Your Ideas to make Carriers useful

[Ragemaster9999]

Carriers should be able to manufacture their own fighter wings, there was a mod in x3 that did this by converting ore to ships.

[GCU Grey Area]

I think to make carriers useful, the fighters need to be considered as part of the weapon system, much like ammunition rather than being a fleet of ships.

Ugh! No thanks, if there's ever something like that it's got to be optional. Prefer to retain direct control over my forces & select precisely which ships are assigned to attack each target. Really not a fan of wing implementation in X4, indeed think it's pretty dire - loathed it in 1.0 &, from the sound of it, things haven't improved if they're still doing daft things like choosing their own targets & being indecisive about whether to dock or not. IMO wings are far more trouble than they're worth, particularly when it's just as easy (& much more flexible) to shift-select ships in groups, give them a sequence of attack orders & then let 'dock & wait' handle RTB when all enemies are dead.

Have you played without mods for the AI? Because I'm not going to go for 20-30 capitals with purple-grade mods that will get eventually shot down. I want the stock mass build ships functionality to be something before we start to judge one playstyle with mods as the way to do it.

No. Why would I? Got plenty of spare mods to go round, though I do tend to reserve purples for capitals. Think pretty much all of my ships (including freighters, miners, station builders, etc) are modified to one extent or another. Playing a Teladi campaign so, at bare minimum, chassis & engine mods are pretty much mandatory for every ship I own to get them running at a reasonable speed.

Oh, I have used and am using them. Doesn't change the fact that trying to do most anything fleet related is seriously an attempt at herding cats right now.

I take it in your example you assume an ideal scenario with both ships already in the system they need to be, travel in a straight line from A to B, in which case yeah, they will be quicker. When sending forces across the galaxy however I always have to wait for bigger ships, making sure they don't randomly get stuck if I was in sector and they might have launched drones. And of course making sure none of the ships were distracted by a random enemy fighter along the way, which they've decided to chase to the ends of the universe at cruise speed.

Using wings by any chance? Just guessing from your herding cats comment. Recommend not using wings, they're terrible. Don't have any of those issues in my fleet, I retain full control over all ships & have never seen any of them get distracted by enemy fighters, etc - they shoot at enemies if they fly into turret range but do not pursue. Also none of my warships use defence drones - they're really annoying if they block S docks & really don't have any need for them when I have a couple of carriers full of fighters which perform much the same role, but over which I have far more control.

[dholmstr]

I think to make carriers useful, the fighters need to be considered as part of the weapon system, much like ammunition rather than being a fleet of ships.

Ugh! No thanks, if there's ever something like that it's got to be optional. Prefer to retain direct control over my forces & select precisely which ships are assigned to attack each target. Really not a fan of wing implementation in X4, indeed think it's pretty dire - loathed it in 1.0 &, from the sound of it, things haven't improved if they're still doing daft things like choosing their own targets & being indecisive about whether to dock or not. IMO wings are far more trouble than they're worth, particularly when it's just as easy (& much more flexible) to shift-select ships in groups, give them a sequence of attack orders & then let 'dock & wait' handle RTB when all enemies are dead.

Have you played without mods for the AI? Because I'm not going to go for 20-30 capitals with purple-grade mods that will get eventually shot down. I want the stock mass build ships functionality to be something before we start to judge one playstyle with mods as the way to do it.

No. Why would I? Got plenty of spare mods to go round, though I do tend to reserve purples for capitals. Think pretty much all of my ships (including freighters, miners, station builders, etc) are modified to one extent or another. Playing a Teladi campaign so, at bare minimum, chassis & engine mods are pretty much mandatory for every ship I own to get them running at a reasonable speed.

Oh, I have used and am using them. Doesn't change the fact that trying to do most anything fleet related is seriously an attempt at herding cats right now.

