I love you.
1 Like
Pouk, your designs are gorgeous, so please don’t take this the wrong way… but why do we need a ship class between destroyers and battlecruisers?
Granted: it’s your mod and everything, but if I were gonna do it, I’d want to see cruisers as hybrids between destroyers and carriers – say, half the firepower of a destroyer, half the docking capacity of a carrier – but you get dock-repair capability for your strike craft. So, two cruisers could take a destroyer, but they’d also be able to support a task force of fighters or corvettes.
This would provide an interesting transition for strike-craft-heavy early game compositions, yes?
Battlestar Galactica?
Well, the concept started pre-beta balance mod, when the BCs had 240 000 HP and DDs 85 000 HP and the Cruisers served as a buffer for the allmighty Battlecruisers. The gap was really big there, both in firepower and in simply just size:
Now in the balance mod the transition is softer. Yet it still takes two Destroyers to kill a Cruiser and two Cruisers to kill a Battlecruiser. So as you can see, the gap is stil noticeable.
Another thing is that if it has half the firepower of a Destroyer, I can’t possibly justify calling it a Cruiser in the first place.
Plus I can’t imagine how this could be an early unit. If you wanted it in the early game, would you have it without any research, like the Carrier?
What you describe here would be a battle carrier. Some extra carriers are planned for the second wave of ships post realease.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you – life went crazy.
Yeah, a “battle carrier” (without the construction capabilities) is PRECISELY what I was talking about, regardless of pre- or post- patch balance. The way I saw it, it would be on the same research tier as destroyers, but occupy a more flexible niche, which would help players support their strike craft into the late game.
As for ship nomenclature, there’s an extent to which Homeworld is all over the place – frigates are small, destroyers are medium, and carriers/CCs (battlecruisers)/CHs (heavy cruisers) appear to all be super-heavy. Moreover, they also seem to be distinguished by subsystems: frigates have no subsystems; destroyers and heavy cruisers have engines that can be destroyed; and CCs and carriers have all kinds of subsystems that can be built and destroyed.
I tend to see ships in terms of role:
- Destroyers are frigate-killers (mostly)
- Carrier manufacture things, drop off resources, and dock strike craft
- Heavy cruisers kill destroyers and other capital ships; battlecruisers have the same function but they also dock strike craft
To me, adding a “battle carrier” into the mix on the same tier as destroyers would really shake things up, because you could project force with it but also support (or transition out of) an early game that was heavy on strike craft.
Again, though: YOUR IDEAS. YOUR WORK. YOUR MOD. I cannot emphasize this enough – I am a deplorable tinkerer and busybody.
True story: at one point, I considered getting into Warhammer 40K tabletop… and abandoned the idea when I realized that the basic rules weren’t good enough for me. Instead, I designed a homebrew module that allows me to use Dream Pod 9’s Silhouette rules to play Shadowrun. Much better use of my time. =)
If something like that would be made, it would be quite later. But let’s discuss it further.
I’d like to hear your solid placement of the ship within the Homeworld 2 framework, considering I see my mod as an expansion.
So, the building prerequisities and unitcaps, what’s your idea?
If you want it early game, in the Destroyer’s timing, I would make it unlocked automatically when Destroyers are researched. It has half the firepower according to you, so it doesn’t break anything.
Yet I would really put it into the Carrier unitcaps. Firstly, they never fill up anyway, secondly, you don’t want to block your Destroyer’s caps by weaker ships, DD’s firepower is too important for that.
Or would you have it as a cheaper separate research next to the Destroyer research? So you could have it even earlier?
If we’re going to call it a battle carrier instead of a light cruiser, then I would almost certainly add it under the carrier’s unit cap. I agree with you: they never fill up anyway – the only time I remotely approach that is as the Vaygr, since they only get one production subsystem per carrier.
I see it as very cheap destroyer-tier research – something you could research and build very quickly after building your first capital ship subsystem (or, if Taiidan/Kushan, available as soon as you research Super-Capital Ship Drive; note that Ion Cannon Research is now a requirement to unlock Destroyers in the new patch).
I see the Battle Carrier as having roughly half the docking capacity of a carrier, so it could literally carry strike craft into a hot zone and deploy them there.
