Following along the same lines as in the Maulers Revisited thread, here's my groups thoughts on carriers.

As has been pointed out by more than some (with some justification, I should say), the current carrier damage rules are a little hard to equate with the SFB rules. We agree. While a carrier escort can do a wonderful job against incoming fighters and drones and such, it's devilishly difficult to shoot down a beam of light.

Here's our thoughts.

We think the current system is pretty •••• good and only really needs a bit of tweaking. What we'd like to see is a way to represent the fact that carrier escorts do have an ability to make it harder to simply blow away the carrier and yet leave open the option if an attacker wants to spend the points.

1) We propose that the restrictions on targetting be lifted, so that any ship in a group can be targetted.

2) Escort defence benefit changed so that the cost to direct on an escort is dependent on the position of the escort within the group.

- All escorts would receive a defence benefit of +1 per escort in the group, not including the escort under attack

- Outermost escort would receive a bonus of +1 defence, next escort +2, and so on.

EX: The innermost escort in a group with 3 escorts would receive a defence bonus of 2 (for the other two escorts) +3 (for being the third escort in), for a total bonus of +5.

3) The carrier would receive the form bonus.


This would let any ship in the group be attacked, not simply the outer escort, as well as ignoring the group to attack the carrier. If someone wants to spend 36 points to waste the typical CVS, go ahead.

Thought? Comments? Recommandations to submit myself and my partner in crime to the Roman Inquisition?

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:26 am: Edit

It's better than your mauler suggestion. However, please note that a typical CVS is worth 22EP and you are now making it as easy to kill as a DN which isn't in the formation bonus.

I'd certainly go ahead and kill it. Willingly. i actually think carriers are much further back in the battle. Their compot is artifically inflated a little, maybe because they get to use their guns at good range on enemy straggelers, maybe because fighters are much more dangerous than F&E represents when they attack bases.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 07:29 am: Edit

I don't think SVC was thinking of changes along these lines. I think he mentioned changing the Retrograde aspect of the carriers during CEDS phase.

My thoughts here:

Eliminate the Retro for CEDS (especially duing the Non-phasing turn). Since you have already have a retrograde step in the Phasing side of the game there is no need for Carriers to use this feature.

Allow the Repair ships that are possibly going to be on map real soon to operate in a Field Combat Repair mode every turn during Field Repair. The repair ships could move to the hex where carriers are as long as they are within 3 hexes of a SMN. This would help keep the carrier fleets in shape while having them not jumping all over the map mysteriously.

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 08:21 am: Edit

I suggested something along these lines a while ago and it was shot down so don't be suprised if something similar happens to this proposal.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 10:46 am: Edit

Yep, same here, I proposed this 3 or 5 years ago, with similar results. Still, maybe SVC will take a new look this time, and I still believe it would do well for the game system to have carriers dying more often.

However, your idea crashes when you have the carrier get only the formation bonus. They die to easily. About the only time I wouldn't direct upon a carrier is when you are defending your capital. Over your starbase, I'll gladly waste 36 damage to kill your CVS. Open space, I'll cripple your CVA for 36, even if I was unsure of killing it in pursuit - just driving it off the line is enough benefit.

What I've been using for years is as follows, (but perhaps I need to revisit my own rules as well)

Small escorts give a +1 escort bonus. Large escorts give a +2. Ad-hoc escorts help hold the carrier group formation together, but does not give any escort bonus.

Outermost escorts can be directed upon at 2:1, then add the total escort bonus. Inner escorts direct at 3:1, then add the escort bonus.

Carriers can be directed upon for 3:1, but you add the escort bonus *before* you triple the amount. Therefore, the CVS, with CWE and FFE would take 8+4+2+1, times 3, 45 points to kill. Still a good deal long term, but much harder to achieve. Maulers cannot be used directly against the carrier (though it could still be used as usual against the whole carrier group).

