Zorg Empire

I know that there has been a lot of discussion over the use of carriers for fighters. The major flaws IMO is that they carry light and heavy fighters. So I am suggesting a carrier that; is fairly fragile, with a limited capacity, has 2 small craft, said craft cannot be built/stored/moved without the carrier (similar to the way IPMs/ABMs work).

Carrier:
Cost: 50,000 metal, 25,000 crystal, 15,000 Deuterium
Stats: Structure 75,000, Shield 250, Attack 50, Cargo 1,500,
Speed 5,000, Fuel consumption 750, Fighter capacity 30 strike fighters or 10 strike bombers
Rapid fire:
From: Heavy fighter 5, Battle Cruiser, 10, Death Star 100, Destroyer 3
Requirements: Impulse 7, Shipyard 10, Nanite factory 2.

As an example, the craft would be a strike fighter and a strike bomber. Cheap, flimsy, and fairly powerful, they can only be constructed on the carrier (similar to IPMs and ABMs in the silos). Also, because they are useless beyond the carrier, they may only participate in combat every other round (as they must return to the carrier to re-fuel and re-arm), and at the end of the battle, any craft that cannot be loaded onto their carriers are immediately destroyed.



Strike fighter:
Cost: 150 metal, 100 crystal
Stats: Structure 250, Shield 100, Attack 250, Cargo --, Speed --, Fuel consumption --
Rapid fire:
From: Light fighter 7, Heavy fighter 7, Cruiser 3, Battle cruiser 2, Destroyer 2
Against: Small cargo 3, Large cargo 3, Solar sat 3, Espionage probe 3, Strike bomber 10



Strike bomber:
Cost: 1,500 metal, 1,750 crystal, 500 deuterium
Stats: Structure 3,250, Shield 250, Attack 450, Cargo --, Speed--, Fuel consumption --
Rapid fire:
From: Light fighter 3, Heavy fighter 3, Battle Cruiser 5, Cruiser 5, Death Star 100, Destroyer 3, Strike fighter 10
Against: Destroyer 5, Battle cruiser 5, Cruiser 3, Battle Ship 5



I hope this is an improvement on the standard carrier concept. This is my first attempt at designing a ship, so I hope it isn't too bad. Any and all criticisms and improvements are welcome and requested, because I would love to see this (or a similar) carrier idea implemented.

EDIT: Typos.

Interesting... A few questions though.

Carrier Questions

How would you build these ships, on the carrier I mean? Like the jumpgate, would there be a special menu within the description of the carrier?

Also, I don't see how this could work, unless the carrier was like the shield domes where you could only build one of them. If that was the case, then the carrier would have to be much more expensive, if you can only have one of them. How would you determine the storage of the fighters and bombers? Would you use their structure points?

Small Ships Questions

I like your idea to switch them out every other round to refuel, but what if you made it so that bombers struck on one turn, and fighters struck on the other, alternating, with the same RF? The only problem with the every other turn idea is that it would significantly mess up RF.

That's about it with my questions. Sorry about the wall of text that I just threw at you, but all of these questions just help tie up your idea. Believe me, your idea is innovative. The only problem is that innovation requires massive changes.

How about a simpler (more abstract and much easier to implement and play) extra ship type: 'Carrier'.

Characterisitics much better against cargo craft (and death stars, he, he!) but lousy (low shields?) against everything else.

Perhaps also, able to do espionage missions VERY much more effectively, though of course much slower than the probes?

Perhaps also able to lurk in DFs to bushwack Recycling?

And a last feature: If 'carriers' are present, then all fighters (light and heavy) are invisible to espionage until major battles start (which rather transforms how interesting fighters can be!)

NB: In space there're none of the wet navy features of operating in different mediums (air-water): it's all a level playing field of simple thrust-to-weight ratios in space: and capital ships have volume advantages so fighters'll never make it as battle winners. But they may offer a flexibiliity that could be represented as I describe above.

More I think about this, the more I like it.