[MatthTheGeek]

I think he means that it was nuked by the Shivans just like VP in FS1.

[jr2]

Yeah, the Colossus, but not quite that big.. I meant something along those lines, but still cheap enough to be used as a flagship for every fleet.  They aren't a dime a dozen, but they aren't figuratively putting all your eggs in one basket, either.  And if you need to take on something huge, grab two or who knows three of them and have them time jumps to arrive at the same time on target. zzzzzzaaaapp!

[MatthTheGeek]

Alright, now explain to us the difference between what you describe and a Destroyer ?

[jr2]

Better than a Hecate and newer than your grand-daddy's Orion. 

[Spoon]

I think he means that it was nuked by the Shivans just like VP in FS1.

Ah right

[BengalTiger]

There's a very large advantage of a carrier+big gun Destroyer fleet vs a fleet of multirole D's:

A fleet of specialized ships can consist of ships with guns and ships with hangars in any proportion needed. You can choose how much hangar space and how much firepower you send somewhere independantly- if one area needs to service fighters, while another needs big guns, you can send your big gun ships and keep the carriers in their current position as long as required.

With multirole units, you have some guns and some hangar space on every ship, and if you need some firepower in a different battlefield, by taking a destroyer away from it's current position, it's gone with it's hangar. Same situation when a ship leaves the line of battle to have it's hangar used elsewhere- the line of battle loses all the beams of that ship.

[The E]

Yes, well, the problem with specialized ships is that, if they can be caught relatively isolated, they have very specific vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited. See a pure Destroyer? Send bomber wings. See a pure Carrier? Send Cruisers, Corvettes and other Destroyers.

[Droid803]

I feel that larger warships should be more generalized, but smaller warships should be more specialized.
I can see a use for a "flying beam cannon" type cruiser/corvette (designed to jump in, splash something, and hopefully get out alive), but not so much "flying beam cannons" type destroyer. The latter is basically overkill as you could just send in a squadron of the former to achieve the same effect, while being less exposed to being "revenge killed" as you could have all the cruisers jump to different places or whatnot worse comes to worse.

Likewise, I see a use for a corvette-sized dedicated carrier for deploying into enemy lines (if they forget to guard a node or whatever), but a bigass carrier that can't defend itself is asking to get roasted especially since the enemy probably won't ever stop paying attention to targets of that much importance.

Your larger craft have the benefit of being able to fit more diverse systems and fulfill more diverse roles so it won't ever be caught with its pants down. Your smaller craft don't have this luxury (or they will likely suck at doing anything, being capable, but not good enough, at any given role) due to limited space for hardware.

At least, that's what seems to make sense logically.

[el_magnifico]

There's a very large advantage of a carrier+big gun Destroyer fleet vs a fleet of multirole D's:

A fleet of specialized ships can consist of ships with guns and ships with hangars in any proportion needed. You can choose how much hangar space and how much firepower you send somewhere independantly- if one area needs to service fighters, while another needs big guns, you can send your big gun ships and keep the carriers in their current position as long as required.

With multirole units, you have some guns and some hangar space on every ship, and if you need some firepower in a different battlefield, by taking a destroyer away from it's current position, it's gone with it's hangar. Same situation when a ship leaves the line of battle to have it's hangar used elsewhere- the line of battle loses all the beams of that ship.

That's actually the best argument I've yet heard in favor of a specialized fleet.
But if you need a platform with heavy beams and no hangar, you're probably better off with a heavy corvette.
There's still the issue of the case when you need additional fighters, though...

Keep in mind, however, that in the FS universe, almost every capital ship needs some degree of fighter escort.

[Paladin327]

or how about this, a corvette sized ship, no longer than 1,000 meters or so, with the firepower of and armor of a destroyer. its a smaller target and its much faster and meneuverable.

anyway, my idea for the destroyer sized ship, take an orion, cut it in half, length ise, mirror the port side to the starboard side so its symmetrical and can be fit symmetrically so one side isnt more vulnerable than the other. make the ship longer to acomidate a hecate-sized hanger. add 2 or 4 more beams. also give it a fighter-defence system that would make a deimos proud. then retire the old orions, make a few of them museums or something and relegate hecates to a more carrier-centric duty. everyone wins, we get a new heavy gun destroyer and we get a carrier than can give an effort going toe-to-toe with another destroyer

[Scotty]

or how about this, a corvette sized ship, no longer than 1,000 meters or so, with the firepower of and armor of a destroyer. its a smaller target and its much faster and meneuverable.

The Iceni says hi.

[Klaustrophobia]

the general gist of the conversation here seems to me to be simply "make the ships better"

[General Battuta]

the general gist of the conversation here seems to me to be simply "make the ships better"

Yeah, seriously.

[Droid803]

yeah, lets slap a billion AAAfs and BFReds, make it have the size and maneuverability of a SF Dragon, and give it as much armor as a Volition Bravos.

Everyone wins! Except the people facing it!

[Paladin327]

or how about this, a corvette sized ship, no longer than 1,000 meters or so, with the firepower of and armor of a destroyer. its a smaller target and its much faster and meneuverable.

