first off, Astax, I HAVE ENTRENCHMENT you ass, i was involved in the beta, go look at other threads of mine about entrenchment, otherwise i dont know how to prove it to you but if i could do so convincingly then i would
there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to come in here and slam ideas when you dont have all the facts. i DO have entrenchment, and my style of using SC has not changed since i played the original recipie Sins! if you have nothing better to do than come in here and call ppl names, maybe you should go and play some more Sins, or go outside some more.
secondly, RandomRetard, if you mean nerfing carriers as in nerfing the SC, then fine, i concede the point, but the point remains, every arguement for making them more suceptible has come up with the same coutner arguements. hey, honestly, making them easier to kill isnt a bad idea, but... look, im thinking of starwars here, when they assualt the deathsar (just seems like a good example) how was it that the bombers managed to get close enough to bomb? because the enemy fighter pilots were too busy taking out the alliance fighters and trying not to get shot at themselves.... until we can write AI code that can make a decision between fighting the fighters, hunting bombers or staying alive, making bombers and fighters easier to kill just makes them live shorter... to be honest, i dont see the diff between my objective and yours. if anything, making SC more suceptible to weapons fire would be nerfing more so than my ideas, because refueling a fighter would surely take less time than building a new one (barring that Sova ability). once again and i cannot stress this enough, these ideas are to STOP SC BEING SO OVERPOWERING! there is no other ship in the game that is as overpowering as massed bombers on a concentrated run. now, if you dont have anti SC support, well it does not matter what changed we make, you are still going to get your ass handed to you, but, the current state is that unless you spam enough flak frigs and fighters, you cant stop a 56 craft strong fleet of bombers, and even then, enough will get through to still cause damage. lets say you have 56 fighters... you now have no capacity to field bombers! just because you try to fight off his massive bomber push. there are lots of other little details why i think mine ar egood ideas, but i wont go into it here.
also, i ignored the tweak to the UI because i dont think its a bad idea, it could work... but then we'd need to add some command abilities to tell the fighters to attack only fighters, only bombers, everyone etc etc, and like i said above, until the fighters can be intuitive, its not the most effecient solution. not a bad idea though, id like to be able to control my bombers and fighters seperately when the side bar is clicked on, but for the moment, i just find a bomber and press alt and click on him, works the same, even if it takes a bit longer.
thirdly, Mortensenii, i realise that fighters atm are effective against a few frigates (i think, maybe its only the lrf?) in any case, why should bombers not be effective? this is my dilemma in this case, you have a small frigate, carries, what? a few hundred people? it has armor and shields and mitigation, AND its huge, relative to the fighter. so lets look at the fighter, its a one man craft, we can assume its of relative size to modern day craft... lets say its as big as a current space shuttle, just to compensate for the scale of the rest of the ships. how big could its weapons possibly be? i mean, the larger the gun the larger the ammo it fires, the less ammo to be had... lets say the fighter is rapid firing 120mm high explosive shells... now thats huge, and i could imagine it doing some considerable damage... but a fighter carrying 120mm shells? aside from the fact that firing such a weapon on such a small craft would most likely negate a LARGE amont of its forward momentum (ill get back to this in the next point) its only a small ship, looking at how fast the fighter fires in game, his ammo would be expended extremely quickly.
on the other hand, lets say he fires 20mm shells, much smaller, but still with a respectable damage output, and, of course, their smaller size allows for more ammo capacity and when fired wont negate the momentum of the ship as much. again, lets look at the LRF - shields, armor, mitigation, sheer size, i cant see 20mm shells doing much damage... i realise the logic of it, you have a frigate with respectable damage potential sitting way out of range of most other ships, you send in fighters to close the distance quickly and take it out... however the reality of it does not make sense.... in my opinion... taking out these larger frigates and cruisers should be a job best left to bombers with their heavier weapons. besides, the extra damage output of bombers would most likely counter-act the extra time it takes for them to arrive. so, to answer your question... and im trying not to be overly hostile or anything, but i think that this suceptibility in LRF's to fighters is wrong in the first place, but its nothing that cant be swapped over to bombers without too much hassle... to be honest, the whole idea was to make fighters focus on attacking bombers and other fighters
lastly, StarFallArmada, the fuel question has not been shown moot, Hack78's arguement was negated by his own logic, if you had read all the posts, you would have seen that. true, it does not have to burn fuel all the time to stay aloft, but we're not talking about staying aloft are we? we're talking about moving forward and changing direction, and for that to happen effeciently, and in a way that wont get your ass shot off ,you need to have a constant forward momentum which means keeping your engines firing at least 90% of the time. unless engines in Sins can shut down and restart and provide sufficient thrust to overcome inertia in the time it takes for the pilot to move the control stick, then its much easier and practical to keep the engines firing... remember these ships are in a dogfight, they're not like the current space shuttle that stays where it is until it needs to move. to concede a point, fine, while the SC are approaching the battle, and we are assuming they fly in a straight line, then yes, they would not need their engines to be powered up at all times, but while fighting and when retreating, they would need their engines on, means burning fuel.