With regard to weapons, I see them as having mid-range armament at roughly half the firepower of a Destroyer:
-
Kushan/Taiidan: 6x assault frigate turrets (for anti-corvette coverage), 4-8x plasma bomb launchers (for anti-frigate work)
-
Hiigaran: 2x Destroyer turrets, 2x Pulsar turrets
-
Vaygr: 2x missile tubes, 2x Plasma Lances
This gives it enough punch to be a threat against corvettes and frigates, but not enough to seriously threaten a destroyer on its own. I imagine its speed and maneuverability to be slightly better than a Destroyer’s.
The real trick would be finding the right balance of durability.
It’s funny – in writing the above specifications, what I’m basically describing is a destroyer-sized assault frigate with a docking bay. =D
Thoughts?
EDIT: Okay, just for funzies, art suggestions to follow =)
1 Like
Okay, here goes:
Some design notes:
-
All four battle carriers are designed with mid-range firepower in mind; they each have weapons systems that are good against corvettes and weapons systems that are good against frigates or even destroyers. The Vaygr battle carrier has two dorsal missile launch tubes that behave similarly to those of the Vaygr Missile Frigate; it also has dorsal and ventral plasma lance turrets for defense against corvettes and close assault against frigates. The Hiigaran battle carrier has dorsal and ventral heavy turrets comparable to those of the Hiigaran Destroyer, as well as flank-mounted pulsar turrets, again for defense against corvettes and close assault against frigates. The Taiidan and Kushan battle carriers have four nose-mounted plasma bomb launchers that are a serious threat to frigates; likewise, they have six assault frigate-style turrets that are dangerous to corvettes and capable of pecking frigates to death or occasionally sniping fighters. All four ships are envisioned as vessels intended to face their targets when attacking (none of this cumbersome broadside stuff!).
-
The Vaygr battle carrier’s plasma lances are mounted in enlarged Vaygr Assault Frigate turrets with some red elements added to distinguish them (and maybe a lopsided barrel sticking out?). The battle carrier is intended to be highly mobile, so I’m not comfortable with the limited fire arc of the Battlecruiser flank-mounted pulsars/plasma lances. Hence: turrets. From its profile, the battle carrier mostly resembles a slim Vaygr Carrier with a triangular nose. Design-wise, it hits all the Vaygr staples: dorsal and ventral carapace; love of 45-degree angles; hexagonal “core” near the engine; rear-set bridge structure; and emphasis on the vertical (vertical launch of both fighters and missiles). It also gets a little plump around the docking bay, much like the Vaygr Carrier.
-
The Hiigaran battle carrier draws a lot of inspiration from the Hiigaran Destroyer, with the docking bays drawn from the Hiigaran Battlecruiser, but it retains the nose panels of the flak frigate, marine frigate, and battlecruiser. Again, the pulsar beams are mounted in turrets, these drawn directly from the Pulsar Gunship; in case it isn’t clear from the drawing, they’re mounded on either flank in front of the docking bay. Potential trouble spot is that the dorsal carapace might interfere with the pulsar turret rotation; if you were gonna model that, you’d have to play with it. Alternatively: exchange the pulsar turrets for twin torpedo tubes (though this runs the risk of making the battle carrier a little TOO MUCH like a destroyer).
-
The Kushan battle carrier was, to put it mildly, a real pain. It is essentially a hybrid of the Heavy Cruiser and Carrier, with the six-gun configuration of the Heavy Cruiser and the overall shape of the Carrier, which is to say it’s a flying brick. The hexagonal section that contains the flank-mounted turret is narrower on top than it is on the bottom; likewise, the dorsal carapace is narrower in front of this hexagonal section than it is aft of it, which creates two “wings” from which launching strike craft emerge. Fluff-wise, you could say that it is a lightweight offshoot of the Heavy Cruiser design, with the power conduits and engineering spaces normally devoted to the ion cannon turrets replaced by docking and repair systems for strike craft.
-
The Taiidan battle carrier is, again, a hybrid of the Heavy Cruiser and the Carrier, but this one was extraordinarily easy to envision. Basically, the two forward “prongs” house the plasma bomb launchers, and the gun turrets are housed farther back in a similar configuration to that of the Heavy Cruiser. Fluff-wise, you could explain it as a field upgrade for carriers, sacrificing manufacturing capability and some docking space for weaponry and increased maneuverability.
I apologize for the quality of the drawing; it’s the first picture I’ve drawn in over two years.
4 Likes
Very well laid out. I don’t agree with the maneuverability though… I don’t think they should be more maneuverable than a destroyer.
Your Kushan and Taiidan designs are the best of the four, they are quite spot on (I might have some comments on the Taiidan engines, but other than that they’re really good). Too bad I can’t touch Kushan and Taiidan in order to keep myself focused.
