bear in mind that hangars have many hitpoints. that makes them more cost effective than mobile carriers when you compare the costs. after all, mobility should have its price. that's not to say that the thought hasn't occurred to me before, but I'd say they are more or less okay now, in particular with the nice upgrades they get in entrenchment.

Considering that mitigation is the primary reason this is useful, it's not necessarily a good idea to build more than one, though.  There's also the issue of the additional shields not stacking (1 hangar defense = +750 shields, but 5 hangar defenses = +750 shields), which may or may not be a bug.

Granted, you might want to keep two around anyway just so you don't lose the shields and mitigation when the first one is destroyed, but beyond that, it's less relevant.

By comparison, the Vasari's hangar ability to essentially disable enemy strikecraft and TEC's flak gun upgrades would be useful with every hangar defense built.  Personally I think the Vasari's is the most valuable, but obviously there will be differing opinions on that.

I'm not arguing against hangars in general, though, and do feel that strikecraft defenses are relatively albeit not completely balanced at the moment.

If the starbase hangar upgrades don't get more squadrons, they'll never be worth choosing.

no b/c the flack connons arent the best and take a wile to clear even one squad of fighters and bombers. when the reference data is released i'll play with the base hangers and see if i can give all hanger upgrades as default since bases get raped by bombers as is.

I think a physical upgrade cost to the platform like the SB. Just to add SC sounds marvalous.