an integral fighter wing, carries enough heavy weapons to engage enemy ships at range with enough dps to destroy them. Because as we know from the game, it takes a long time to launch a fighter strike.

Well I think the hecate is a good idea but for heavens sake DON'T send them to attack another capital ship. And orions were the carrier in FS1. THey gotta have a lot of fighter bay. I think no more than 8 fighters should be in a destroyer.
Right now, I'm imagining a hecate with no beam and anti capital ship turrets. It should have flaks and smaller defenses, plus some AAAs. And it should always be guarded by two corvettes or at least 2 cruisers. The specialised hecate should hold the line just long enough for its warp drives to recharge and run away. It is not a stand your ground ship.

Now, the orion is basically going to have about two wings of fighters, which is good for when it gets ambushed.

Point is, while some jack of all trades ships are good, having your entire fleet composed of them is a bad idea. They will be good in some circumstances, and plain terrible in others.

[Scotty]

I think no more than 8 fighters should be in a destroyer.

Eight fighters is nowhere near the amount it would need to effectively defend itself from even decent sized patrols.  Recall in Feint! Parry! Riposte! the two cruisers you were pounding had a full squadron of fighters between them.  Just two cruisers!  Then when the Repulse actually jumps in, it launches approximately eight fighters before going down.  Those eight fighters do the next best thing to evaporate in the face of six friendly fighters (and the cruiser, if you let them get close enough).

Then in The Sicilian Defense, your squadron (I think six-eight craft, total) assaults the Vindicator, which is guarded by at least one wing of fighters, probably two.  The wings of fighters are woefully inadequate to defend the destroyer.  If there were, say, twenty or thirty fighters, instead of 3-8, the battle might turn out very differently indeed.

[el_magnifico]

No, just no.
8 fighters may be enough to defend something like a Moloch-class corvette. It is in no way enough to defend a destroyer.

However:

Right now, I'm imagining a hecate with no beam and anti capital ship turrets. It should have flaks and smaller defenses, plus some AAAs. And it should always be guarded by two corvettes or at least 2 cruisers.

That's probably what the GTVA required when they commissioned the design of the Hecate.
It sounds good on paper, but it's not that easy to actually implement.

The specialised hecate should hold the line just long enough for its warp drives to recharge and run away. It is not a stand your ground ship.

100% Agreed. That is exactly the purpose a standard Hecate serves right now.

Point is, while some jack of all trades ships are good, having your entire fleet composed of them is a bad idea. They will be good in some circumstances, and plain terrible in others.

Jack of all trades? Excepting for the Hatsheput and the Demon, all other destroyers in canon Freespace are specialized. The Typhon (FS1) and Hecate are carriers, the Orion and the Ravana are battleships. Specialization doesn't means complete disregard for everything else.

[IronForge]

Well allright, calm down everyone, hows this.

You take the hecate. You remove EVERYTHING. You put in a massive fighter bay. You put in a **** load of AAAs and flaks, and if you like, blobs. It will be no less capable of defending itself.

The thing is, if you need to fire the anti capital beam cannon, command, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

Also, I agree 8 fighters is nowhere near enough. No one said they alone would be. The fact is, the destroyer will now pack even MORE firepower, and even more flak guns and AAAs. It will now defend itself long enough for fighters to arrive from the carrier. It will be a red alert style launch no doubt. The 8 fighters are to prevent the large swarm of fighters from the carrier to not be too late. And that is in case of an ambush. If planning an attack, the fighters should arrive BEFORE the destroyer.

The fact is, you've seen the hecate phail because command doesn't use em well. Carrier VS destroyer, GG.

Carrier < Destroyer < Fighters   get it? Carrier gets pwnt by destroyer who gets pwnt by the fighters from carrier. If the carrier is engaged, it has to flee. It should not under any circumstances try to hold.
The destroyer will not survive without a swarm of fighters from carrier. Not the slightest chance if ambushed by more fighters than it has AAAs. The fact is in the event of an ambush, the fighters are going to hit hard. The 8 fighters will probabyly save 8 AAA beams and maybe prevent 8 bombs from hitting. By the time backup arrives, the destroyer will probably be at 50%. BUT WHAT THE HELL IS THE DESTROYER DOING ALL ALONE ANYWAY? It needs some smaller craft to escort it. Its a FLEET. Not a one ship show. I don't know why GTVA never got that. I've NEVER seen how it is supposed to work. Maybe because its an old game and back then computers were crap, more than 20 fighters on screen whole thing freezes and lags.

It should be 1 or 2 destroyers, 4 cruisers, 4 corvettes, 10 wings of fighters, 2 wings of bombers, 2 wings of interceptors. You should never see the carrier as it stays out of range.

If carrier should be ambushed, it scrambles fighters and warps out. Almost immediately, the abovementioned fleet warp in and secure the area, and carrier warps back.

The fact is I still don't see why the carrier will need anti capital ship weapons since it will never have the chance to fire a second shot. It has to survive. NOT kill the enemy. I'm thinking hecate, take away its beams, put more flaks and AAAs. If anything, it will be even harder to take down than the original hecate.

