who dominate the battlefield? One super battleship or a group of nimble fighters?

[XenoCow]

Finally if you have a swarm of fighters then there would have to quite a large carrier to hold all the fighters which would present quite a large target and if severely crippled or destroyed then the fighters would be left stranded which would be a lot of resources and pilots wasted as unless they are specifically designed for long range travel

I think you make a good point. Fighters might be superior in combat for the most part, but the extended range might make the larger ships more useful in long term, or large scale battles. It may be that large ships only become useful as support for the fighters, acting as mobile HQs. I could then see destroyers, or torpedo bombers then becoming viable to try to counteract the carriers.

Alternatively, maybe all a war fleet needs is a bunch of fuel ships to tag along and then sit way back before the shooting starts.

 

[Killer_Rabbit]

Also I think it is important to note that in order to overwhelm a ship's or a fleet's anti fighter turrets you would need quite a large amount of fighters or make them faster both of which would involve stripping the fighters of armour and weapons which would reduce the overall effectiveness of the fighters. Also I don't see fighters being particularly effective against large or medium sized ships as the type of weapons that harm a larger ship are not ideal for dog-fighting and so if you wanted them it would be better to add extra weapons to the fighter which would slow it down.Another point is if both sides deploy a large fighter screen then since the fighters are engaging each other then the bigger ships would likely have to resort to shooting each other at range.

Finally fighters take up valuable space in a ship and so unless you have a large cruiser or destroyer with a fighter complement on board patrolling then most skirmishes would involve mid to short range ship to ship combat however its likely that even the largest non carrier ships would be more concerned with carrying an armed shuttle or two that could also act as a scout as well as carrying troops rather than a dedicated fighter however I could see civilian ships carry couple of fighters as it would be more flexible than turrets and if the cargo is more valuable than the fighters then using the fighters to hold off the pirates might be a worthwhile cost.

 

[Cavilier210]

Marvellous isn't it!?

 

[Killer_Rabbit]

Also given the fact that in order to attack a large ship you would have to come in on a head on course that would be easy for AA defences to shoot you down. So far in Starbase media all the fighters have been deployed from stations and since there is some uncertainty about how big the ships can get then it not clear whether the typical carrier that holds the ships inside it could even exist in the current model of the game then its possible that fighter engagements would be unlikely in deep space as well as the fact that the crew needed for a large carrier would strip personnel from other more flexible lighter ships and if the faction that has the carrier doesn't have a large enough fleet to defend it then there is not much point in it overall.

 

[CalenLoki]

Head on attack on larger ship is not a fact. Just bad piloting and poor ship design.

With compact design you can fit 50 fighters (inside) within current predicted size limits (100m). Although that's probably more than you'll ever need. So size limit is not an issue.

Crew count is the only real limit. But it applies to both small and large ships. The whole discuss is about which ship size allows better utilisation of manpower.

Regarding battles in open space... Why would they happen in the first place?
Space is big, rendering range short, no universal coordinate system, no radar. Chances of intercepting enemy fleet in the middle of nowhere is rather small, unless they fly the most predictable route.
Pirates? Yes, can happen. I'd rather have docked small fighters for defence than turrets on my freighter/miner. Same for being a pirate: cargo/carrier mothership + small fighters to fight for the loot.

Regarding flexibility: carrier can be used for both military transport and just as a freighter. It can load just enough fighters for given mission and depending on currently available manpower. Fighters require less coordination between pilots than large ship crew, thus can take anyone, rather than set team that trained together.
IMO carriers are more flexible than large combat ships.

BTW sentences that take half of page feel very weird.

 

[Tetra]

With compact design you can fit 50 fighters (inside) within current predicted size limits (100m). Although that's probably more than you'll ever need. So size limit is not an issue.

Crew count is the only real limit. But it applies to both small and large ships. The whole discuss is about which ship size allows better utilisation of manpower.

Exactly. With enough manpower, I don't see any issues with operating a single super carrier with strategically placed turrets and fighters on board.
Large battles in the open space IMO is rather rare due to the fact that space is huge, there are chances though but I see no point as war comes with objectives.

Objectives such as attacking the enemy Main Operating Base (MOB), of course the Defending side won't have any issues with their logistics as the battle takes place at their home but if you're the Attacking side, you just have to setup/designate your Forward Operating Base (FOB) to handle all your logistics before sieging or attacking.