The Iceni says hi.

right, forgot to mention, give it a hanger

[IronForge]

What people can't seem to get around here is that only idiots will leave a specialized carrier undefended. There should at least be a corvette and several wings guarding. And don't let them persue anything. In my old corp in EvE, we were kicked/had serious answering to do if support leaves field before capital.

[Spoon]

EVE =/= Freespace
And what you can't get around here is the many arguments proving you wrong.
Like the one that says: beams will still be able to hit your paper thin carrier, regardless of escorts (they can't form a 360 impenetrable sphere around the carrier) and that once your escort is destroyed, there is nothing left but your fragile carrier idea.

[The E]

What you don't seem to get is that, in the absence of capital ship shields, any escorting formation can be breached. Even by a maneuver as simple as "launch attack on target's starboard to draw off the escort a bit, then shock-jump your killer in from port".

What you also don't seem to get is that specialized ships, due to their very nature, have very general vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited.

Another thing you don't get is that in FS, there are no front lines. There is no "rear area" where you can park a Carrier, unless by "rear area" you mean "in a secured system one fortified jump node away".

Then there's the thing where the typical FS engagements are usually over in a matter of minutes. The second you are caught, you are in very, very high danger.

I direct your attention to this

Ahem. The Titan class ships (Like the Temeraire) are specialized carriers in BP. The Raynor class vessels (like the Orestes) are specialized Destroyers. Yet each of them can perform satisfactory in the other ones' role.
In that way, they mirror the Hecate/Orion pair of the Second Incursion, but the Titan is a much better ship killer than the Hecate, while the Raynor is a much better Carrier than the Orion.

This division of labour increases the tactical flexibility of the whole fleet, since both Destroyers are capable of filling the tactical role the other one specializes in. Strategically, it has the advantage of redundancy, if one Destroyer would be taken out, the other one does not suddenly develop a massive vulnerability against a specific form of attack.

Question would be, would your proposed Carrier be able to survive Forced Entry, and the operations leading up to it? Remember, the Temeraire was fighting a holding action while your fighter wing secured the Knossos, with her escorts being sent off one by one to make their way through the portal. Had she been a specialized Carrier, that tactic would not have worked.

However at the end it was said it was the GTVA's most powerful fleet. Obviously the first to charge into  the portal. They arn't specialized carriers...

The 14th Battlegroup is the strongest formation in the GTVA because its tactical doctrine and ship designs have been thought out very carefully. Their relative lack of specialization is what makes them powerful.

Please answer the question: How would your proposed Carrier BG, operating under the same constraints as the Temeraire task force (that is, your dedicated ship killer and half your escorts are unavailable and you have two ships that are utterly defenseless but vital to the mission to escort through a jumpgate in a system with a massive Shivan presence) fare?

For reference, the Temeraire's plan here was to engage the Shivans in one part of the system and draw out as massive a response as possible from them, then peel off the Cruiser screen, the Corvettes, followed by the most vulnerable ships, with the Temeraire bringing up the rear.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Take, for instance, the Shivans. Most of their ships in general, particularly the Ravana, specialise in dealing devastating first strikes with the combined firepower of all their main beams combined. The Ravana, however, has rubbish defences and absolutely pathetic subsystem durability. There are people who were actually able to blow up the Ravana's main guns before it fired on the Lysander in The Great Hunt. They're that weak. In Slaying Ravana, the Ravana is unable to fend off a moderately-damaged corvette parked right beside it. If you put an Orion in a similar situation, however, you get this:



In addition, the Ravana goes down VERY FAST. A four-bomber Ursa wing can completely obliterate the Ravana without reloading. They can even destroy a wing of Basilisks before attacking the Ravana and still have enough strength to kill it.

The GTVA has learned enough from the Shivans to know that overspecialisation is not the right answer to creating a strong fleet. The Shivans are only able to do this because they just keep on coming in greater numbers every time one of their own fall. For the Terrans and Vasudans, however, such replacements may not always be available, so they need to make their ships as adept in as many fields as possible in order to increase survivability rate. Take a good long look at the Titan and Raynor, for instance. Both ships were made to serve as a hybrid of carrier and battleship. The Raynor, placing slightly more focus on the battleship bit, is able to concentrate at least 50% of its overall firepower in almost any direction, allowing it to easily attack almost anything from anywhere, while at the same time having a small hangar of fighters to do things like disabling beams. The Titan, placing slightly more focus on the carrier aspect, can hold a lot of fighters, but is still capable of defending itself or being used as an offensive weapon should there be no other options available. The latter is easily seen at the end of A Journey of a Thousand Miles in BP.

[TrashMan]

Yes, well, the problem with specialized ships is that, if they can be caught relatively isolated, they have very specific vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited. See a pure Destroyer? Send bomber wings. See a pure Carrier? Send Cruisers, Corvettes and other Destroyers.

Why is why planing and battlefield awareness comes in play.
Any isolated ships can be brought down. Some easier than others, but still.

Saying "X should never be used because it has a weakness" is a rather illogical statement, given that everything has a weakness. Y has weakneses too. Like I said before - proper tool for the proper conditions.