I take it in your example you assume an ideal scenario with both ships already in the system they need to be, travel in a straight line from A to B, in which case yeah, they will be quicker. When sending forces across the galaxy however I always have to wait for bigger ships, making sure they don't randomly get stuck if I was in sector and they might have launched drones. And of course making sure none of the ships were distracted by a random enemy fighter along the way, which they've decided to chase to the ends of the universe at cruise speed.

Using wings by any chance? Just guessing from your herding cats comment. Recommend not using wings, they're terrible. Don't have any of those issues in my fleet, I retain full control over all ships & have never seen any of them get distracted by enemy fighters, etc - they shoot at enemies if they fly into turret range but do not pursue. Also none of my warships use defence drones - they're really annoying if they block S docks & really don't have any need for them when I have a couple of carriers full of fighters which perform much the same role, but over which I have far more control.

So you think that all ships are ok because you mod them and do not use wings in you playstyle? And not using drones is the way Egosoft tought of when they made drones. I don't use defence drones either for the same reason as you, but I'm not sure players want that.

[GCU Grey Area]

So you think that all ships are ok because you mod them and do not use wings in you playstyle? And not using drones is the way Egosoft tought of when they made drones. I don't use defence drones either for the same reason as you, but I'm not sure players want that.

No, the ships work OK as they are, they just work better if modded. Think the problems are mostly in wing implementation & some other areas of automation (defend orders, etc), rather than the ships themselves. Very disappointed about X4 drones, hope in time they are greatly improved - really liked drones in previous games (more often than not drone production complex was my first build in each new game). However not going to let crap drones prevent me from enjoying the ships, since they can be used without them.

[dholmstr]

So you think that all ships are ok because you mod them and do not use wings in you playstyle? And not using drones is the way Egosoft tought of when they made drones. I don't use defence drones either for the same reason as you, but I'm not sure players want that.

No, the ships work OK as they are, they just work better if modded. Think the problems are mostly in wing implementation & some other areas of automation (defend orders, etc), rather than the ships themselves. Very disappointed about X4 drones, hope in time they are greatly improved - really liked drones in previous games (more often than not drone production complex was my first build in each new game). However not going to let crap drones prevent me from enjoying the ships, since they can be used without them.

Yes the wing command implementation is the thing most people get a hedache from and the many other commands/AI workings. "They just work better if modded" I'm not denying that, but at the same time why do you care about stock ships and function of these when you never play with stock ships? You will mod it away anyways to suite your need,right? I for one want the stock issue ships to actually be good at a role without heavy modding (heavy in this case a few purple upgrades). You do not use functions because they don't work (for ex. drones), why can't we change that? I do also enjoy the game, that doesn't mean it cannot be work on. I have many beefs with many functions and concepts. And carriers are in that position for me. The way I give commands and use wings (occasionally, 'cause sucky AI) they are just not cutting it. Yes they soak damage like no other, but 10 fighters gives me more bang. Again not using mods.

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Ugh! No thanks, if there's ever something like that it's got to be optional. Prefer to retain direct control over my forces & select precisely which ships are assigned to attack each target. Really not a fan of wing implementation in X4, indeed think it's pretty dire - loathed it in 1.0 &, from the sound of it, things haven't improved if they're still doing daft things like choosing their own targets & being indecisive about whether to dock or not. IMO wings are far more trouble than they're worth, particularly when it's just as easy (& much more flexible) to shift-select ships in groups, give them a sequence of attack orders & then let 'dock & wait' handle RTB when all enemies are dead.

Using wings by any chance? Just guessing from your herding cats comment. Recommend not using wings, they're terrible. Don't have any of those issues in my fleet, I retain full control over all ships & have never seen any of them get distracted by enemy fighters, etc - they shoot at enemies if they fly into turret range but do not pursue. Also none of my warships use defence drones - they're really annoying if they block S docks & really don't have any need for them when I have a couple of carriers full of fighters which perform much the same role, but over which I have far more control.

