Please Fix The Way Carriers Work ATM

For fighters, I find that assault use missile, interceptors use beam, and guardians use kinetic.

I happen to think that each carrier type should have a high capacity version. I think similar modules should be available at the same time (basic first, high capacity later).

I'm not sure if ship roles comes into play much. I favor overwhelming firepower to crush my foes quickly.

Beam weapons has a flaw as the tier 2 version does not have a no-resource-cost version (fighters only use the no-resource-cost versions of weapons). So interceptors don't improve when you research tier 2 beam weapons.

I like that idea.

Well, I've had others tell me different from their experiences. So really, who knows at this point.

Honestly, I don't really care about which ship roles carrier fighters end up with, except the Guardians with Kinetics often end up sitting at the back of the fleet, and don't get within range to participate in the battle until it's too late. And that's just not right, they're supposed to be offensive elements of the fleet, not sitting behind being useless.

It's why I'd prefer that carrier fighters that become Guardians be at least armed with Missiles; this at least gives them the range to participate in the battle, even if they're sitting back.

Totally on board with this, whether the carrier fighter types are Assault/Interceptors/Guardians or Beam/Missiles/Kinetics. Either way, at least we'll get some control over which weapons our carrier fighters will be packing when they spawn.

Yeah I've had someone tell me this as well, and I agree it's something that needs fixing.

I've also had someone show me that a possible reason my carrier fighters keep spawning as Guardians is because they spawn with Armor modules for some reason, pushing their Fortitude value above their Threat values.

Is it possible to make carrier fighters spawn with no defenses whatsoever? Apart from weighing them too heavily towards becoming Guardians instead of Assault Fighters or Interceptors, these are Tiny hulls; they're supposed to die like lemmings anyway.

I'd be happy to ask them, if only they could be bothered to respond and engage with us on this topic. I mean, this thread has been around for about a week now, and still not a peep from the devs. Seriously, is there anyone at home here? Anyone? Frogboy?

IMO, carriers should serve as a means of giving swarms of Tiny ships the strategic maneuverability they need to be useful in the mid to late game. Personally, I like to go 2 engines + 2 life support on my ship designs, but that's not really viable for individual Tiny ships without compromising their firepower too much.

With carriers though, I can toss the same setup on a single Cargo hull and have myself my swarm of Tiny fighters with the moves and range I need. Now if only those same Tiny fighters don't keep spawning as all Guardians all the time, leaving them utterly useless.

I haven't had the game long, but what I've noticed is that Assault fighters are always missiles and Interceptors are always beams, regardless of what weapon tech I have. I ignored missiles in one game and they still used them, then went up the missile tree and suddenly all my carrier fighters upgraded their missiles. I don't use Guardian modules, so I can't speak to that. I don't think I've ever noticed the Assault fighters being assigned Guardian roles.

I did finally decide to stop using carriers altogether though. For me, it was when a nearly unbeatable carrier fleet in one game instantly became completely useless because I started researching the Shields tech line and all my fighters decided to switch to shields, despite all the AI using missiles and kinetics. If I can't control how the fighters are fitted out, then they're useless. I'll just build my own and fleet them with a weapon/defense support ship.

And that's ultimately the problem, isn't it? Carrier fighters are useless, precisely because we can't control how they're fitted out.

Frogboy, or really, anyone at Stardock. Is it not possible to just throw out the way Carrier research currently works in the tech tree, and replace them with new ones altogether that doesn't depend on whatever screwed up algorithm the game has for deciding how carriers currently spawn?

For example, you could have three new carrier techs that perhaps could be slotted within the respective Beam/Kinetics/Missiles weapon tree, just so that carrier fighters are locked into using whatever weapon their modules are a part of. And High Capacity equivalents of those three carrier modules, as well.

Also, you could lock them all into the Assault role, instead of changing them based on their values. At least that way, the carrier fighters will be guaranteed to be in the fight.

I will sometimes get the missile/beam/kinetic ships for assault/guardian/fighter carriers, but other times I get something fairly random (though once a carrier module "picks" a weapon, it is consistent for the rest of the game).  I generally create only one carrier of each type until I know what type of weapon it carries, and then I know what to research and/or build.

I haven't had problems with carriers in respect to weapon choice at all. I think you're just not accounting for how the "optimal" fighter loadout is based on your researched miniaturization tech.

