I've noticed quite a few people in these forums talking (not really complaining, but maybe gripeing) about strike craft spamming. I looked through old threads, but didn't find anything on this, specificly. So I thought I would start a discussion on strike craft.
Personally, I like strike craft. By late mid-game my main fleet usually has at least 50 squadrons, sometimes as many as 70; most of these are bombers. I find this is a good way to take on star bases, espescially the Vasari SB. The main fleet can avoid the moving starbase while the bombers destroy it.
I know some gamers who frequent multi-player find this tactic annoying. Here is my oppinion.
What is the purpose of strike craft? Strike craft are a cheap and easily replentished means of projecting power beyond the range of the main fleet. So using them in this fashion is, I think, a legitimate tactic. And yes, I have been on the recieveing end of this agains hard and unfair AI's. I play as TEC, and with the new upgrades to gauss turrets and hangar bays, as well as the hangar upgrades for SB (filled out with fighters to counter bombers), massed waves of strike craft can be countered. Not without losses, true, but where is the challenge if you win every single engagement?
You obvioulsy have never had someone rush you. It takes 5-10 minutes to bring carriers online, even if you rush to them. You cannot research flak, carriers and build enough to take on this capital, especially since it will be at level 3 by then. It just has to clear a few planets and it is now at 5 or 6 or 7 SC, with the associated increase in health, shields, firepower and armor... Oh, there is also the small issue that SC take time to build, so the carrier comes off the production line with no SC, meanwhile the cap has built all of its squadrons....
I'm sorry, Hack78, I did not follow what you said in your post. I can't tell when you're talking about a carrier cap or light carriers. I want your oppinion, I'm just not clear on what you're trying to say.
I should clarify, if there are more squadrons added to a carrier cap, it should not keep the shield and hull points it has now. It's not a ship of the line. its a carrier providing Strike craft support from a distance, but if ships of the line get in range, it's toast in a couple of seconds.
Sailor at Pearl Harbor: The Japanese are spamming us with Strike Craft! It's not fair! Sailor 2 at Pearl Harbor: They are camping us too! Those cheaters!
Sailor at Pearl Harbor: The Japanese are spamming us with Strike Craft! It's not fair!
Sailor 2 at Pearl Harbor: They are camping us too! Those cheaters!
Japanese pilot: kekekekek
Where I have said carriers, I mean carrier cruisers. Where I am refering to the cap, it is the cap carrier with the proposed changes.
To summarise - you have to research flak and carrier cruisers which require income and labs. You then need income to build the ships. In this time the free starting carrier cap is lvl 2 or 3 due to killing militia and has extra squadrons. All of these squadrons are fully built. My first flak and carriers ships roll off the production line and I still need to build the SC. Hence why only another carrier cap would be able to hold off the cap that has rushed - automatic air supremacy. Spam some LRMs to kill the flak and some LF to kill the carriers and your cap will have air superiority to let them kill in peace...
Thanks for clarifing, Hack78. I understand where you are coming from on this, and I agree with you. Haveing this ship at the beggining of the game would most deffinitely be a game breaker. In post #20, scootergtm says that if the ship is going to exsist, it should be a researched ship. I agree with him in post #22 and say it should research around the time of the Kodiak Heacy Cruiser, mayber between the Percheron Light Carrier and the Kodiak. This give time to research the flak frigate, there are already fleets and some defences built up, so a carrier cap ship now wouldn't just steam-roll every system, but could now function as part of a fleet if a player is into strike craft, like me.
I think the biggest problem with carriers is not the number of SC or anti fighter tech, instead its the idea that you're supposed to spend time swatting fighters and bombers like as many gnats, if that's your objective you're never gonna win. Instead I think the problem is that carriers are so dang tough, especially Advent carriers. I'm speaking of the light/jeep carriers. In every show/space opera/table top game/computer game i've seen/played carriers have been precious but fragile gems that must be protected. If the light carriers were a bit more fragile it would discourage spamming them b/c fighters and bombers take time to kill frigates and cruisers and while they did the carriers would be getting hammered and at the end of the day there'd be a lot of SC's with no home to return to.
An excellent point. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way. I think that's a great idea, makeing carriers not so robust.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