This system has worked wonders for me over the last few years, though I've added a few bells and whistles of which I won't bore you with unless there is real interest. However, I'm beginning to question how well it would work in "modern F&E". The firepowers have risen sharply since the point I developed this system, and by late war, 45 points becomes too easy to achieve.

Now of course, this isn't necessarily a bad thing - carrier kills at the end of the war seems almost appropriate, since X-ships are making carriers absolete anyway. And who will spend 45 points to kill a carrier in the waning days of the war?

But if I find that CVS's are dying like flies in the mid-war (and I haven't, but I'm not using all the currect F&E rules and available ships, so my data is incomplete), then obviously my system would need to be updated to carry on with the changes to F&E. One of my biggest concerns is directing to cripple the CVS (8+2+1 x3 = 33 points), then kill in pursuit (4+2+1 x3 = 21 points). A solid mid-war pursuit force could do such a thing, and now you have a carrier death per lost battle, too high a casualty rate, IMO.

So let's look at another system, and you tell me what you think:

You can direct upon the carrier at 2:1 (plus escort bonuses, as before), but in addition to that, it takes an additional amount of damage equal to the defensive value of all the escorts combined. Therefore, to kill the CVS it would take (8+4+2+1 x2 then +7+6 for CWE,DWE = 43 points to kill). A slight drop in total damage, but under the old system, an extra CWE to pad the group would only account for an extra 6 points to kill, while in this system it would account for 4+7 extra to kill, rewarding overstuffed carrier groups more.

Or how about making the CV groups more like troopship groups. Direct to cripple the group, then kill the carrier. CVS(CWE,DWE) would take 8+7+6 x2 = 42 to cripple, and for 8 more you kill the carrier. Much harder to cripple (though no different than how it is now), but he carrier dies in pursuit easily. You'd never voluntarily cripple a carrier anymore. Plus, you crippled the escorts along with your dirdam attack, which did not occur under the other systems.

Maybe an amalgamation of these ideas can be done? Or somebody else post a new idea?

Thoughts?


One thing, that I've said before and I'll say again: If carriers are easier to kill, we will have less carrier builds, and more carrier deaths, and thus overall less fighters available to burn. Less fighters means more damage on ships, which means either more ship kills, or more repair costs which means less ship builds. Fleets shrink in size as more actual damage is scored, and as the fleets shrink, you are more likely to have to use everything in your fleet on the line, which means your carriers go back into battle, even short of escorts. Which of course, means more carrier kills... A vicious circle, and one that is good for the game, IMO.

So you're on the right track, you just need to tweak your numbers just a tad.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Folks, anyone who says carriers do not die should really take a look at my online games and count the carriers dead.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:46 pm: Edit

It's funny, because we talked about having the carrier get the form bonus plus a defence bonus per escort and a positional bonus, but never included it in the proposal because we had no desire to be excoriated by the 'you're just trying to make Alliance carriers live' crowd

It's not the intention to cause more carrier casualties with this proposal, but rather to introduce more of a risk to these beasties than currently exists.

Personally, I'd have no problem adding the escort and positional bonuses to the carrier's defence (much like the scout self-defence ability) before making the form bonus calculation.

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:48 pm: Edit

THe only change I'd like to see with carriers is just the removal of CEDS replacement and CEDS repair. And honestly I'm not even too fond of seeing those change as I personally think both sides (Coal and Alliance) get the same benefit from the rule.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Chris, I think you are a bit of an outlier on the statistical distribution of carrier kills.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:36 pm: Edit

For the record, I'm with Jimi on not wishing to see CEDS removed; it's a neutral rule. Though I suppose it would have much the same effect, if coming at the problem from the opposite direction.

Personally, I prefer putting every ship on the line at immediate mortal risk. With tradeoffs, certainly, but no ship should be immune from death at any time, if the enemy has enough damage points and the will to kill something.

