With our 3 exciting cappies, now comes the strength contest.

From observing the caps in the border skirmish mission, it looks like the current order (from strongest to weakest) is:

1. Destroyer
2. HAC
3. Trident

Shouldn't it be:

1. HAC
2. Destroyer
3. Trident

I think what's making the destroyers more powerful atm is those massive anti-cap ship guns (which for the sake of having a name I will call Particle Projection Cannons "PPC's") among all the other extra weapons they currently have.

Maybe now the HAC needs a weapon boost?

Maybe this was already planned?

Maybe I should shut up?

/vote mute _Ghost_

The only capship I've personally "tuned" thus far is the Teradon. It's pretty strong, and the HAC/trident are pretty weak (mostly "default" right now). I will probably make some more loadouts of all the capships, for both military and "civilian" type use. So convoy Tridents might be more lightly defended than military ones, and so on.

But, that said, not all ships have the same role. From a WWII-era perspective.. because a submarine could sink a battleship, did that make it stronger? No, it just filled a different role. A battleship could level an entire city from 20 miles away. Traditional naval analogies don't always hold up, but you get the general idea. The HAC will probably fill more of a "carrier" role in the future (once I have AI fighters capable of launching/docking with a capship), with Teradons and Tridents running interference in "escort" type positions. Just because the HAC is "bigger" doesn't necessarily make it the "best" at all things. And it does have *2 million* more hitpoints than the Teradon/Trident.

Ahhh, I see where you're going then. Cool!

IMHO, the HAC is more like a floating station and, yes, a carrier than a fighter. Maybe it should have more armor, and a couple more defence turrets, but nothing really as an anti-cappy terminator thingy, like ther teradon. The teradon is really strong, but really weak also, with a little less armor, I think it would fit nicely into the REALLY good but must work to keep alive category.

This is at least my picture of the future:
HAC-transport, carrier, fighter defense, resupply and pivot point of the battle. You lose your HAC, and your fighters have no base.

Teradon-relatively fragile, primarily anti-cappy medium capship. offensive turrets with a few scattered defensive and anti-fighter turrets.

Trident-a military/rich civilian bulk transport for the purpose of transporting extrememly high-priority cargo, and for defending convoys.

But then again, that's just how I see them fitting in... Incarnate knows best...

-Calder

Yeah! We need more civilian cap ships!!!!!

Because when I go out camping with the family, that moth just ain't big enough for the tent and all!

/giggles

>The HAC will probably fill more of a "carrier" role in the future
incarnate,
i think this is the first thing you've said that i totaly disagree with.

the HAC just isn't designed to be a carrier. the only launch bay is too small and awquerdly positioned. admitedly landing on a HAC isn't as hard as some people have claimed, but it can still only launch or recover one fighter at a time, and it does take some doing to land on the first pass if the HAC is mooving.

I'd really rather see the HACs acting as large battleships rather than dedicated carriers.

I think Cariers shoukld have dedicated launch abd landing bays (like stations do) and their recovery bay(s) should be positioned such that the look either straight ahead or abaft rather tan being at an angle the ships direction of primary thrust, like the curent HAC and Triden't bays are. additionaly theyr should have a concentration of anti-fighter weapons (posably eeven the unpopular beam weapons) covering the landing bays, so as to create a safer recovery area.

You know, those beam weapons might not be so bad if they had an incredibly short range, like around 100m. So if you get close to a HAC, you die. But they can't insta-peg you from 1000m out.