Carriers: Strategic Impact

What?
First let me clarify what I don’t mean by strategic impact. I don't mean useful, although carriers should be. Carriers in Total Annihilation were essentially mobile power generators; they were handy for late game economies but lacked immediate strategic impact. I also don't mean novel, although carriers should be. Carriers as mobile factories in SupCom were interesting but redundant with regular air factories. Mobile production was also undermined by air units already having short travel time. So far we've seen some useful and interesting carriers but nothing that shifts the paradigm of battle - and that's what I mean by strategic impact.

Why?
In the real world carriers entirely redefined aerial and naval strategy. The birth of carriers shifted the paradigm from aerial raiding to aerial domination. Carriers transformed the battleship from imposing to subordinate. No longer were aircraft logistically tied to airbases deep in allied territory. Air became a presence to fear on the seas and abroad. Carriers in Planetary Annihilation can represent such a paradigm shift.

Why do we want a paradigm shift? Because paradigm shifts force you to stop and think about your next move. When your opponent shows up to a tank fight with gunships - that shifts the paradigm and you have to figure out how to respond. And that's good, that's what makes strategy games so fun.

How?
Let's start by noting that PA isn't the first RTS to grapple with this challenge. Other TA-style games have attempted and achieved varying success. Notably (no pun intended) the Spring game NOTA developed a carrier system that was useful, novel and had immediate strategic impact. What did NOTA do? Well for starters they imposed a logistic limitation on aircraft, just like real life. In NOTA aircraft have ammo and when they run out they have to go back home to rearm. This meant that aircraft were best suited to quick raids and skirmishes. Anything prolonged meant your aircraft would run out of ammo and stop dealing damage. Where do carriers fit in? Carriers can move in close to a battle and immediately rearm any empty aircraft. This was a game-changer. It meant your air could stay somewhere indefinitely. It meant that a small air force could cast a big shadow. It meant that air supremacy wasn’t just numbers. And while air was always good at capturing territory, carriers made air good at holding territory too.

In PA?
So, how do we give carriers immediate strategic impact in PA? Well, lucky for us Uber has already done the heavy lifting and developed an interesting energy-ammo mechanic for air. Aircraft in PA will have the logistic limitation of ammo which they will rebuild with energy over time. That means that they will be best suited to quick raids and skirmishes. And in a prolonged battle that means they will have to fly around rebuilding their ammo until they can fire. Now, all carriers have to do is lift that limitation.

My suggestion is that carriers rapidly rearm and repair aircraft, not unlike NOTA. That could work by giving carriers a dedicated build power to rearm and repair or just being instant and free like NOTA. What is certain though is that this would have a great impact on air play. Carriers would diminish the time spent rebuilding ammo and would increase the time spent firing weapons. Less QQ, more PewPew. Supported air could stay in fights longer and maintain territory more effectively. This would result in a richer relationship between air and surface units and air supremacy would be about more than just numbers – position would matter.

Overpowered? Anything Else?
This should not be overpowered from a design perspective, that's subject to implementation though of course. From the design perspective, the counter play exists with carrier vulnerabilities (e.g. subs, torpedo bombers, destroyers, cruisers, battleships). Although if you're curious on exactly how this can be implemented I would suggest Zero-K or NOTA.

It's also important to note carriers would not affect most air engagements which are primarily fighter skirmishes and bombing raids. The advantage carriers provide is in protracted engagements, such as combined land/air or land/sea battles.

Should carriers do anything else? Sure, I think mobile factories and mobile power generation was extremely cool. Zero-K uses a similar system to NOTA and their carriers have drones and launch missiles. But it's important that carriers are strategically impactful or else they will be relegated to an awkward support role.

Closing Thoughts
From what I’ve seen in other RTS a well-developed staging mechanic can make airplay deeper and air control less binary. I know Uber wants to make the best RTS they possibly can and I want to help, that’s why I backed. But we can only do that by weighing in on what we're given. So, while I know Uber is still developing their approach and they likely have considered similar ideas I think it's worth discussing. Speaking as a player, I’m going on what I’ve seen, what worked and what was fun. But I’m sure a lot of you guys have different ideas, so feel free to share them. Lastly, I know there’s a TON of balance consideration when implementing something like this – so for the sake of brevity this thread should stick to overall design. Thanks for reading.