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Just to throw an curve ball out there (this may even have been suggested before it seems oddly familiary). How about you can DD the carrier which gets a form bonus but you also have to DD the fighters (only one squadron if carrier has several) first (no form bonus) as part of the same attack.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 05:14 pm: Edit

The CEDS rule is neutral as everyone gets to use it, however the EFFECT is different based on available resources. If a race has more carriers it can CEDS retrograde more often and is more agile. If a race has more money (and conversion capacity) it can better afford CEDS repairs and replacements.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 06:16 pm: Edit

CEDS is grossly pro-alliance in the first four turns. It's about all that keeps the kzintis in the game. After that, it evens out.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 07:06 pm: Edit

Does CEDS make escorts easier to kill, or does it just make carriers impossibly hard? If you could kill an escort in CEDS more quickly than it if were just in the battlefleet, that might make CEDS work a lot differently. (i.e. the escorts valiantly interpose themselves between the enemy and the carrier; that means they take more damage because they can't maneuver as freely.)

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 07:36 pm: Edit

I can't really see any justification for requiring the fighters to be DD'd on as part of attacking the carrier, not unless the SWAC protection mission becomes available even to non-SWAC units, and all that would do would be to grant a +1 defence/six fighter factors.

I think that the issue of CEDS retro/repair is a seperate one from what we're talking about in this thread.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 08:01 pm: Edit

You know, I seem to remember from back on the GEnie discussion board that when CARRIER WARS came out, with the flexible escort rules, the whole CEDS thing would be changed as it was intended as a way to make up for the fixed groups. {shrug}


Garth L. Getgen

By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 10:09 pm: Edit

SVC, I agree that CEDS is grossly pro-alliance in the first few turns of the game. No surprise, the coalition doesn't have many carriers, and the Kzinti is a carrier race. Of course it's pro-alliance on those turns.

It is not, however "... about the only thing that keeps the kzintis in the game ..."

Yes, the CEDS retrograde does reduce the amount of field repair required to keep the fleet at maximum effectiveness while falling back, but it's not that big a deal, assuming you're using flexible carrier groups.

Just send new-construction/freshly repaired escorts to the battle hex you send the carrier to, and send the crippled elements back. The CVSs aren't about to get crippled in the opening turns, just the escorts. Ad-hoc as necessary, and carry on.

It's realistically not that big a deal.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 10:34 pm: Edit

I think that the issue of CEDS retro/repair is a seperate one from what we're talking about in this thread."

LOL!

Then I guess we need to call the inquisition due to the fact that SVC has said he would use the mauler revision as a counter to the CEDS retrograde thing.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:04 am: Edit

Lar, CEDS repair/retro has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal, though. The presence or absence of that portion of CEDS really would have no effect on what we've proposed.

It's also dubious that any changes to maulers can or should be linked to changes to CEDS.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 07:32 am: Edit

Yeah, for a long time, alliance players offered to trade Ceds retrograde for maulers, but after a few turns, everybody uses ceds retro and it's no big deal, but the coalition maulers work the whole game. Basically, it was another attempt to bamboozle me into a rules change that would hand the game to the alliance.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 07:35 am: Edit

"It's also dubious that any changes to maulers can or should be linked to changes to CEDS."

Whether or not this is true is not our decision to make. It's always been discussed it a related manner because the Mauler is one of the Coalition goodies that allows them to kill more ships and assault more bases/ground defenses at a an advantege. The Carrier force (more pointedly the fighters) of the Alliance in the early war has always been the reason the races survive until the East siders can come in to save them. CEDS Ret/Rep may not have anything to do with this proposal but I think most would agree that if an Auto-kill AND what you are proposing is put in place the game would be hopelessly off-balance. Even with the reduction in Mauler strength.

Oh yeah BTW. Marc:
It is not, however "... about the only thing that keeps the kzintis in the game ..."

