This is why scouting is important. A few things to consider though since you are talking about Entrenchment

1) Flak can't go against Starbases - SC can (though fighters are not as good as bombers).

2) SC aren't affected by mines - Flak are

3) SC cannot be negated with subverters or hoshikos etc... (I know the flak can kill SC so that is not the argument. The argument is that SC can kill these ships that can lock down/remove all combat ability of flak without taking fire in return as the support ships cannot shoot the SC).

4) You assume that SC is the only offensive element of the opposing fleet. If the fleet is mixed they can send in ligh frigs and Heavy Cruisers to kill them, plus the support ships to disable them... Plus cap abilities to modify the damage they receive/give (see next point).

5) Flak are killable by Marzabation, as well as other abilities (volatile nanite, Malice etc...) SC are not (Yes the SC have cap abilities that are nasty to them, but the point I am making is I can run my fleet from the Marza and try and kill/heavily damage it without it getting missile barrage out).

That being said - flak in a fleet is never a bad thing, even if it is just to thin out the fighters that are mixing it up with your fighters...

first off, to the best of my knowledge, the only other Sci Fi show to use antimatter to power the ship is Star Trek. now, based on the theory from those series, yes, antimatter is very effecient, but not limitless. and, its not the anti-matter by itself that powers the ships engines, but rather, a controlled matter/antimatter reaction (very much like a nuclear reaction, except the power output from a matter/antimatter reaction is 100's of orders of magnitude above that of a simple nuclear reaction, fission or fusion) However, just like anything else, it is not perpetual, you still need to provide the materials to power the reactor. in nuclear reactions, its plutonium/uranium or the like, in matter/antimatter reactions (based on Star Trek theory) it is Deuterium... something like that, but nonetheless, it exists. so, point here being that regardless of its effeciency, matter/antimatter reactors still need to be refuelled.

now, id like to make a point here? how many people in this forum knows how a nuclear reactor works? i wont bore everyone with the little details, but basically, a particle is fired at the plutonium  atom, the atom splits, hitting other atoms, splitting those, this is called a chain reaction. a nuclear reactor simply uses a controlled chain reaction to create heat, which it uses to heat water to steam, which is then channelled through turbines which generate electricity. the steam then cools back to water, cools down other equipment, and cycles back to the furnace to become steam again. point of interest, this is exactly how coal/gas power generatos work, except in that the heat that is used to make steam obviously comes from burning the coal/gas.

so... how do you intend to fit all of that on a fighter?

now, as for a matter/antimater reaction, the theory is, that when matter and antimatter come into contact, they cancel each other out, and this creates massive amounts of energy (most common/abundant of these being heat, and then probably radiation). another byproduct is that when the shockwave of this reaction reaches other matter or antimatter, the matter etc is consumed, and fuels the reaction, making the explosion larger. which effectively means that a large enough initial explosion could quite possibly destroy an entire solar system.

but, lets say for arguements sake that a antimatter reactor generates electricity as a product of the reaction, making the reactor smaller, it still needs refuelling, the smaller size means less power generation, and the nature of the reaction makes it very dangerous to put on a small, lightly armored fighter.

on a side note, think of it, if we put a small nuclear reactor on a fighter, and the reactor was damaged and went critical... imagine the fallout? it wouldnt be as bad as an actual nuclear weapon, due to critical mass values and all sorts of other science, but it would still make a heck of a bang. same thing would go or SC in Sins, except the explosion made by the antimatter reactor would, again, be hundreds of orders of magnitude greater than that of a simple nuclear reactor, meaning BIG BADA BOOM. methinks bad idea

so, thats the theory being antimatter reactions, but still, anti-matter reactions dont act as engines outright, as there is nothing to use as thrust... what they would do is power phase jump engines, but not sublight, because sublight needs something to expel as a function of creating thrust. in Star Trek, the Warp Core (anti-matter reactor) didnt generate the warp field, the nacelles (the blue things on pylons behind the ship) were the things that enabled warp, the warp core simply generated the power for it (i know, they should have called the warp core something different, but it still sounds cool)

and after all this, im still talking about the larger ships, and to be honest, everytime they are in a gravity well that you or an ally owns, they could be refuelling behind the scenes, its not a function we as commanders need to worry about, however as for SC: THEY HAVE NO ANTIMATTER. so... to be honest, i could have refuted your entire arguement right there, but i decided to go into the science of it for the understanding of the greater community. yes, larger ships wont need to refuel as often, caps probably not at all for the duration of the game considering onboard stores and like i said, behind the scenes refueling... i mean, TEC starbases withthe docking booms upgrade replenish antimatter? theres your refuelling right there!