You can have really strong beam fighters but you need to forego missile and kinetic tech. Carrier tech is often most efficient when you research to bias fighter builds towards glass cannons: just beams, no defences. Even adding miniturized defense advancements will suck away the mass dedicated to your strongest weapon options.

I regularly play entire games with only one weapon (usually Beams still) fully researched to maximize carrier return. Building more complex fighters will make them less strong in any one capacity and generally lead to longer engagements and so on. Glass cannons are the way to go!

...what combination of the base game and other DLCs do you have, that your carrier fighters can still have more than one type of weapon tech? Do your carriers still spawn Small hull fighters? Because it sounds like you're playing an old version of the game to me.

In other words, the only way to get carriers worth a damn is to give up research on defenses entirely and be completely unable to build any non-carrier ship types with high defenses. Do you not see how this can't possibly be intended behaviour for GalCiv3?

The game should enable me to build both types of ships (and have both be as effective as expected) as long as I've put the research into it, not make one or the other ineffective or wholly impossible because of whatever shitty algorithms went into the auto-design of their carrier fighters.

Just because you've found a way around the problem that works well enough for yourself, doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs fixing.

I'm pretty sure none of this has been a secret since even before Crusade. It was never considered a big deal likely because carriers have always been relatively strong to overpowered in every update. Barring an interface to allow you to explicitly assign bespoke fighter designs, algorithms are exactly how fighter design seems intended to work. The limitation you're having problem with is probably a balancing boon compared to older patches.

I don't know what else there is to say? Sorry you don't like it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It was never considered a big deal before because whether they were OP or just plain strong, at least the old algorithms spawned carrier fighters that were viable in combat, and generally used the weapon type that the player put the most research into (and thus predictable). Neither of which applies to mine, and apparently quite a few others', experience with the current build of this game.

And since the devs seem to have trouble balancing the algorithm so that it isn't either OP or useless, my suggestion is that they put the choice of carrier fighter weapons in the player's hands. I'd think this would be easier to do than trying to tweak the algorithm yet again, since they clearly haven't gotten it right even after all these years, and frankly are probably busy working on GC4.

General rule of etiquette is that if you have nothing constructive to contribute, you shouldn't even bother. But I suppose you apparently didn't have the proper upbringing to learn that simple fact.

Well they are still quite strong if you invest in miniaturization tech. It might require more compromise than prior patches, but it seems very much like that's the intent. You don't even have as far to bee-line it to carrier tech anymore but yes, creating highly efficient fighters requires prioritization on mass/weapons research that's a civ-wide cost/benefit consideration. You're probably going to have to choose between dominant fighters and well-rounded capital ships until much later in the game. That seems like the point of the re-balanced design even if you don't like it.

A solution for players who want an easier road to stronger carriers in the current build is to start with a race that has the Dense trait and whichever abilities provide a mass edge. 

Alright. I'm going to illustrate what happened in the last game I played a couple months ago.

This was what my tech tree looked like in the late game. You'll notice I focused my research towards Kinetics here; I may have the equivalent level of Beam tech, but I traded for it, as you can see from the missing colour in the "Plasma Projection" tech that I don't have. Therefore, it's clear I poured more research points into Kinetics than any other weapons tech.

As you can see, I have the "Hyper Field Mass Launchers" Kinetic miniaturization tech, and not the "Beam Weapon Miniaturization" tech. BTW, I did acquiring the miniaturization options for both Kinetic Optimization and Beam Weapon Optimization on the left side of this screen.

And despite all of the above, my Huge carrier design full of nothing but High Capacity Carrier Modules spawns Beam fighters for some arcane, unknowable reason. How does this make sense?!

Here, I'm going to have to walk back my "all Guardians all the time" assertion; clearly I remembered wrong, because the same carrier spawned Beam Interceptors. But it still illustrates my point; why did they become Interceptors when my carrier design indicate it was supposed to spawn Assault Fighters?

Therein lies my problem with the current carrier fighter algorithm; how am I supposed to plan the direction of my weapons research if I can't rely on my carriers spawning the type of fighters that I would expect?

This is why I'm saying the devs need to tweak the game to dump whatever algorithm is responsible for this fiasco, and give the choice of the weapon type that carrier fighters spawn with to the players. I'm sure it's something they can slot into the existing weapon tech trees, no need to get complicated.

