Carriers fullfilling the wrong role.

[Bass_masta992]

Well, I'm sorry, but in this game, they -are- meant for direct combat. How many times have you succesfully killed an enemy battleship pelting you with heavy mortars by saying "I launch mah bombarz! You die!" in system chat? yea, I think none.

You people dont freaking get it do you? Game mechanics limit how these ships can be balanced.


Like I said, just rename the damned things, I'm tired of this argument coming up once a month when someone decides to whine about something other than bombers.

If we have to bend around game mechanics, then I'd chose to make the carrier class more bomber capable fighters, A "Buff." I'll point at the Liberty Carrier since the LAC is apparently a bad example now.

Liberty's Carrier still outguns it's Dreadnaught. I'd prefer to have more roles in capital ships, as would most other people. Bombers will probably get a change, why not caps? The Carrier could get an AA ability, within Cruiser or gunboat class weaponry so that Battleship sized vessels aren't overpowered, and just leave the battleships to be able to fight capitals and fighters they way they can now.

I know I'm sort of promoting an Anti fighter battleship here, but that's not what I'm trying to accomplish. The idea of the ships completing a role that they really should be achieving is what I'd like to see. Namechange is a backup.

---