i mention above about weapons fire negating forward momentum. did you know that the American A-10 Thunderbolt 2 'Warthog' jet aircraft carries a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun, that, if fired for a long enough period, can stall the A-10's twin General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines.
think about it, a single gun firing can stall 2 very powerful engines so that the aricraft will eventually fall out of the sky. now, granted, the Warthog does not carry enough ammo for that to happen and nor does he fire it for long enough, however, in space, we can assume that fighters will fire longer, and from greater distances, and, due to the lack of gravity, the kickback effect of the weapons is increased, especially if the engines arent constantly firing.
You used the example of Anti-Grav and and Inertial Dampening. firstly, Anti-grav does not affect ships in space, at all. secondly, inertial dampening does not completely negate the effects of inertia, (you cant completely break the laws of physics) and besides, i thought that the only reason a space craft doesnt need to burn its engines is because it has inertia? now you want to dampen it? the only reason you would want that is to make the fighter stop quicker... but... we're in a dogfight, you dont want to stop...
now, thankyou for your ammo comment, its nice to have someone agree with me, and one of the other changes i propoposed is that SC cant be launched by the player, but rather that they are launched automatically when enemy forces are detected.
lastly, the SC build time, i agree its not a completely necessary change, but one i threw in there for the sake of it... my reasoning was: why do we as commanders decide to retreat our frigates and larger and not just kamakaze them? then i thought, because they take time and resources to build again, and, for capital ships, theres the whole matter of getting new cap ships to leve up again. so, i was thinking the same for SC, make a decision to pull them back because once they are destroyed you can feel the loss and it makes you want to command them better, rather than throwing them into the grinder. but, honestly, its not a necessary change, and some people might see it as too much micro-ing so, i agree.
one thing id like to mention... sawakaki mentioned that the most fuel is used up on take off. in atmosphere thats correct, because you have to build up enough speed to fly effeciently (thats why commercial airliners fly at a certain height, because it is fuel effecient.) in space however, you would still need more fuel to beat the initial inertia, but alot less fuel than that of a plane in atmosphere. its just like a car, has anyone noticed that on long drives your fuel effeciency increases as opposed to driving around the CBD where you are stopping and starting all the time? same principal applies here, except that you also have to use fuel to slow down as well as to start moving. given, as has been seen in battlestar galactica, ships can be launched catapault style, and considering the greater distances, its not a bad thing to be slingshot into the action.
however, and i cant emphasise this enough. in order to fly around like a SC in space, you have to keep your momentum up and that is done by keeping the engines firing. if anyone has played Freelancer you would know, keeping the engines firing gives you control and lets you turn, but if fyou shut down your engines, all you can do is move to the left and right a bit and spin on the spot while still moving in your original direction. ALL this, means, quite simply, fuel will run out. AND, if you want to say that Sins engines dont need fuel (explain it however you will, thats not the point) then fine, but no perpetual engine can account for unlimited ammo, and that! will need to be replenished.
once again, i want to make clear that this idea is simply to make SC a game tactic, not an all encompasing, nearly unbeatable game winner all by its lonesome. you should have to worry about SC hounding you, enough to make you consider anti-SC protection seriously, but you should not have to worry about a fleet jumping in on the opposite of the gravity well and sitting there while its X hundreds of bombers strafe you into teeny tiny pieces before you get halfway around the planet, taking out all your structures and starbase from well out of range, then moving onto the next planet and the next planet.