FORUMS


Fleet Carriers



Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 7:33 a.m.


Updated //
March 9, 2015, 7:33 a.m.

Carriers could be a very interesting class of ship. They would have fighters and torpedo bombers to launch long-ranged attack or close range support to friendly battleships. The fighters and bombers would be very weak in comparison to even the lightest cruiser, but could have weapons to do large amounts of damage over a short period of time. The carriers themselves would have decent armor, and more powerful engines, but very weak long range weapons, maybe some small ballistic or energy cannons, but relatively powerful flak cannons for defense against enemy fighters sent by an enemy carrier.

I imagine some of the higher-tier fighters on carriers to be like these.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140610162456/video151/images/4/44/Dreadnought_-_Teaser_Trailer


Play smart, you win. Play dumb, you loose. Teamwork is the best way to secure victory. Lack of teamwork is a certain defeat.


Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 8:25 a.m.



I forget when, but I think previously a developer said that, on the dreadnought class, the "nuke attack" could be swapped with the ability to launch small fighters.

Don't know if this is still true, but I really hope.



Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 9:36 a.m.



Had this thought earlier today.

Could be incorporated as a game mode: Carrier Defense. Either large carriers or stations could be AI controlled, launching drone waves with small anti-aircraft-like weaponry.

With the large size and implied slow movement, there would need to be some mechanic to counter artillery cruiser/sniper fire. Maybe a shield system, with vulnerable "projectors" that have to be disabled from within the large radius shield?


Sword, Shield and Funeral Pyre.


Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 11:02 a.m.



Do believe Carrier would be quite a struggle to develop with sophisticated AI being needed in order to actually be a benefit. However, a AI controlled mass ship (AKA Carrier) defense mode would be quite fun! for sure a more viable option as a game mode at least starting out.


Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 11:37 a.m.



I don't think it would be that much difficult to develop on the AI side, you don't have to necessarly give complex order. It can just be something like "static", "following", "to target" (also depending of the device, mines and turrets are of course static).

I'll would like to get a ship which is more about supporting/tactical decisions on the field.


Waiting Carrier.exe to be present in Dreadnought.
Please wait...


Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 11:49 a.m.



Dedadude#1215 posted (#post-411)

I forget when, but I think previously a developer said that, on the dreadnought class, the "nuke attack" could be swapped with the ability to launch small fighters.

Don't know if this is still true, but I really hope.

Interesting, although carriers would carry far, far more fighters, but almost no weapons. This means that if players operated carriers, they would need other people to defend them against enemy cruisers, and should never run out into a fight alone. Also, if players could operate carriers, they should probably have a much larger energy reserve so they could supercharge their engines or activate their shields for much longer than other ships, although the carriers would have to shut those systems down for fighters to launch or land.

This is my next idea, fighter control. Instead of carriers launching fighters and having them active for a preset time no matter what happens, players could press 1 to launch fighters, and then press 1 again to call them back. Once the fighters land, there would be a cooldown period where they get repaired and rearmed. Fighters could also automatically return if they run low on fuel, ammo, or their numbers get too thin. Same for torpedo bombers.


Play smart, you win. Play dumb, you loose. Teamwork is the best way to secure victory. Lack of teamwork is a certain defeat.


Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 12:03 p.m.



Thasarion#5795 posted (#post-439)

Interesting, although carriers would carry far, far more fighters, but almost no weapons. This means that if players operated carriers, they would need other people to defend them against enemy cruisers, and should never run out into a fight alone. Also, if players could operate carriers, they should probably have a much larger energy reserve so they could supercharge their engines or activate their shields for much longer than other ships, although the carriers would have to shut those systems down for fighters to launch or land.

This is my next idea, fighter control. Instead of carriers launching fighters and having them active for a preset time no matter what happens, players could press 1 to launch fighters, and then press 1 again to call them back. Once the fighters land, there would be a cooldown period where they get repaired and rearmed. Fighters could also automatically return if they run low on fuel, ammo, or their numbers get too thin. Same for torpedo bombers.

Maybe with an adaptative cooldown then ? The longer the fighters stay out, the higher will be the cooldown ?


Waiting Carrier.exe to be present in Dreadnought.
Please wait...


Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 12:08 p.m.



I also heard them say that small fighters is one of the options for the tank class (not sure what it's called ).

Also read up on the new game mode they announced yesterday. When you die you have the option of flying a fighter! But only in that game mode.


Patience wins the war.

“His heart was mailed with oak and triple brass who first committed a frail ship to the wild seas.”
Black Widows


Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 12:59 p.m.



If you look to reality for an analog, I think you'd struggle adding player-controlled carriers into the game.

You don't commit carriers into a fight; they are extremely stand off. There would be little to do between sending fighters out and recalling them. I'll take some time and really flesh out some ideas.

My full opinion on carriers:

Movement, shields, and on-board weapons
Carriers are going to be big, that's a given. They should move slow, which should be fine because carriers should not be in the fight. Their launched fighters engage, and, ideally, a carrier should not be fired upon.