The Vaygr doesn’t look too good, but what counts is the idea. But even then I have some things to say, I wouldn’t put a turret right above the bay area, I mind the internal spaces the gun and the hangar has to occupy, so that turret would be shifted forward or back. But your written description says clearly what you want the ship to be.
In general it’s an interesting idea. They could have a role in the battlefield, there does seem to be a niche there. I’d like to explore that sometimes. There really could be a place for an early game support with some punch.
I think they could. DDs are heavy hitters in comparison to them.
So apparently, I can’t do maths. The Kushan battle carrier is supposed to have six assault frigate turrets; the version in the image I provided only has four.
Despite my best efforts, I couldn’t include six turrets in the existing floor plan, so I revamped it. The final product contains elements of the Kushan Destroyer, bastardized with a twin-boomed vertical plasma bomb launcher layout derived from the Kushan Assault Frigate. The end result somewhat resembles the Progenitor Keeper, oddly enough. Two turrets are mounted vertically on the flanks; the other two are over-and-under the carapace “wings.” Behold:
The upper carapace could use some work, but I’m actually pleased with the final product. As with the previous iteration, strike craft dock through the frontal maw and launch through the two vertical outlets near the back. Note that this version has eight plasma bomb launchers because I felt that four was too similar to the Assault Frigate; the Taiidan carrier should have eight as well.
I’ve also provided more-detailed renderings of the Homeworld 2 battle carriers (personally, I consider the Hiigaran version my best work). I’ve included two versions of the latter: one with pulsar turrets, and the other with torpedo tubes. Note that I didn’t draw the chin-mounted heavy turret; though the turret could easily be included, perhaps the battle carrier’s firepower should be concentrated in the singular dorsal turret?
I took your advice to heart and repositioned the turrets on the Vaygr battle carrier so that they’re mounted on its flanks. I’ve also furnished them with a stubby, rectangular barrel (otherwise, they are identical to the turrets on the Vaygr Assault Frigate). Observe:
Thoughts?
1 Like
To be honest, I’m not quite sure what their maneuverability should be. Their weapons are lighter than those of a destroyer; likewise, they don’t have a carrier’s internal manufacturing systems. Consequently, I’m inclined to think they should be somewhere between a destroyer and a frigate, leaning more towards the destroyer.
I’m sorry to say it, but you’re really not nailing the Vaygr. But I have to say that Hiigaran one is really bloody sexy. That’s pretty much a finished design there. I like it.
(-Hey and it’s even close to my Hiigaran Cruiser 
)
Now if it doesn’t have the production, is a support ship, is lighter and has that many guns, I think I would drop the Carrier name now. I know it’s practically a meaningless detail and I came up with the naming, but as it’s fleshing out it doesn’t fit anymore.
Some kind of Frontline Support Vessel, I don’t know. The thing is, when I look at it, it eveokes an IFV to me -the infantry fighting vehicle. Like LAV-25, but for the Hiigaran Interceptors if you know what I mean.
The only small problem is that in the beta balance patch, Frigates are rather tough and they can easily kill a Destroyer if they have the numbers. So it would have to be either fast or durable.
1 Like
Well, between the two of us, you’re the expert on the Vaygr, what with your drop-dead-sexy Vaygr cruiser. I just scribble things that somewhat resemble spacecraft. =D
I think “battle carrier” (“assault carrier?”) is still applicable, since they can dock and carry strike craft. Also, their weapons are designed primarily in a supporting role, capable of menacing frigates and even destroyers, but they’re not cost effective on a ship-for-ship basis. In short, they have teeth, but they’re not really designed to swing engagements. “Battle carrier” seems appropriate.
I vote for durable – I don’t imagine it being faster than frigates, so it would have to be sufficiently armored to take punishment.
1 Like
So… these are not able to build strike craft? I’m thinking they should be…
I don’t envision them as being able to build strike craft, because that would outmode the carrier.
I see assault carriers (I like that name better) useful in several situations:
-
The relic appears and you secure it with strike craft. You don’t want to park a carrier over by the relic to repair your strike craft, and support frigates would either get killed by other frigates OR if your opponent techs to destroyers. Hence, an assault carrier.
-
You are using strike craft to harass your opponent but also suffering attrition. Ideally, you would like a docking facility close to the action, one that would be independent and itself capable of fighting off anything short of a destroyer or a huge wing of attack bombers.