 

[Killer_Rabbit]

The thing is though if you want vessels for patrolling and anti piracy and low scale engagements then a carrier is not ideal you want a more flexible vessels like cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes. Also you say space is big but if there is an enemy fleet or battle group that is cut off from their main territory and they need fuel then they may go to a small outpost to steal fuel you could have a small conflict there if you send your own battle group to hunt them down. Also not all battles are going to be over megastations because every station is not going to be a megastation and then setting up your own FOB is not going to be worthwhile.

It is possible for a faction to operate a single supercarrier but why would they it can't be everywhere at once it presents a large singular target and it takes a vast amount of resources that could be lost if its destroyed or damaged and those resources and personal could go to smaller vessels that can cover more ground. Finally is the resources and personal used on fighters worth it compared to smaller warships as if the carrier is crippled or sabotaged so the fighters can't be deployed or resupplied then all those fighters and personal won't be very useful.

 

[CalenLoki]

Your messages suggest that you think that carrier = big and slow. That is absolutely not the case in space. It's not IRL naval carrier that have to be certain size to fit runaway and not sink. It can be small and really fast after launching all attack crafts.
It's also rather cheap compared to combat ships of same size. It needs a lot of frame, plating, thrusters and fuel. Those are relatively much cheaper parts than weapons and big reactors required to use them. Economically designed carrier should be cheaper than fighters it's carrying (unless it serves some other roles as well).

Cruisers, destroyers and frigates are big, slow and expensive. Maybe you're used to other SF games/movies where frigate is considered small. Here it's the biggest currently available ship.
They may be useful for limited missions, mostly related to stationary targets (base attack/defence), but I'd never send them on patrol. It would be like using titan in EVE for pirate hunting.
We don't know much details regarding player made stations or how they'll be protected against offline raids (Player vs Door). My guess is that most stations, even those smaller ones, will require proper PvP battles to raid or capture them. Otherwise small stations simply won't exist.
Either way, no surprise raiding to steal fuel.

Both carriers and combat ships can be crippled or sabotages, and in both cases a lot of manpower and resources can't be used. Although carriers have less chance to crippled, as they actively avoid combat (launch fighters and run away).

For patrolling you want to cover as much space while using as few manpower and resources as possible. And you don't need too much range or self-sustainability that large ships provide. Thus mid-range interceptors seems like perfect fit.

For pirating - same, plus mobile base of operation (medium-sized cargo/carrier ship) for refuelling and transporting loot.
Maybe medium size ships could be used for pirating too. Gunships or assault corvettes. Thanks to their thicker armour they'd be able to remain closer and less wobbly to attacked ship. Thus they'd be able and neutralise any defences with greater precision than fighters (thus avoiding destroying cargo).

 

[Killer_Rabbit]

The thing with carriers is how are you going to deploy the fighters ? Would you have a traditional bay door with lines of fighters to come out as wide or as tall as the door ? Would you have a central spine that the fighters are attached around the outside of ready to deploy or would you have an underbelly design where the fighters each have their own deployment bay ? Also you say 100m is the maximum from the developers right well they did say that could be changed and bigger ships have not been tested. 100m is also slightly smaller than the average frigate/destroyer size anyway as well as the fact that it would hardly be comparable to sending a titan to hunt pirates in EVE as while 100m is still the biggest size in the game it isn't that big compared to the fighters/corvette sized ships pirates would use. Another thing is once you've deployed the fighters how would they dock back with the carrier and be ready to be deployed again especially in the middle of a battle where speed is very important if you need to retreat.

In terms of station safezones the developers have not confirmed anything and they might decide outside the spawn safezone (which is very large and will expand when resources in it are depleted) that gameplay might be less engaging with station safezones.

Finally I understand the need to protect the carrier but why would it run away once it has deployed its fighters ? What happens if the battle is lost and its fighters need retrieval or fighters are damaged in the middle of a battle and could be retrieved and repaired or fighters need resupplying all things which a carrier should be in a battle to do ?

 

[Brushes]

Unless flak turns out to be effective against missiles, big ships will be very vulnerable to torpedoes or rocket attacks. Especially with reduced SA in an asteroid field and laser guided weapons.

A carrier wont have any long range weapons or sensor systems to aid the strike craft (cause they dont exist) so should stay out of battle but close enough that fighters can return.

