I think people here are nitpicking at the idea and then pretending the idea sucks.
To Marc Paris, Star Destroyer's are not Carriers they are more like Kol's and Kol's can carry 1-2 SC which is fine. Sova is more like a Battlestar, where it carries multiple SC wings.We all know how a Battlestar has a lot of SC, plus unrivalled Flak capabilities ripping apart any Cylons getting in the Flak shield. (so no its not weak against SC)
So your analogy fails. Completely. Really and why are we putting such unflexible lines when we're dealing with Sci-fi?
To The Federation, I already mentioned the Halcyon might be an exception due to its good abilities but why don't be go try that with the Sova and the Vasari Carrier? This is an logicall fallacy, you think: Oh, I build Halcyon's (while playing only Advent) and do well with them so Dorian position must be wrong.Nevermind the state of the two other carrier caps.
You making them doesn't mean they still aren't as effective as they should be. That is also a logical fallacy, just because something "works" doesn't mean it should be something else.
Most people here seem to argee, Capital Carriers should be better while at the same time not being useless. Fine, they are not useless, but they still should be better. Esp. the Sova, and the Vasari Carrier. I hope the developer's see this.
Capital Carrier's should start out with 4 Strike Craft, maxing out at 9/10 and get a general buff to their shields and hp by 15% along with all capital ships in general. As someone already noted, capital carriers suck, but its an extension of all capital ships sucking right now. I agree with this, in my other trend to give capital ships a slight buff to their hp/shields.
This is not unreasonable. The firepower of a single carrier cap vs. 6 Light Carriers you could make instead is ridiculous. If you are against this, then you are just promoting the continued crappyness of capital ships vs. spam.
To any that opposes my proposition, speak out and do your worst, for I shall do mine. Un guarde.