-
You begin the game with strike craft and you want to transition into the late game with frigates or capital ships, but you want to keep your strike craft supported.
Basically, it combines the functionality of a support frigate and an assault frigate on a chassis that is roughly the weight of a destroyer and capable of menacing frigates; in a straight fight, two assault carriers could kill a destroyer.
That’s the concept, anyroad. Who knows if it would work?
1 Like
Or Strike Carriers, or Strike Support Carriers…
Whoever grabs it and test it with placeholders.
But it sounds solid.
Sounds good to me. How many fighters and corvettes would it be able to park?
I personally think “carrier” is not a good name for a mobile frigate building/resource platform (original game). Never thought it was applied correctly.
Hmm, this thread has gone quite far off the original topic now 
[Art Criticism]
I was going to comment on how you’ll find there are serious issues with slapping the wide, Hiig BC style bay on a thin destroyer, but it looks like you found that out already.
The Homeworld art style tends to imagine turrets, bays, and weapons have sizeable components which extend into the bulk of a ship. There’s a bit of Tardis going on with production and docking bays, but they don’t completely lack internal space. With this in mind, I see lot of “imaginary space” conflicts in your concept art. The latest Kushan ship is the worst offender, here, with turrets placed on thin slabs and on the space devoted to the imaginary internals of the plasma bomb launchers.
More firepower shouldn’t equate to equally more guns. Use different designs for the same weapon archetype (corvette vs. assault frigate vs. destroyer turrets), or different weapons altogether (plasma bombs vs. ion cannons). On your latest Kushan concept, I would remove the top mounted turrets, increase the size and add more barrels to the bottom turrets, and beef up the structure they’re attached to (similar to the destroyer). And I’d do something different with the plasma bomb launchers since those boxes look rather clumsy. Maybe go back to your first design.
[Role Discussion]
Let me put your principles in a list. I like lists:
- Available around the same time as destroyers (which is to say, quite some time after carriers are available)
- Can repair and transport strikecraft in a mid-game ‘hot zone’, or at the edge of an end-game one
- Thus it must survive against significant frigate or destroyer harassment if the attacker is expediently subdued by other ships
- Can kill two or three ICF/HMF before dying
I’m going to approach this from the perspective of a potential REARM ship. Pouk is currently planning to have HW1-like support frigates. The Vay one can repair strikecraft fighters and the Hiig one cannot. I don’t particularly like the asymmetry of this foundation for the capital repair game, but that’s the way things currently stand. It sounds like this carrier could ease that asymmetry.
I’ve almost never been in a situation where I wanted to transport strikecraft through enemy forces before launching them. Anti-strikecraft ships are all frigate sized or smaller, so they can follow just about any transport ship and annihilate your strikecraft as you launch them. When it comes to transporting strikecraft, hyperspace is the most useful feature a carrier can have. Given the size of the ship and knowing destroyers only have engine subsystems, my inclination is to give the carrier integrated self-hyperspace, no production whatsoever, and forget about making it faster than a destroyer “for transportation purposes.” This means it can always escape to hyperspace if an inhibitor is not present. Quite the ability mid-game, but remember strikecraft can take a long time to dock, and inhibitors become more and more prevalent as you transition into late-game. And if it turns out to be a problem after all, I think we can tie the ability to a disable-able subsystem.
How it survives combat is the other big topic I want to discuss. You’ve suggested anti-corvette and anti-frigate weaponry, and both rather powerful. Are these appropriate armaments? When destroyers and this carrier begin to appear on the scene, anti-frigate weaponry would be quite useful, but as the game progresses, the carrier will be forced further and further away from the center of combat due to the sheer damage output of destroyers, (planned) cruisers, and battlecruisers. By the end-game, you’d keep it so far away from combat it’d have little to shoot at besides fighters chasing your retreating strikecraft. Seems like less firepower and more health would let the ship stay closer to the main battle and be more useful in the end-game.
And finally, I’m not sure you have the acquisition period right. I’m inclined to let this ship be unlocked earlier than destroyers, maybe even as early as the vanilla carrier. It seems like it would be quite fun to use and fight against these carriers as you transition from early to mid-game.
This is not a ship I’m confident will be balanced with theorycrafting. Definitely want to test it as a placeholder before settling on armaments, aesthetics, and such.
2 Likes
I also thought the deployement is still rather late for what it is.
Yeah, it would have to be tested.
I don’t know how we got to this from Cruisers of all things.