Discussion regarding VBAM:SX designs

Campaign Diaries & After Action Reports (AARs)
Post Reply

Which of the options presented do you think is 'best'?

Dedicated carriers and cruisers
12
100%
Uniform battlecarriers
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
murtalianconfederacy
Captain
Captain
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Aboard the MCS Bavoralkin

Discussion regarding VBAM:SX designs

Post by murtalianconfederacy »

One thing I've been mulling on: which design philosophy is better for powers?

In my last campaign, the Kryptonian Royal Kingdom started off with dedicated cruisers and carriers. When they refitted their fleet, I decided to refit it so that each cruiser became a battlecarrier--only four flights of fighters each, but it allowed me to refit the carriers into the new battlecarrier as well without losing any fighters. Of course, the tech levels had gone up, so a fair comparison couldn't be made.

So, I'm wondering: which do you think is better, a fleet of casual carriers with slightly less firepower than a dedicated cruiser hull, or a small core of carriers with dedicated cruisers? Which offers the better combat potential? The better maintenance outlay?
Not every laser dot has a loaded gun at the end of it
User avatar
Charles Lewis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Des Moines, IA
Contact:

Post by Charles Lewis »

I voted for dedicated carriers and cruisers because that's my general preference. That said, I've gone the other way and had success with that, too.

That's also the kind of decision that can be used to differentiate the races in a game. One may prefer the dedicated platforms, as it allows them to maximize the potential of a hull size, while another prefers the multi-role.

Personally, I've found the multi-role battle carrier concept to be more useful at the smaller hull size - say frigate/destroyer level. The idea is that for a patrol/merchant escort type, the loss of a battery or two in favor of a flight or two of fighters greatly enhances the flexibility of the design while not sacrificing a lot of firepower - because there wasn't a lot to begin with. In such a case, I'll put long range weapons on the ship and let the fighters be the close range weapon system.

Of course, as you indicated, tech levels can make a huge difference in the viability of multi-role vessels.
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

I'm not a Starmada player, but it is my general observation with RPGs and Miniatures games that specialisation beats generalised units almost every time (possibly this is a hint that RPGs undercost high quality equipment and crews),

From a military standpoint I can see a lot of utility in specialising units from a logistical perspective, as well as for planned operations (it simplifies supply problems, and allows admirals to utilise their troops in the best way possible - it's easier to efficiently use a squadron of carriers than a squadron that does a bit of everything),

This breaks down in two circumstances:
* When it all goes to hell... When the plan fails sometimes improvisation is the only option, and then flexibility counts (your opponent can't plan for everything you might do, unless your ships only do one thing...).
* Small detatched units - long range patrols, etc. These ships might encounter anything, and need to have the flexibility to deal with it.

So, in a big fleet the carrier-cruisers are pretty pointless, it's better to have dedicated carriers, and dedicated cruisers.

For long range patrols and such, battlecarriers offer better flexibility, and the ability to deploy fighters in small packages to enhance the abilities of your patrols,
Gareth Lazelle
Chyll
Commander
Commander
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: TSL interrogation room

Post by Chyll »

I voted with the masses for similar thoughts.

There are times I just need to send a light cruiser, and paying to transit a full arsenal ship just wouldn't make sense - financially or politically.
No man is wise enough by himself.
- Plautus
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

I have to admit that most of my ships tend to specialized hulls, whether it be Starmada X ship designs or purely VBAM craft. I didn't realize how much I did this until I started testing out a new ship design system (still not sure it works right, but I am working on it).

Most of my carriers tend to be completely dedicated to bringing fighters into a fray. They are lucky if they have any defensive guns at all. In SX, I tend to give them at least a few high-ROF Range 3 guns to protect themselves against flights, but otherwise they just have as many fighter flights as they can cram in.

Every once in awhile, if the tech levels are right, I may invest in a casual carrier or battle carrier, but that is usually for an uncommon class of a support craft to back up the rest of the fleet.
Post Reply