Hiigaran Battle Carrier removal •••••(complete) Nakamura

The current Battle Carrier is acting like a mini shipyard. This is wrong and bad for late game dynamics.
What the Hiigaran fleet really needs is a "fleet carrier", a ship that has only minimal production capability (fighters and corvettes), however is able to house a great deal of ships, from fighters to frigates. It should also have two available module slots and one modular weapon. That is something for a different topic though.

Nakamura wrote:
•Remove frigate and capital ship production capability

• Increase speed by 10%

• Allow a total of 3 subsystems to be built



• Rename to Fleet Carrier

NO NO NO NO and NO. You're looking at it from the wrong way around. It is meant to be a mini shipyard. This ship is from REARM, where is was designed to work as a forward operating base. The ship should not be called a Battle carrier because that is not what it was designed to do. Originally is was called the Super carrier. IT SHOULD NOT BE A COMBAT SHIP. And for the record the Vaygr shouldn't have a super/battle/fleet carrier at all.

We do not need more production ships in late game, especially not one that is so vulnerable. It will be melted away in a single salvo of any late game fleet. Carriers ought to be actually carriers, we have really more than enough super-duper-uber toys around here.
I can't think of any transition where it would be profitable to get one of these.
What the Hiigaran fleet needs is a fleet carrier. Whether we use this model or another is a different question.

Perhaps we could use the existing fleet carrier model then.

I agree with IGBC in that the Battlecarrier isn't really suitable.
I also agree with Naka in that Complex needs a fleet carrier rather.

I actually would have another entirely different suggestion for the Battlecarrier model's usage.

This spec in the first post doesn't address the issue of slack of peed of launch and recovery of small craft.

We are planning to increase docking speeds for pretty much everything.
So we'll use the fleet carrier model?

Again no. The both models are innaproprate. We have 1.5 modelers now. Let's use them. I' also like to address the overuse of defense fields in the late game hiigaran. We need to deal with that.

As for what a fleet carrier should do, I recommend dock and build: fighters; covettes. Dock only: frigates. It should have one generic slot whi h also includes the production module. Good sensors, no defence field.

If a new model could be designed, then we're scrapping the current two.
Defense fields would be okay if they weren't part of the top level experience module.

Defensefields would be okay ifthey weren't part ofthe top level experience module.

dont understand.

It's simply too many of them. They are the most overpowered when they appear on super capitals as well.

Agreed.


I sugesst that df's are fitted to independent cap ships,just like the frigates. And we make it a VERY expensive module for supercaps.

I honestly don't think they should have it at all. That's part of what we have shuttles for. It's fine on MS and CF, though.

Ok then

May I propose an alternative use for the Battlecarrier chassis. I suggest we develop it as an assault ship, to be able to build and hold only Marine Frigates (using the large (currently cap ship facility)), and give fire support to them when they are capturing enemy asteroid bases or other lightly defended objectives. It's armament ought to be sufficient as is.

Not sure that would resemble the multi-functional hiigaran fleet!

True, but it might be an interesting ship to play around with - would the AI use it correctly...
Perhaps Ship could also be capable of building RU collectors, as they are needed to make use of mining bases and to repair ships.

why not just make a big ass capture ship?

@naka: Agreed

...or just take it out altogether!

Task complete.

Good!