Good little read there. I like the approach you are describing and definitely favor this one over SupComs. If I had the choice though I would rather take an even more air limiting approach by using a system like in CnC, where planes can basically do only one air strike and need to return to base right afterwards. This could be easily combined with the "carriers of strategic impact idea". The approach Uber is trying so far does not appeal to me that much (planes slowly rebuilding their ammo by themselves). I find that approach to be neither fish nor fowl. But if carriers of strategic impact were implemented in Uber's system as it is atm and actually build around carriers as a crucial element to effective use of air for aggressive purposes, this could turn out well.

I disagree on your definition of the strategic impact of a mobile factory.

Ok igncom1, If you don't elaborate then that's no different than saying you disagree with his definition of butter.

Why don't you put forth your own definition and then try to include some examples and implications instead of just being contrarian, eh? Actually have a discussion, Wouldn't that be nice?

I have explained to him in a different thread.

So don't rustle your jimmy's up about it.

Then why not link it for those that are unaware of your position and why you're taking it?
For example, me. I have no idea why you're opposed to his definition and with such a simple, non-discussion provoking, contradiction I am at a loss as to why you even posted.

As for myself; Looks good veta. A pretty good summary of how Carriers might be used in an RTS where Ammo/Fuel are an actual concern.

Very well

Ok, well to counter;

Generally mobile factories are VERY slow and can't escape anything should the battle "go sour". I've never seen a FatBoy or an Atlantis actually park somewhere right next to the enemy base and produce units without it becoming scrap in just a few moments. Generally, anything a Mobile factory can do, a normal factory can do better (for cost).

And as for cheaper building costs that's certainly an interesting thought... however the FatBoy cost eight times the Energy cost of the stationary T3 land factory and six times the Mass Cost... not to mention that it consumed 500 energy just sitting there.

They were astonishingly inefficient as factories. Hence why nobody used them as a factory.

If your opponent has no navy building on his door step with a fatboy isn't hard. I do it to the AI. It's very effective.

Also, I already created a thread about this.

A key point to remember is that mobile factorys in SupCom had to stop moving to build, and were quite slow (I agree).

Mobile factorys in SupCom2 were much better in comparison to the point where you would actually replace your airfractorys with them.

The ability to stay on the move while building, and to actually move rather fast (As fast as most other ships, the mega fortress moved just a little slower then gunships)

So I'll agree that mobile factorys in supcom and FA were kinda shoddy.

Everything in the game is already mobile.

Reclaim + rebuild.

That is unrealistic to do during a conflict without sabotaging yourself, unless you are already in a winning position.

If you're moving factories to within spitting distance of your enemies base, you ARE already winning.

Right, also wouldn't it be better to just build more factorys and switch other ones off?

Not if you need that extra boost of Metal, no.

And before you say it; No, if you're a Good player you won't have any extra Metal and the reclaim boost on reclaiming a building is very important.

Edit: Knew you'd say that.
(post below)

I suppose it depends how efficiently you are playing.

Reclaim costs buildpower. We do not know how redundant buildpower will be in PA.
A mobile factory that can build on the move can relocate for free.

I dislike this idea. IMHO having limited ammo only on planes is too weird. In general I think that idea of limited ammo doesn't fit into this game (not to mention fuel). Why would a plane run out of ammo (or fuel), but that tank doesn't? It doesn't make any sense at all.

That's Easy.

Onboard Lathe-bays
Tanks fire a small shell whilst also having a very heavy powerful engine to power their Lathe-Bays. The engine is so powerful a tank can replicate Ammo at the same speed as they can fire them.
However, due to weight restrictions, Aeroplanes must mount much less powerful lathes to re-stock their, much bigger "bomb" ammunition... hence the "downtime" planes must suffer.

I always felt like tanks turned the dirt they drive over into the shells they fire.