This statement is dead wrong. If the Kzn do not have the ability to move their carrier force around and repair/reshuffle it, there clearly would be a one-sided reduction ships in their defense of the Hegemony. They would lack the ability to take damage against their fighters where they need to. All hopes of seriuos counter-assaults would be reduced to AFTER they rebuild their capital off map. We only know this because we used to play the CEDS rules incorrectly and didnt allow the Kzinti to do what they do now.

To Alan and all:
Why do you discount the information from CFant's game? He is an extremely capable player. Why should that be held against him (or anyone else for that matter)?
He and I have played (albeit a shortend game) and he builds fleets and battle lines extremely well. His attacks are well thought out (due to his years of wargaming experience). I never get why players who Master the rules and their own strategic situations to defeat an opponent get shoved into the category of Exception. WHY? Joe & Pete (and others) used to get the same treatment...and although I was not part of the online past (GENIE days) I'll bet Frank Crull, Bill Walter, and Owen Riley used to get it too.

Instead of discounting his (and others) play, lesser players should be looking for insights to help themselves get better. I don't know why this attitude persists but it does and its a problem. The fact is that most of us play this game in a vaccuum, that is to say against ourselves or 1-2 other opponents. The only influx of new tactics and strategies is through Conventions, the CLog, or this BBS from the wide range of skills and ideas available.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 07:41 am: Edit

I think that balance has to be designed for "the common current strategy" which, due to this BBS, is the Dimitri-Strong strategy. Are players of that type an exception? Well, the best guy on the bell curve is certainly out there by himself.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 07:50 am: Edit

Having read much of this and skimmed the rest, I can say that....

1. The general concept of being able to shoot the carrier without shooting the escorts one at a time first isn't dead on arrival.

2. It should be harder to shoot a carrier than any other ship.

Come up with a way to do it and I'll consider it. But hey, let's outlaw maulers from whatever "carrier kill concept" you come up with.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 09:03 am: Edit

OK here's my try.

Rules for tageting escorted carriers.

1) Maulers or X-ships cannot be used against escorted carriers unless they are targeting the entire carrier group. (the escorts and fighters will sacrifice themselves against a mauler to save the carrier).

2) To direct-cripple an escorted carrier, you must spent an amount equal to double the sum of its defence factor, current fighter factors, and number of escorts, counting 2 for each heavy escort.

The fighters are destroyed by this action.

3) To direct-kill an escorted carrier, you need addtional damage equal to double the carrier's crippled defence factor.

e.g. to kill a Kzinti CVE escorted by an EFF, you need (6+3+1)*2 + (3*2) = 26 points.
If it escorted by a CLE as well, you need 30 points.
If it had no fighters left, you would only need 20 points.

Note that this makes fighter-heavy carriers such as the D6U relatively difficult to kill by Dirdam, which I hope can be seen as realistic (driving though the fighters of a D6U would be painful).

This also makes the carrier vulnerable if its fighters are already blown up. Again, I would like to think that the carrier group joint defence concept would be compromised if there are no fighters.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:11 am: Edit

Sorry for referencing SFB some much but it is possible to attack a carrier and not have anything the carrier escorts can do about it in SFB. HOWEVER, this is generally only with long ranged direct fire.

So, I'd suggest you can DirDam to a carrier one point per round but for triple cost (3 to 1) with out the escorts being damaged first. Beyond that you must get by the escorts.

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:14 am: Edit

Loren, let me make sure I understand that above proposal/suggestion. The average CVS has a compot of 10, so the attacker can, at 3-1, take 10 rounds of damage to cripple the CVS off the line?

Few battles in F&E last 10 rounds unless over major points (strategically important SB's and HW's are two of the few long turn engagements).

Most of the battles I've been involved in last no more then 2-4 rounds for minor/average fights and sometimes 7-9 rounds for the average SB.

