Which is likelier to useful in an actual space fight, a carrier or a battle cruiser?

Which is likelier to useful in an actual space fight, a carrier or a battle cruiser?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    sage

    Yes

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Read this and shut up
    https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/page/1/

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whichever remembers to bring the rest of the fleet along.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Space favors individual large combatants over numerous small ones due to power generation requirements. So battlecruiser is better.

      >Space favors individual large combatants over numerous small ones
      Yeah but in space, the only difference between a missile and an unmanned "fighter" is that the latter has some sort of point defense module bolted on.

      Take the LoGH pill.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Space favors individual large combatants over numerous small ones due to power generation requirements. So battlecruiser is better.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Space favors individual large combatants over numerous small ones
      Yeah but in space, the only difference between a missile and an unmanned "fighter" is that the latter has some sort of point defense module bolted on.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wrong
      Please see

      https://i.imgur.com/UJDJyEw.jpg

      Read this and shut up
      https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/page/1/

      for the actual answer

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Buuuut death star died to little xwangs

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even the Protoss get in on griping about the flaws in the carrier design so probably battlecruiser.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But carriers are op vs Terran in SC:BW and 2

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Protoss were stunned when the humans fielded far superior firepower than their KWAB engineers could ever think of.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A carrier, times a million.

    There's no benefit in space to being smaller or bigger in terms of efficiency. You need proportionally the same amount of kinetic energy to move.

    So the optimal strategy is to launch small, one-way projectiles with plenty of kinetic energy, maybe even multiple stage to beat point defense.

    But you can keep your valuable asset out of range.

    Basically, the battle cruiser would get yamatod just with one way missiles instead of two way planes, cause the energy cost of getting whatever you launched accellerated at mother ship speeds back is not worth it (except for maybe a small manned control unit with plenty of return thrust mass).

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So the optimal strategy is to launch small, one-way projectiles with plenty of kinetic energy,
      You describe a Missile-ship there, not a carrier, not even for unmanned drone.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        a fighter has more range than a missile, you can launch a fighter, fly it for 10 hours and then blow up a battleship, missile range is limited by sensors, you can't just blindly fire missiles

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you can't just blindly fire missiles
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-on_after_launch

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          On Earth an aircraft has many functions beyond that of an antiship missile and a pilot is (for now) still better than an onboard computer

          In space however you pay a massive premium if you want to recover whatever it is you shoot from the ship, whether it's missile or piloted vessel. If you have magic tier space tech like Star Wars it'll work, but in any kind of hardish SF tech, missiles are much much cheaper than manned spacecraft

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anon was describing a missile-ship, not a carrier.
          Sensors' range in space is ridiculously long and unless your fighter is itself a missile-ship with nuclear propulsion and all, it would be more efficient to just replace it by more missiles with bigger tank.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there is no range in space

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Carrier, battle cruiser, missile, fighter are air terms. Space is different.

        If I accelerate my mother ship to significant speed pointing at the enemy, shoot my shit and start fucking off, the missiles expend *zero* energy continuing to fly towards the enemy. Which is different from air, where they do and so you might have a missile-carrier called a fighter optimised for carrying the missiles through the air because the missiles alone would be awfully inefficient and expensive.

        If you can just launch your missiles and they cruise same heading same speed with zero energy expenditure, forever or until they hit something, designing shit to come back has zero advantage and a massive energy budget to not only stop but accelerate in reverse again. Completely different from a fighter which can just pull an immelmann and fly back.

        So bringing shit along like a fighter makes only sense if you want or need it for localized control.

        Call it whatever you like, space combat will be based on I shoot my death bringers and I try to get away from yours from as much range as possible.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >mother ship
          >accelerate my mother ship to significant speed pointing at the enemy
          >the missiles expend *zero* energy continuing to fly towards the enemy
          You describe a bomber ship there. A ship dropping projectile (bomb or kinetic) who only reach its target driven by inertia and gravitational forces.

          The "mother ship" concept usually imply it actually act as a "mother"(support/repair/production) for other ship, SF usually use that term when the ship can carry a civilization by itself.

          OP's term of "carrier" may be lacking but given context it is likely he meant it in the colloquial meaning of a space version of a naval aircraft-carrier, making it a spaceship-carrier. A ship that carry other ship, pushing against local gravitational source.

          >my death bringers
          You described a Missile weapon there. In military term a self-propelled projectile capable of autonomous maneuver to pursue a target.
          And range isn't as straightforward for space warfare, a smaller missile could have more delta-Velocity available than your "Missile-ship" making "as much range as possible" an pointless statement.

          You are welcome.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shut the fuck up autist. """"""Space""""" """""warfare"""" is a """""carrier""""" ship with a shitload of """""drone missiles"""""" on it launching at each other from 100's of thousands of klicks away

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah space warfare is going to the same current warfare, who sees the other first wins.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >drone missiles
              Are you iranian?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Carrier but instead of fighters you have smart missiles / suicide drones.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know next to nothing about naval things
    I would assume carrier would likely win. Battle cruisers are designed for ship to ship combat. Carriers offensives are launching planes if they got no where to go back to they'll probably just kamikaze the cruiser and launch everything they got while they do it. The cruiser is built for fighting other ships, not air defenses. If it could harass one enough from a distance and provoke them trying to shoot down airships till it's vulnerable is very unlikely. A carrier would always have a stand off detection distance if done right.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there's no 'stand off detection distance' in space. you are going to detect the enemy. in fact, unless you throw literal swarms at the enemy, missiles and drones are going to just die to CIWS.