now, onto your second point. i never said SC were not useful, i agree completely, sometimes they can be too useful though. if you had read all the posts, you would have known that i am quite happy to leave SC as they are, however, from my own style of play, i can imagine how irritating one of my massive bomber clouds would be, you spend hours getting a cap ship to level 6-10, and my bombers will erase it for you in a matter of seconds. from my point of view, i could say: screw all you guys, ill leave it like that and just erase all your cap ships and starbases for you

but no, i saw something that would be unfair, noticed a common concern with it in forums, and decided to put an effort in to maybe fix this... problem, for lack of a better word.

now, i have never built a pure carrier spam since entrenchment (and before then, that was just to protect my home star) and i ALWAYS build diverse fleets... but if you have 4 starbases in a gravity well with 56 bomber squadrons with weapons fully upgraded... show me the fleet that wont suffer serious attrition before jumping out or destroying the starbases.

In closing, I too, am fine with the status quo, but i can tell you, that if someone did to me with strikecraft what i do to my enemies, i would be VERY VERY pissed off. thats is why i am posting these proposed changes, because they, at the moment, seem to me to be some of the best ways to balance out a POSSIBLY OVERPOWERING AND NEARLY UNCOUNTERABLE game tactic.

LOL.  I know I hate being on the recieveing end of a bomber or fighter swarm.  They can be countered with lots of flak, but not before they take out at least a couple of caps, which is the whole point, I believe.

Just a side note.  That was pretty much the simplest, easiest to understand, helpfully concise explanation of a nuclear reaction that I've ever heard.  How do you make it sound so simple?

Persionally I hate carriers and strike craft, to hard to mirco manage and the carriers themself everyone just runs them away from your static defences and repair facilitys and while you chase them doing less dps their strike craft are super fast moving and have no problems pummeling your running shooting forces to a carrier that running away and has alot of life and shields. Honeslty I hate stike craft and carriers their way to overpowered expecailly in mass not to mention most static defence cant even hurt strike craft assuming their even in range for the ones that can ( which is heavy reaeach taking away from my military = loss)

He doesn't like carriers as the SC kill his ships and he doesn't know how to kill them as the carriers won't come and sit within range of his static defences. So his stuff gets blown up while the other player (AI?) doesn't lose anything.

Has to be multi-player.  AI's don't kite their carriers around like that, at least not that I've seen.

As to counter that. Late game for TEC the Kodiak has a 'rush the target' ability.  Use this to get in range of the carriers, then a few Kodiaks will tear them apart, unless their cap carriers, of course.

Thank you, thank you.

I'm here all week. Try the veal!!!

Now that's something I'd like to make a feature request:

Just as you can hit alt+click to select all the units of the same type, I'd like to be able to hit alt+click on an ability and have all units with that ability activate them at once.

"Okay, Kols... flak burst in 3..2..1(kaboom)"

The problem is that strikecraft are 'something for nothing'. Even if your opponent builds tons of flak, he spent a shitload of cash on a niche unit that has very little use outside of killing strikecraft; since your strikecraft are free to replace, well, horray for you. Sure the premium on carriers is a lot higher, but they can vaporize anything in seconds if you have enough - especially if you're Vasari.

Look at how strikecraft worked in Homeworld - you had interceptors and bombers, generally the same thing we have here: Interceptors were good against Bombers, bombers were good against anything heavier. Defensively, every 'big' ship had minor point defenses to harrass / whittle away at strikecraft. Okay, it didn't do MUCH damage, but it was something. Both sides had anti-strikecraft frigates - the flak frigate would decimate grouped strikecraft, and the assault / missile frigates, while not as powerful individually as a flak, were very effective with seeking missiles.

Now in between frigates and strikecraft you had Corvettes - which functioned as 'heavy interceptors'. One type of Corvette was excellent at killing Corvettes, and one was effective against strikecraft. Maybe this 'hole' in Sins is what's needed?

At any rate, an anti-strikecraft cruiser may be what we need. Small groups of flaks are woefully inadequate, partially because they have EXTREMELY low DPS due to the speed of strikecraft.

Oh and MAJORLY buff / fix the anti-strikecraft capital ship special abilities. The level 3 Kol flak burst is hilariously useless - it does 60 damage, and generally with some upgrades strikecraft have way more than that (like 100 or so hull strength?). And a bomber with 1 hull point still does the same damage as one with 120. Having to spend 300+ antimatter to blow up some free strikecraft is stupid.

Hell, in Homeworld 2, even the Torpedo Frigate could fire cluster torpedos that blew up strikecraft real pretty. Strikecraft had a TON of counters, because they were fast, could do some damage, and most importantly: cheap.