What is the point of any Carrier but the Raptor?

[jlehtone]

However, all things being equal on cost, it just doesn't make a bit of sense to me to buy any other carrier than a Raptor, well unless you are roleplaying.

And if you do roleplay, then there are still more than one way to choose a ship: http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm


Btw, when 100 S ships are in the internal storage of Raptor, 21 more can land on the pads ...

[GCU Grey Area]

So honesty, either other factions CVs need a drastic price slash, maybe down to in the 30-40 million range...

Most of them are already a LOT cheaper than that. I generally don't spend much more than about 10-15 million on my carriers. This sort of spec is typical for me:https://www.dropbox.com/s/vpd3znp5ep5b8 ... 1.jpg?dl=0. It's only Raptor & Tokyo that are significantly more expensive than that - Raptor because it's bloody huge (bare chassis alone costs well in excess of 30 million) & Tokyo because it's crammed full of fancy, but extortionately expensive, Terran tech.

[copperzinc]

I have Raptor, but I am now leaning more towards building my new fleet with Tokyo.

Sure, Raptor got more turrets, but for a carrier I just want it to survive. I lost a Raptor with full deck of ships due to a mix of command error and AI error, and had not time to react launching all fighters before they all went boom (really painful, had to reload and lost some progress).

And when you lose not just a carrier but a whole fleet of ships docked inside, you would know the pain.

And besides, why would I need my carrier on frontlines when I have 2 Asgards and 6 Osakas and 6 Syns escorting it? A Xenon I or two would simply evaporate before it get to my carrier with my "Inverse V" formation.

As for Tokyo, it is not without its faults, but its lower S capacity is not really a downside. What I really care about is the fighter ready time, and Tokyo with full front hanger can launch all squads docked inside really quickly. Building more carriers is not a cause of concern in my current economy (11 billions in account now with 3 self-sufficient shipyards). Why not have more carriers launching in parallel, and when losing one of them the damage is mitigated since others can continue to resupply the fleet? For the same price 3x carrier to build a raptor, I would rather have 3 carriers. Thank you very much.

[Midnitewolf]

The Raptor can not get fighters out faster than the tokyo. The tokyo unleashes all fighters in just a few seconds.

See this statement is confusing. How can the Tokyo launch more fighters faster with 18 landing pads than a Raptor can with 21? It would seem that the Raptor should be able to get out 42 fighters in the same time it takes the Tokyo get out 36 making the Raptor faster at getting more fighters into space.

I mean I guess there could be an extra long delay built into the raptor that make it take fighter launch slower than other carriers or perhaps it takes longer for the 2nd wave to make its way up from storage but unless that is the case theoretically the Raptor is faster just by virtue of having more landing pads available to launch fighters.

[Midnitewolf]

I have Raptor, but I am now leaning more towards building my new fleet with Tokyo.

Sure, Raptor got more turrets, but for a carrier I just want it to survive. I lost a Raptor with full deck of ships due to a mix of command error and AI error, and had not time to react launching all fighters before they all went boom (really painful, had to reload and lost some progress).

And when you lose not just a carrier but a whole fleet of ships docked inside, you would know the pain.

And besides, why would I need my carrier on frontlines when I have 2 Asgards and 6 Osakas and 6 Syns escorting it? A Xenon I or two would simply evaporate before it get to my carrier with my "Inverse V" formation.

As for Tokyo, it is not without its faults, but its lower S capacity is not really a downside. What I really care about is the fighter ready time, and Tokyo with full front hanger can launch all squads docked inside really quickly. Building more carriers is not a cause of concern in my current economy (11 billions in account now with 3 self-sufficient shipyards). Why not have more carriers launching in parallel, and when losing one of them the damage is mitigated since others can continue to resupply the fleet? For the same price 3x carrier to build a raptor, I would rather have 3 carriers. Thank you very much.

Since I just posted the question about how a Tokyo with 18 pads gets more fighters into the air faster than a Raptor with 21, I won't go into that here again but aside from it costing double to still get 20 less fighters in the air even if you buy two Tokyos, you now have more micro to deal with trying to manage two carriers instead of one. I will concede that there are a few reasons to want two Toykos over one Raptor but your statement about Carriers not being necessary on the front line negates both of them. As for the reasons to want two Tokyos:

1) It has better shielding and while the Raptor has a huge pool of hull HP, the fact that shields recharge quickly means shielding is superior to Hull in all cases.
2) The enemy has to kill 2 carriers to knock out your fighter support entirely. That is two sets of shields they have to eat through. Also more targets can mean the enemy splits their fire between the two, thus give both double survivability.

So yeah, I can see those sorts of benefits but as I was saying, you mentioned that a carrier shouldn't be on the front line anyway, so increased survivability becomes a non-issue. In this circumstance, you would still be better off taking the Raptor just because you can bring 20 additional S and M class ships to the party.

Anyway that is just how I see it. I could be wrong but I haven't yet seen any compelling evidence to suggest you would really ever be better off with any other carrier than a Raptor, no matter what tactical doctrine you use with it. Don't get mw wrong, I was hoping there was something I missed but so far, nothing.

[Raptor34]

The Raptor can not get fighters out faster than the tokyo. The tokyo unleashes all fighters in just a few seconds.

See this statement is confusing. How can the Tokyo launch more fighters faster with 18 landing pads than a Raptor can with 21? It would seem that the Raptor should be able to get out 42 fighters in the same time it takes the Tokyo get out 36 making the Raptor faster at getting more fighters into space.

I mean I guess there could be an extra long delay built into the raptor that make it take fighter launch slower than other carriers or perhaps it takes longer for the 2nd wave to make its way up from storage but unless that is the case theoretically the Raptor is faster just by virtue of having more landing pads available to launch fighters.