 

[CalenLoki]

My idea for carrier is single long corridor running along the spine. With door in front and in the back.

Once battle start, fighter pilots get in possition and disengage cargo beams that hold their craft in place. Space jelly pulls them out of the rear door. It can be done even under fire and at very high speed, as long as carrier flies straight forward.

Retrieving in battle is done with external cargo beams. Flat surface of the hull doesn't require that much precision, so maybe will be possible to perform in flight.

Proper internal docking, refueling, rearming and repairing happens only outside combat zone.
I'd rather have enough spare compact fighters that I don't need to sacrifice manpower for lengthy in-battle repairs. If fighter needs anything more than swapping ammo mags, there is no time for that.

If battle is lost, flying unarmed carrier to victorious enemies is questionable decision. I'd rather retreat it with all the fighters that managed to get back on their own.
Even if I decide to scoop damaged ships during the battle, I'd rather use dedicated combat hauler for it.

By running away I mean just out of render distance. Close enough that spare fighters use only a minute to get back in action.

Of course the whole concept may not work, if some game mechanics get redesigned or not implemented.
I.e. it relies on automatic mover snapping to rails and reliable ship-based respawn.

Some pictures of current concepts (WIP):
Carrier, ~60x40x20m,
Holds up to 24 light fighters internally. Same externally.
80 box main thrusters.
4x PDC turrets.
Plenty of space for other stuff.

Fighters: 2xAC + 2xMissile racks. 6 triangle thrusters.

Small hauler. For picking up immobilised fighters.

 

[Rhyno]

My idea for carrier is single long corridor running along the spine. With door in front and in the back

damn dude thats some really nice concept work you've got there. Looks pretty sick. *claps*

 

[Killer_Rabbit]

I think your fighter design is quite boxy and provides a lot of flat surfaces that could easily be shot as well as being somewhat large for a fighter and it looks like any fighters coming from behind or below couldn't be seen by the pilot. So you may want to streamline the shape a bit more and give the pilot more vision. For instance with a few modifications to your small hauler like shrinking it, pulling back the engines/tractor beams etc... it would be quite a good fighter as you could give it a bubble cockpit so the pilot can see everything in front of them reasonably above them and below them as well as too the sides.

 

[CalenLoki]

Fighter will be redesigned quite a lot, to accommodate recent changes. Since I made it they revealed more info about engines and weapon energy consumption.

No offense, but you have no sense of scale regarding SB components. This fighter is one of the smallest possible. Smaller than anything devs ever showed us (maybe UFO has comparable size). Only way I could make it smaller is removing missiles (and I considered it).

Hauler is roughly the same size as fighter.
In comparison Spatha is 2x as long and has 3x the volume, while having 1/3 thrust an 1/2 weapons.

I have an idea for 2x smaller fighter, but that will be more of an armed bike. And may turn out impossible to build due to recent energy changes.

It is boxy indeed. That's an effect of trying to make it fit exactly my standard container size, thus allowing me to fit 24 of them in 36x7x11m hangar.

Visibility could be improved indeed. But it'll never allow looking behind or underneath. The first require cockpit to extrude out of the ship top, the later is blocked by the seat and controls that need to fit somewhere. Both aren't really needed in such a small ship that can turn and roll on a dime.
I will however improve side view by allowing looking slightly further back.

Hauler is the size of 2 fighters, and have 20% less thrust. Hardly an improvement. It could be made slightly smaller by removing all hauling-related equipment. But it'll never be as compact as brick design. It also uses less space-efficient engines.

I highly recommend downloading models of components and trying yourself. Helps imagining what is actually viable to build.

 

[Killer_Rabbit]

Also I think people seeing this topic in a very binary way and so myself included ignore the fact that frigate, destroyer and cruiser type ships could still carry fighters more likely heavy fighters that could provide reconnaissance and maybe carry small amounts of troops or naval personal. For instance cruisers in WW2 often had a seaplane and modern cruisers, destroyers and frigates usually have one or more helicopters. I don't see fighters as being able to perform a lot of tasks such as anti-piracy, inspections or large scale patrolling on their own. For these tasks all you would need is a couple of fighters so a medium to large ship carrying a few fighters could easily support these roles.

Also in terms of stations I think it would make a lot more sense to have a war declaration that would remove the safezones of stations at least in terms of the factions involved as its a war so trying to arrange pre-arranged battles is a bit ridiculous.