      >what about fighters
      manned fighters won't be a thing, at least not in the way we currently percieve them. the smallest you're going to get will be gunboats, if that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Battlecruiser has more negatives. In dnd terms it's like a tank that's useless without support team, in ground starcraft it's like a tank getting swarmed by zerglings.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that the capital ship of a race that is millions of years more advanced than humanity loses 1 to 1 to the equivalent of a nuclear reactor with armor plates around it lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      reminds me of a /tg/ meme where humans are the badass aliens rather than it being the other way around, most aliens are pacifist jellyfish or somesuch then humans come along and shock aliens by eating Hispanicy food to deliberately hurt our tongues, how crime, war, terrorism and murder is a normal everyday occurrence, they made lots of copypastas about it, but I didn't save any and it was years ago

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can still find that stuff occasionally if you search for HFY (or humanity fuck yeah)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          oh tk

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Please define "carrier" for space?
    Would a tanker/barrack that is occasionally pushed by a fighter-ship with nuclear-propulsion but minimal crew/life-support count?

    The typical leap of logic SF author do is to just put WWII/Cold war sea ship into space.
    On Earth your range is limited by Earth curvature and the atmosphere. You require a Sea-carrier carrying Air-fighter because the two medium are different.
    But in space there's no difference of medium, propulsion are of the same nature and there's no reason to not use all the engines you have save for occasional maintenance. At most you might have "Pusher" ships

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    carrier has like 100x more ranged "weapons" it can just launch fighters and turn around and run away without ever getting in range

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battlecruisers rape carriers with micro

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Assuming things work similarly to Brood War (haven't played SC2) I would give the edge to Battlecruisers by far. Even in a 1v1 it's a bad fight for the Carrier but if you are talking 12v12 control groups it's a complete blowout
    >12 BCs can fire 24 yamato volleys at the start of the engagement and do so from extreme range
    >this alone is going to absolutely rape the carriers
    >BCs have enough armor that interceptors are doing very little damage
    >focus firing and trying to micro with carriers is a very slow process since the interceptors have to be called back to the main ship before you can even change targets
    >meanwhile the BCs do 25 damage per shot, have high turn speed and have instant speed weapons without any projectile animations
    >a focus volley from a full BC group is 300 damage, which is more than enough to melt anything that has been weakened by hits from the yamato guns
    >also carriers are very time consuming - not only do they take a long time to build they have to sit and make interceptors
    >meanwhile BCs are ready to open fire as soon as they roll off the production line
    >also in a combined arms scenario the science vessel can blast the carrier's shields and effectively cut their HP in half, while also being much faster and able to just fly away after doing that

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can't bring in Science Vessels without bringing in Arbiters and with Arbiters Carriers will win the fight. That's why people never ever make Battlecruisers vs Carriers, stasis is too good and even a single one on a group of battlecruisers is half your fleet doing literally nothing.
      I don't know much about SC2 but I know Valkyries are really good at focusing Carriers down but storm can wreck them. SC2 Ghost EMP is also way, way better than Science Vessel EMP, like way better it's insane how much better it is.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AAAAIIIEEEEEE I HAVE MASTERED THE MANIPULATION OF SPACE AND TIME YOU CAN'T JUST DISABLE ME WITH YOUR PRIMITIVE TECHNOLOGY YOU HECKIN MEANIE KHALA HELP MEEEE

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Protoss has two versions of lockdown but better though

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Stasis
        requires that you overwhelm the units not hit by it, can be good or go horrendously wrong. if you trade 1:1 the enemy will 100% reinforce the position and get his units back.
        >Maelstrom
        lmao, even suggesting it
        lockdown is a joke though, mainly because ghosts are shit

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maelstrom is based fuck you, every time I see a dark archon I stand up and clap and stasis can fuck you over but generally works fine. Problem arises when you stasis too much stuff and/or you lose too many units so reinforcements+now unstasis'd units are enough to beat what you have. Protoss should never be trading 1:1.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maelstrom's major problem is cost and its on a fucking Dark Archon. He's unironically too fast and fat, combine that with the cost to cast Maelstrom and get INTO RANGE unlike FAIR AND BALANCED PSI STORM.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >he got filtered by dark archons
              Lol
              Lmao even
              Protoss has every tool in the toolbox and you still say NUH UH IT’S BAD

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine being the only person ITT to complain about balance lmao ya seethe?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >watching a dark archon break the AI and pathfinding of every goon on the screen then walking into melee range of 50 hydras and instantly dying

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I imagine space craft will always have a view of the sun through a solar filter (to catch the outline of anything approaching from that direction) and around the sun via an occulting bar type setup to see outlines in the corona from anything approaching from that direction. An ideal space missile could be very long and thin, and guide itself to the target sitting exactly on the solar limb as seen from the targets location

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I had a 4v4 moneymap rigged where it could only run as a 3v3, and all the player starts had minerals that would run out just past the mark when it would be a disconnect on your battle.net record. One of the deleted player starts had 50000 minerals. So would just start as Terran, float up there, and watch everyone seethe

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *