My point is that they are not made less important by other fighter-carrying-starships. You point is correct in that the availability of other fighter-carrying-ships (i.e. cruisers an d destroyers) make fleet carriers available for use on more important areas of the front line.sea_monkey said:HammerHead, as far as I can tell your argument is basically the same as Loaf's. Carriers are still the only ship that can do A & B, so they are still the most important. I never argued that they weren't however, so I don't see your point.
The importance of any class of ships (be that cruiser or carrier) is not deminished or increased by the availability or absence of any other class of ship. Their might became easier to fulfill.
Also you keep mentioning the fact that in WWII only carriers carried fighters while in WC all (big) ships can carry them.
I'll give you an opposite exsample: during the 1960s the Missile-boat was developed- suddenly the Russians had a small 40-50 feet boat that could, by itself, cripple and even practicaly destroy Cruiser and Destroyer size vessels from 50 miles away - well beyoned any ship's guns range. Later, Cruisers and and Destroyers began to carry missiles of their own - and did the missile boat became less important? NO - it was (and is being) used in a diffrent roll - the roll that was previously own by the torpedo boat - a ship class that was removed from service because of the missile boat.
???sea_monkey said:Seems about the same to me actually. At least in the games, a destroyer will take a fighter or two with it. In WC3, the Fralthi eats up AI pilots.
o...k... next time we'll call EA and ask them to have Gen. Chuck Yeager or Col. Giyora Epshtein (World top ace in downing fighter-jets : 17) to make the basic AI design... you want to fly against a Kilrathi Chuck Yeager? (Ralgha nar Epshtein...hmm... nice ring to it )
you might simply try the game on "nightare" level, or whatever it's called.
this is also why you need a small force of large carriers, that can be deployed quickly and decisivly at key points, while delivering a stong complement of fighters, and not a large cubersome force in which each ship has a small complement of fighters (all for various tactical reasons, most of which I detailed in my previous posts, and can give you more).sea_monkey said:Yes, but the two sides only fight if one side thinks they can win, or one side gets surprised. You don't just throw ships randomly through every jump point until you win. So there's not going to be constant fighting at every point.
I actually subscribe to the view that space in WC is sparsely populated by ships. Neither navy is big enough to choke off all 38 (or whatever) jump points, which is why both sides routinely have forces behind enemy lines without the other side knowing (Ariel, Loki, Freja, Niven, Novaya Kiev, Enigma, K'Thithrak Mang). It also explains why the Tiger's Claw was pulled from Vega to Goddard in SM1, and how a planet like Locanda would routinely end up being raided.
Yeah, but this decistion ... is not yours to make - this is why The Kilrathi have an emperor and the Confederation has a President - to make the stupiedest mistake possiable and then blame it on the little people for years ahead!sea_monkey said:Yeah but how many Fralthra or standard carriers for that matter could you have made with the material it took to make a Hakaga? I swear I remember them saying it took a lot of resources.
PS: leaving any insults aside - I also agree with everything said by frosty in his last post - his claim simply have certain logic I accept.
The point is - once again two diffrent people gave you two diffrent, completely logical, opinions, both of them to the same effect.
Yes, you can say we are both wrong, and LOAF, and Nemesis, and... well it's basically saying everybody's wrong while you are right....
Just think about it...