Any more questions? THIS IS A REAL FLEET from google image.



EDIT I better specify before people get confused. It is a carrier fleet. A bunch of carriers, sticking together for protection. A blob of cruisers surrounding them. In the FS sense, the cruisers will be above and below them as well. Its flak and blobs can shoot down bombs before they hit the carriers.

And as my Fleet Commander in EvE always says:
SUPPORT STAYS TILL CAPITALS LEAVE THE FIELD.
And I'll add:
You are cheap. Your charges arn't.

[The E]

Flaks, Blobs and AAA are not effective vs cruiser-sized or larger targets (anything mounting big beams, really). Putting at least minimal amounts of anti-capital firepower on your carrier (aside from the fighter wing) is the prudent thing to do.

Now, while it's nice to have your doctrine state that Carriers and Destroyers should never be alone, operational reality may interfere with that.

For my ideal fleet, I'd like to have a Carrier that can act as a jump ambusher (See: BP's Titan) paired with a Destroyer that carries a large enough fighter wing to defend itself and run offensive operations at the same time (See: BP's Raynor), with an attendant group of Cruisers and Corvettes to do patrols and dedicated AAA support. This way, I can be sure that if one of my big ships is caught off-guard, it has the firepower to, if necessary, fight its way out of anything.

Your proposal effectively puts most of your offensive firepower and patrol/scout craft (your Carrier air wings) into one relatively fragile package. Which is not a very good idea.

[IronForge]

Flaks, Blobs and AAA are not effective vs cruiser-sized or larger targets (anything mounting big beams, really). Putting at least minimal amounts of anti-capital firepower on your carrier (aside from the fighter wing) is the prudent thing to do.

I told you. They are not to hit other cruiser sized ships. The second a cruiser appears to be warping in, WARP OUT. These are to destroy incoming bombers before they can deal too much damage. We've seen the hecate do its thing, this won't make things any worse.

Now, while it's nice to have your doctrine state that Carriers and Destroyers should never be alone, operational reality may interfere with that.

Hence the small 2 wings of fighters, to tie over till more arrive. And the carriers as seen in the briefing room cutscenes are usually escorted by at least 2 cruisers anyway.

For my ideal fleet, I'd like to have a Carrier that can act as a jump ambusher (See: BP's Titan) paired with a Destroyer that carries a large enough fighter wing to defend itself and run offensive operations at the same time (See: BP's Raynor), with an attendant group of Cruisers and Corvettes to do patrols and dedicated AAA support. This way, I can be sure that if one of my big ships is caught off-guard, it has the firepower to, if necessary, fight its way out of anything.

Yes, a few jump ambusher carriers will be nice, but picture this. A destroyer that warps in TOGETHER with a dozen wings of fighters from the carrier which is unengaged.

Your proposal effectively puts most of your offensive firepower and patrol/scout craft (your Carrier air wings) into one relatively fragile package. Which is not a very good idea.

It isn't very fragile. They arn't any more fragile than our hecate. I'm only scrapping the weapons. And what chance does it have when really ambushed by destroyers or anything anyway? Yes you can win, but carriers are precious assets. It is not worth staying to fight. It is better to run and let your scrambled fighters do the fighting. So hows this. Interceptors protect carrier long enough to warp out. Fighters and bombers are scrambled, which then proceed to hold the area till friendly destroyers can arrive. Some will warp with the carrier in case of a second wave. Support stays till capitals leave the field, or when their carrier is engaged. Then, all ships warp to support the carrier, which is well capable of taking a few blows.

For the trillionth time, I'll say again. Since you don't seem to get my point that the carrier CAN survive.

Aside from the few hybrid ships that serve as both destroyers and carriers, I feel that hecates should scrap anti capital beams and mount more anti bomber weapons. Also, increased fighter bay. It will still be able to take a few blows, certainly enough to tank a cruiser so that its fighters can scramble and take care of it. However, it wouldn't be very wise, as a destroyer might warp in and kill it, so running is the smart thing to do.

Destroyers on the other hand, since they will be warping into engagements with fighters from the carrier, should sacrifice its fighter bays, but still keep enough to fend off an ambush long enough to not be below 50% when help arrives, in the form of a dozen wings of fighters from the modified hecate. Plus, destroyers, with a dozen more AAAs and flaks from the reduced fighter bay, coupled with at least 1.5x the tanking power should be able to survive till help arrives a few minutes later.

So I'm suggesting three battlegroups. One composed of 2-3 carriers which should always be guarded by 2 cruisers and a corvette - the support. And a destroyer group, composed of several destroyers. A third fleet, the 'support' group, composed of cruisers, corvettes. They are used where they are needed, much like now. No point sending the entire fleet when a few cruisers will do.
The groups should be together at all times as a fleet except when destroyer fleet is fighting somewhere. When it comes to warfare, it IS a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.

So yeah don't say the carrier is gona get pwnt. It should warp out. It should not fight.

[Spoon]

And what's stopping the enemy from sending a second cruiser/corvette group after the now helpless carrier group that just ran away?