No life lost in the service of the emperor is wasted.
No sacrifice too great, no heresy too small.
Where is your Federation now, heretic?
BFGA:A Alpha Tester
BFG:A Beta Tester
BFG:A Wiki Founder
BFG:A Mod Creator
BFG Story Writer
@ahriman The old systems valued Heavy Carriers far more than Light Carriers. It meant ships with one or two launch bays were at a massive disadvantage as they did not perform effectively as carriers, and could not compete with true gunships and lance boats. Attempting to create limitations for heavy carriers I think is a good idea, it gives this otherwise somewhat useless family of vessels some sort of role.
At least, ideally. Right now it's been butchered by a rushed release. the beta testers barely had time to give feedback before the change was upon us, but with some changes the new system can be a great improvement. I agree that right now it's pretty awful
In the not-so-distant past Macros and Necrons were terribly weak, it was the right move to make them more competitive, now the focus shifts onto light carriers; which have forever been awkward at best or useless at worst.
Also why do you never talk on the Discord? I see your name pop up but you never say anything.
@beernchips That's far more punishing than just letting the CD go on after a launch and prevent further launches until that one returns or dies, in worst case scenarios I don't see it making a difference, and would still make for a long delay for all carriers between strikes unless you are very conservative with targets.
So dedicated carriers have to be punished for being carriers and launching big strike force?
No, not at all what I'm saying.
I'm saying that Heavy carriers (with 4 or more launch bays) have always been the only offensively useful carriers. Light Carriers just don't compete, they were for a free probe and fighter screening only. The reload differential would close that gap, so that both have their place offensively and defensive, and lots of small carriers would always win over one big carrier. So you'd get more variety, either a few big carriers with more firepower and durability to throw around in combat, or swarm-style light carriers which would be more effective at kiting and harassment.
The nerf is intended to kill full carrier fleets by removing the ability to spam a first wave of fighter that will scout and stick to ships/killing turrets.
But instead of nerfing the way fighters are in the game they preferred kill bays on a larger scale
I disagree, there are far more specific and targeted ways of dealing with that, a sweeping rework means carriers as an aspect of the game are the intended target, since the old way was hardly perfect to begin with. And given the sudden (relative, carriers of any kind are not great right now) usefulness of Light Carriers, that must be the intended result.
So, the hangar changes are already being talked about a lot, and I agree with the generally negative response to them.
Carriers, in a traditional long-range strike force sense, are almost totally useless. The delay between launches is simply too long, far too long, for them to be a feasible alternative to a gunboat or even a lanceboat.
But I like the idea, I understand the intention. More launch bays=a longer cool down, but a larger strike force; while a less launch bays reload faster with the change, making light carriers less powerful but more responsive.
I think this change can still be made to work if the cool-down started immediately after launching the strike craft, as before, but with a much longer cool down for more hangar decks and an inability to launch a second wave until the first wave either dies or returns to the mother ship. I think that would much more effectively achieve the intended goal and keep carriers somewhat competitive.