Perhaps something to do with its long launch tube? I know the Tokyo's launch tube is pretty short while the Raptor's is really long, like at least half the length of the ship.
I think fighters don't actually leave launch mode, and its associated slow speed until they leave the tube.

[Miniding]

What Raptor lack in shield, it's vastly compensate in hull strength.
Plus, who cares about weak shield, when you have 108 turrets, that will shred even Xenon I, before it will have a chance wear down your shield?

I can assure you it doesn't take a chance facing a Xenon 9I with all its graviton turrets firing (even half is not sustainable)
Tested many times !

[TKz]

So yeah, I can see those sorts of benefits but as I was saying, you mentioned that a carrier shouldn't be on the front line anyway, so increased survivability becomes a non-issue. In this circumstance, you would still be better off taking the Raptor just because you can bring 20 additional S and M class ships to the party.

Tokyo can bring 58 S ships, Raptor can bring 121 S ships ... that's much more than "20 additional S"

Raptor is more than double a Tokyo.

As for Tokyo, it is not without its faults, but its lower S capacity is not really a downside. What I really care about is the fighter ready time, and Tokyo with full front hanger can launch all squads docked inside really quickly. Building more carriers is not a cause of concern in my current economy (11 billions in account now with 3 self-sufficient shipyards). Why not have more carriers launching in parallel, and when losing one of them the damage is mitigated since others can continue to resupply the fleet? For the same price 3x carrier to build a raptor, I would rather have 3 carriers. Thank you very much.

When you are at this point in the game, I fully agree that you can make a decision that is not economically logical, just to have a small operational performance bonus (more shielding, more carriers to tank enemy fire if needed). Actually I'm doing the same, I have 12 Tokyo right now, in fleets of 3 Tokyos : it does not need more micro management than a raptor, I give orders to the fleets, and a fleet with 3 Tokyos brings more ships than a single Raptor.

[BlackRain]

The Raptor can not get fighters out faster than the tokyo. The tokyo unleashes all fighters in just a few seconds.

See this statement is confusing. How can the Tokyo launch more fighters faster with 18 landing pads than a Raptor can with 21? It would seem that the Raptor should be able to get out 42 fighters in the same time it takes the Tokyo get out 36 making the Raptor faster at getting more fighters into space.

I mean I guess there could be an extra long delay built into the raptor that make it take fighter launch slower than other carriers or perhaps it takes longer for the 2nd wave to make its way up from storage but unless that is the case theoretically the Raptor is faster just by virtue of having more landing pads available to launch fighters.

It has rapid launch tubes or something

[GCU Grey Area]

It has rapid launch tubes or something

Don't think so, at least none I've been able to spot so far. It just has S docks very close to open space, so fighters can get up to full speed much faster than from a Raptor (i.e. doesn't have Raptor's long tunnel for them to slowly fly down at 50m/s). Tokyo launches will probably be a bit slower than carriers with proper fast launch tubes, however it won't be nearly so dreadful as a Raptor for slow launches.

[BlackRain]

It has rapid launch tubes or something

Don't think so, at least none I've been able to spot so far. It just has S docks very close to open space, so fighters can get up to full speed much faster than from a Raptor (i.e. doesn't have Raptor's long tunnel for them to slowly fly down at 50m/s). Tokyo launches will probably be a bit slower than carriers with proper fast launch tubes, however it won't be nearly so dreadful as a Raptor for slow launches.

When I launched fighters from my tokyo, it was extremely fast. I guess it is because it launches and then gets out right away.

[grapedog]

I know a zeus can rofl stomp a rattlesnake. I have FAF rattlers near one of mining areas. I dont even launch my fighters, i just roll my zeus up to 3 or 4km distance, and its plasma and bolt turrets tear the rattlesnake up pretty quick.

[Karmaticdamage]

What's the point of using anything other then a massive blob of destroyers? Money and/or entertainment.

[Lander1979]

Personally I like the Idea of having 3 smaller Carriers rather than 1 larger one. If a carrier goes down you lose everything it had onboard at the time, so for 3 carriers you lose maybe 1/3 of your firepower, but if you lose a Raptor you lose the whole lot. if you start taking serious damage to one of the Carriers you can withdraw it and you will still have 2 Carriers in the fight, however if you withdraw the Raptor then you don't have any Carrier in the fight. If you have 3 Carriers you can split them off and fight on 3 fronts - be in 3 places at once, a Raptor can only be in one place at a time.
If a fight only requires a small force you can choose to send fewer carriers, however if you have the Raptor your going in overkill.

[nick75]

Honestly... at this moment (Feb 2025) I see no reason for having ANY carrier.
They look ugly, more then half of them are not worth the money nor the time needed to build and fit them properly.
Just work to build Syns and Asgadrs and you can reach and clean any sector within minutes, not days or weeks if you are using a Raptor Carrier.
May be it's fun to have, so you can tell here in chat: "Hey! I gave a carrier too!" but that's it.
They are useless.
Don't get me wrong! I will have a carrier too some day! What we have now, though, (Shark included) just look so ugly to me that I feel better without it, on the other way why I should have a ugly carrier if all I would do with it is just look at it?
My hope is a complete dredesign of the Tokyo or may be a fully brand mew Terran Carrier that could actually do something decent as the Tokyo itself is not just the ugliest around but also the most useless not to tell it's one of the most expensive.
I know there are mods about this already but naaah: I don't want to entangle myself with mods. So please Devs? Can we have some Terran Carrier looking nices and may be somehow useful too? Thank you.

[CBJ]

This thread is 4 years old and discussing the situation many versions ago, so there is no good reason for digging it up. If you want to discuss your opinion on the utility of carriers in the current version of the game, feel free to start your own thread.