Here is my suggestion (not that I think carriers need to be easier to kill)

Currently the player has three options to remove carriers from the battle line. Option A is CEDS kill the outer escort at one per battle round. The average carrier has from 2-4 escorts so it'll normally take from 1-2 rounds before the owning player replaces the carrier with something else. Option B is to DD cripple the entire group. This option is typically hard to accomplish as it takes usually around 40ish damage to DD cripple an entire group. Option C is to DD kill an entire carrier group, this is obviously even harder then option B as it'll take around 60 at minimum to DD kill a group.

My proposal is to allow the player the option of DD'ing not just the outer escort but to continue to DD cripple/kill othe escorts from the same carrier. Each successively internal escort can only be crippled unless each of its outer escorts has been killed. I.E. You cannot kill the MEC off of CVS+MEC+FKE unless you've already killed the FKE. This is the only time, other then DD cripple killing the entire escorted group or pursuing a force, where you can DD more then one target at a time.

What this does is makes it slightly easier to remove carriers from the battle line without making carriers too easy to kill (they are after all a significant EP cost to create, normally around 20% of the races entire turns EP output).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:19 am: Edit

Well, curently you can't damage it at all without first destrying the escorts, right?

So, if you're looking to damage the carrier early on you can but probably won't kill it unless you kill the escorts then you can finish the carrier off.

You might also be able to criple it.

By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:32 am: Edit

I think that balance has to be designed for "the common current strategy" which, due to this BBS, is the Dimitri-Strong strategy.

I would love to see a definition of this and/or any other commonly accepted strategies. Perhaps someone could post a link or quick glossary in the strategy forum?

I've found that for all the information and conversations saved here, it can be bloody difficult to find any distilled information.

Thanks

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:35 am: Edit

The problem with that idea is that there is no 'defined game winning strategy' because each game is different (which is what makes it fun). A strategy type may work against one opponent or work in a game group, but against a new opponent or a new group may fail completely. A good player has to keep all his options open and take advantage of both 'localized tactical situations' and keep his eyes open for long term strategical positionings.

By John Robinson (John_R) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Ben - The referenced Dimitri-Strong strategy is more commonly called the "Mudslide". Basically the Coalition spends the first 6 turns harrasing the Kzinti and Hydrans without actually attacking any well defended points, thus avoiding large amounts of cripples or kills. They then use this large fleet to steamroll the Feds.

Some say it is unstpoppable. Others say that it is very much stoppable. Others think it depends on the conditions of the game and players involved. Like Jimi said, the options in this game are nearly limitless.

By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Ah, OK - Mudslide I am familiar with. It was the 'Dimitri-Stong' reference that eluded me.

I have not yet played on either side of a true Mudslide game. From the coalition perspective it has always seemed to me that leaving the Kzinti and Hydran fleets and capital planets intact is just asking for the 'Death of a Thousand Needles' (fighter attrition ftw!).

I have certainly been following this current thread with interest because as the allied player in a couple recent games, I have accumulated a large number of Kzinti CV groups that have yet to suffer a carrier loss. CEDS retrograde was essential in the first couple turns, for me to be able to field two full reserve groups each turn.

I think a change to allow direction on multiple escorts in a single round (starting with outside first, of course) would be feasible. Certainly a shift in favor of the coalition in my mind, because a shift in early-war balance can have huge impacts on the overall course of the game.

Perhaps if this were done in conjunction with limiting the ability of Maulers to fire on uncrippled mobile units then balance would be maintained.

The other parallel discussion that has be a bit more concerned for the Kzinti and Hydrans is the auto-kill rule. They are SO strapped for ships to resist the initial coalition onslaught. To me the 'it only triggers when the coalition does not DD a ship, and so it is a wash' argument doesn't really fly. Before the coalition had to choose between reducing the hull count at the cost of some total damage, or letting it fall, but leaving hulls intact. Now they can let the damage fall for maximum impact, while still being guaranteed kills. Yes this goes both ways, but one early allied ship is a MUCH greater percentage of their fleet than one early coalition ship.