Large ships should imply large reactors, giving carriers dreadnought-level shielding.

Lastly, carriers should have small, close-range weaponry. Something comparable to the artillery's secondary weapon: light cannons to repel quick-attack strikers.

Player control versus AI
This is where I have a lot of opinions. With little to do between launching fighter waves and being stationed well outside the fight, player control could be rather boring. Having AI control over this could be effective, though mechanics would have to be implemented to allow other players to influence who and how the carrier's fighters attack. Simple coding could be implemented to handle point defense of the ship proper.

The other alternative, I think, may require more game development. There could be implemented a sort of Fleet Commander position, who operates "within" the carrier, controlling its functions but also being able to interact more indirectly with the other players. For examples, this commander may be able to interact with mini-map and HUD beacons/tags, vector fighters to targets via the map, or even go so far as control environment elements (maybe static turrets, moving structures, etc), but that may really start compounding the complexity of adding in carriers.

The other alternative is to have the carrier controller interact more with the fighters themselves. Instead of just deploying the fighters, the player could pilot them, switching between egressing fighters, spent from battle, to ingressing bombers. This would cut down on the "boredom" a carrier pilot may experience.

Launched craft
I envision the actual launched craft mechanics operating similar to Battlestations: Midway. The controller would have access to multiple types of crafts to be committed through a set number of hangers. Types could be numerous: fighters to protect other craft, bombers to target ships, repair drones to buttress your teammates defenses, or perhaps a more exotic options. Each type would differ in their speed, strength, shields, and formation numbers. Each hanger could be selected to launch any type, allowing the carrier to keep a level of flexibility to remain relevant at any stage of the battle. However, there would be a set number of hangers to limit what is committed at one time, as well as a hard limit to the number of crafts the carrier has over the course of the battle. Commit nothing but bombers with no cover early on? Rough, you've run out and only have fighters left. As sorties return alive, their numbers would be returned to your totals.

Finally, these craft would likely warp into and out of battle, given the distance from the fight the carrier should be.
Would love feedback on these ideas.


Sword, Shield and Funeral Pyre.


Posted: //
March 9, 2015, 1:57 p.m.



Prometheus25#5985 posted (#post-447)

If you look to reality for an analog, I think you'd struggle adding player-controlled carriers into the game.

You don't commit carriers into a fight; they are extremely stand off. There would be little to do between sending fighters out and recalling them. I'll take some time and really flesh out some ideas.

My full opinion on carriers:

Movement, shields, and on-board weapons
Carriers are going to be big, that's a given. They should move slow, which should be fine because carriers should not be in the fight. Their launched fighters engage, and, ideally, a carrier should not be fired upon.

Large ships should imply large reactors, giving carriers dreadnought-level shielding.

Lastly, carriers should have small, close-range weaponry. Something comparable to the artillery's secondary weapon: light cannons to repel quick-attack strikers.

Player control versus AI
This is where I have a lot of opinions. With little to do between launching fighter waves and being stationed well outside the fight, player control could be rather boring. Having AI control over this could be effective, though mechanics would have to be implemented to allow other players to influence who and how the carrier's fighters attack. Simple coding could be implemented to handle point defense of the ship proper.

The other alternative, I think, may require more game development. There could be implemented a sort of Fleet Commander position, who operates "within" the carrier, controlling its functions but also being able to interact more indirectly with the other players. For examples, this commander may be able to interact with mini-map and HUD beacons/tags, vector fighters to targets via the map, or even go so far as control environment elements (maybe static turrets, moving structures, etc), but that may really start compounding the complexity of adding in carriers.

The other alternative is to have the carrier controller interact more with the fighters themselves. Instead of just deploying the fighters, the player could pilot them, switching between egressing fighters, spent from battle, to ingressing bombers. This would cut down on the "boredom" a carrier pilot may experience.

Launched craft
I envision the actual launched craft mechanics operating similar to Battlestations: Midway. The controller would have access to multiple types of crafts to be committed through a set number of hangers. Types could be numerous: fighters to protect other craft, bombers to target ships, repair drones to buttress your teammates defenses, or perhaps a more exotic options. Each type would differ in their speed, strength, shields, and formation numbers. Each hanger could be selected to launch any type, allowing the carrier to keep a level of flexibility to remain relevant at any stage of the battle. However, there would be a set number of hangers to limit what is committed at one time, as well as a hard limit to the number of crafts the carrier has over the course of the battle. Commit nothing but bombers with no cover early on? Rough, you've run out and only have fighters left. As sorties return alive, their numbers would be returned to your totals.

Finally, these craft would likely warp into and out of battle, given the distance from the fight the carrier should be.
Would love feedback on these ideas.

I agree with this. In my opinion, carriers should have the largest energy reserve of any ship for engine boosting and shields. Also, I said previously that the carriers most powerful weapons should be the close-range flak guns for self defense.


Play smart, you win. Play dumb, you loose. Teamwork is the best way to secure victory. Lack of teamwork is a certain defeat.

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.