It's likely just that even less advanced beam tech offers a higher "threat" ratio on a tiny hull. Even in your example, your Beam and Kinetic are still relatively close. To swing it heavily towards one or the other it probably requires a much broader gap in research. Basically, you can get clues from the tiny hulls that are upgraded each time you research a new tech. It's these algorithmically built ships that the carriers select best "bang for the buck" fits from. 

All of this is just convincing me further that the choice of weapon that carrier fighters spawn with should be left to the players, not the algorithm.

No, not in that game. And I checked the other carriers I had in that game, they too were producing Beam Interceptors.

Bumping this thread. Hi, Stardock devs. Could any of you be so kind as to at least offer a response for this?

Hell, at this point I'll take you telling me to go fuck myself as a sufficient response. At least that way I'll know not to expect anything on this end and adjust my expectations accordingly, instead of remaining in limbo.

Well just going off of what I have seen; expect several months to fix this. There has been way to many complaints of overpowered carriers over the years. 
The question they would be considering is can the ai keep up with the human changes. 
the problem of complaints is that players change their minds to much. I think this is caused from the player base switching out over the years. 
honestly in games like panzer general, and civilization I didn’t play with planes due to their ineffectiveness to work like the world.

I also disagree with etiquette. That is how you get changed nobody wants. If the post is something you don’t want then you should say something, so the game doesn’t incorporate it. I tried carriers in the beginning; because, the weren’t that viable for me I didn’t use them. 
my comment had nonething to do with carriers. If their broken fix them.

If it's going to take several months to fix carriers, then so be it. I just want to know that the Stardock devs are, or aren't, willing to work on it in the first place, if only so I'd know I won't be waiting in vain.

And I hear you on the complaints of OP carriers; however, what I'm asking for is not a buff to carrier fighters, but rather a quality of life change. It's fine if carrier fighters remain as squishy as they are in the current build, but if I'm dedicating my research to a particular weapon line, I just want a guarantee that my carrier fighters will spawn using weapons from the same line.

Having carrier modules for each weapon line gives us players the choice to guarantee we get the carrier fighters we want, while saving the devs from having to tweak the algorithm yet again.

Also if possible, it's best if carrier fighters can be prevented from spawning with the Guardian role, if only to avoid the possibility of them sitting back in the fleet and not contributing to the fight.

No, saying that you don't want a change to the game for whatever reason counts as constructive criticism. Acting smug like EmperorVir and going all "that's just how the game works" and "sorry you don't like it" is just jerking off, and fully deserving of the bite-back I gave him.

Hello everybody,

My approach to this Problem was that I have modded it. ShipBlueprintdes.xml is what you are searching for - make a mod and change the entry for

<ShipBlueprint>

    <InternalName>AssaultFighterBlueprint</InternalName>

    <ShipHullType>Tiny</ShipHullType>

    <Role>Assault</Role>

    <ShipGroup>Fighter</ShipGroup>

    <CanBeBuilt>false</CanBeBuilt>

    <RequiredComponentType>BeamWeapon</RequiredComponentType>

    <RequiredComponentType>BeamWeapon</RequiredComponentType>

    <RequiredComponentType>KineticWeapon</RequiredComponentType>

    <ComponentType>BestDefense</ComponentType>

    <AllRequiredMustFit>true</AllRequiredMustFit>

  </ShipBlueprint>

The red marked line is the "Problem". Make a Mod --> Delete this Line --> and in your NEW game research ALL THREE weapon types. In my case you get assault fighters without any Protection and with the best weapon tech. 

For the devs:

Maybe consider it in future that the player hast to fill up the Hangar by himself. Something like a moving starbase or so. For example - my Ship has two (Just)Carrier Module (No assault, interceptor or guradian --> just Carrier Modul).

3 Moduls has place for 6 tiny Ships --> So juts let me produce my tiny ships and let me park them in my carrier Moduls. I don't know how much work this will be or how the AI will handle this, but maybe this is the approach the devs should think about. I always see my carriers as moving starbases or Planets

Have a nice day everybody!

BR

EDIT: This was the old shipBlueprintdes.xml!! Anyway - the solution is the same. Get rid of this Best Defens thing!!