Sorry to post all this here, but it all seems related to me, and I didn't think it would be useful to post it multiple times in different threads. 8^O

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Either we say that maulers can't maul carriers unless the carrier is alone and justify it as a game balance mechanic (which is perfectly valid), or we allow maulers to maul an escorted carrier but make the penalty to the mauler extreme, from automatic destruction to allowing the mauler to be attacked at 1:1 as a free DD attack that round as well as having the mauler suffer auto-shock if it is not attacked.

Scoring one point per round on an escorted carrier just won't work, I think. The whole point of the proposal is to make carriers less invulnerable, though difficult to destroy, when they have a functioning escort group.

I also don't think the survival of the fighters has anything to do with whether the carrier can be targetted or not. Perhaps we should look at some sort of escort mission for the fighters, though, along the lines of the SWAC escort mission, with each 6 fighter factors assigned granting a +1 defence to the carrier, or +1 defence to each the ship in the group.

In addition, give the carrier a +1 defence bonus for each true light escort, +2 for each true heavy escort in the group, and a positional bonus of +1 per escort (including ad-hocs).

Taking the 'standard' 8-point CVS with a heavy and light escort, that would mean the carrier would require 8x3 (form bonus), +1 (light escort), +2 (heavy escort), +2 (position bonus for 2 escorts), for a total damage required to cripple of 29 points and a further 4x3, +1, +2, +2 = 17 to destroy.

Another option would be to add the bonuses to the defence factor before applying the 3:1 effect.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 04:44 pm: Edit

John

Fighters launch drone/plasma or are just plain dangerous like stingers. While they cannot stop direct fire, they can make sure said firepower comes from further away if the carrier is under a potential threat.
From an SFB standpoint, in order for the carrier to get any kind of defensive bonus, it must be falling back behind its escorts and fighters anyway. So, in order to get a good R15 firing solution on a carrier, you will be an uncomfortable 5 hexes or closer to the fighters...

Frankly, any sane SFB player would deal with the fighters first.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Which is why I proposed the figher protection mission, David. Yes, it's something of an abstraction, and I'm okay with that. Tactical games do not port to strategic exactly, nor should they try. Even if they should, and even if F&E should reflect SFB exactly, I still oppose requiring the fighters to be targetted in order to destroy the carrier. Who's to say that the fighters are utilizing the tactics you outlined? What if the fighters are off on some other corner of the SFB map, for example?

I just want to find a middle ground between where carriers are now in F&E and where they are in SFB and I think that requiring the fighters be destroyed in order to cripple the carrier is going too far to the SFB side.

What about tying the fate of any fighters assigned a CAP mission to the carrier? Any CAP fighters are destroyed/crippled along with the carrier?

By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Let's keep this simple if we can. The game is huge enough as is, remember a game played out can last upwards of 1 years time.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Simple. Give an escorted carrier the equivalent of the Formation Bonus that is immune to mauler effect and give it the escort bonus vs DD (+1 for each true escort). That makes most CVs slightly harder to kill at (8+4)*3+2=38 points than to cripple a DN in form bonus. The Kzinti CV would take (10+5)*3+2=47 points to kill making it a truly hard target to nail. CVAs would take (12+6)*3+3=57 or more points to one shot kill.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:03 am: Edit

Let's not forget that this proposal is not just about targetting carriers. It's about being able to target ANY ship in the group. That's the reason for including different escort defence bonuses as well as a positional bonus.

By James Chou (Jchou) on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 02:38 am: Edit

Personally,I would make carriers targetable by direct damage but with ecort bonus applied before x2. However, the fighter should be free for the replacement carrier (since the infrastructure is not destroyed magically).

This make a CV slightly harder to destroy than a BC, at the cost of a BC -- which is about right and conforms with SFB.

To restore game balance, give Kzinti and Hydran mothball reserve of 4x(CA+CL/DD+FF) to compensate for the CA hull loss at beginning of the game. I would rather deal with more ships than immortal carriers for the whole game.