Don't get me wrong, I understand some people want to micromanage 40 fighters, but if you are going to micromanage them then a carrier is quite pointless and will remain pointless, much like wing leaders. The issue is, if you want a wing/squad/fleet leader ( such as a carrier ) then they should maintain a level of control over their subordinates. For example, a wing leader has a command to attack target X, all subordinates should follow suit and not just go about whatever they want. If you want to tell half the wing to do something else then that's fine, but when that is done, they should return to follow the leader. So, yes, I agree to a degree that you should be able to maintain what you are looking for, but by default when I tell a carrier to attack a target that would mean launch your fighters to kill it, not fly into the target, take a pounding while launching fighters who then only attack because they are defending the carrier. This is what I meant by "think of the fighters as weapons", a carrier's fighters are their weapons, otherwise it would just be a transport.

[Olfrygt]

Overall ship balance. Fighters should be fast infight, but slow travelmod, M6 should be slower then fighters. M7 should be implemented (no our "fregattes" arent fregattes only drone corvettes). Remove the ring highway, let XL/L use the center of gates and S/M botton. And give carriers and destroyers a faster travemode.

That lone would make carriers useful if u want to travel a few sectors with a huge amount of fighter.

Fleet commands are the wrong way to make carriers useful, they should work much better anyway.

[GCU Grey Area]

Don't get me wrong, I understand some people want to micromanage 40 fighters, but if you are going to micromanage them then a carrier is quite pointless and will remain pointless

Why pointless? Discovered today I just don't enjoy being followed everywhere by a big mob of fighters (handful of capitals - much more manageable). Tried it (see earlier post) & it was awful - just big chaotic mess with dozens of fighters everywhere. Sometimes couldn't even get my travel drive to engage properly because of all the bloody fighters wandering about all over the place & getting in my way. Very frustrating, really don't know how people manage without carriers if they want to use fighters in significant numbers. Even if nothing else carriers at least help to maintain order in the fleet.

when I tell a carrier to attack a target that would mean launch your fighters to kill it, not fly into the target, take a pounding while launching fighters who then only attack because they are defending the carrier. This is what I meant by "think of the fighters as weapons", a carrier's fighters are their weapons, otherwise it would just be a transport.

Isn't it simpler just to give different orders to the carrier & the fighters (e.g. 'fly to' & 'attack', respectively), if you don't want the carrier to engage?

Anyway, my carriers are often busy with an entirely different mission - as well as fighter transport they're also my strategic bombers. Due to having rather a lot of Plasma turrets they're quite good at station demolition too & are often busy doing precisely that while fighter support is doing it's main job of distracting Xenon capitals from shooting at my destroyers. Could be difficult to do that sort of thing if the only way to give orders to fighters was through their carrier. Find it more effective to treat carriers & the fighters they transport as independent elements of the fleet.

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Why pointless? Discovered today I just don't enjoy being followed everywhere by a big mob of fighters (handful of capitals - much more manageable). Tried it (see earlier post) & it was awful - just big chaotic mess with dozens of fighters everywhere. Sometimes couldn't even get my travel drive to engage properly because of all the bloody fighters wandering about all over the place & getting in my way. Very frustrating, really don't know how people manage without carriers if they want to use fighters in significant numbers. Even if nothing else carriers at least help to maintain order in the fleet.

Isn't it simpler just to give different orders to the carrier & the fighters (e.g. 'fly to' & 'attack', respectively), if you don't want the carrier to engage?

Anyway, my carriers are often busy with an entirely different mission - as well as fighter transport they're also my strategic bombers. Due to having rather a lot of Plasma turrets they're quite good at station demolition too & are often busy doing precisely that while fighter support is doing it's main job of distracting Xenon capitals from shooting at my destroyers. Could be difficult to do that sort of thing if the only way to give orders to fighters was through their carrier. Find it more effective to treat carriers & the fighters they transport as independent elements of the fleet.

For example, a wing leader has a command to attack target X, all subordinates should follow suit and not just go about whatever they want. If you want to tell half the wing to do something else then that's fine, but when that is done, they should return to follow the leader. So, yes, I agree to a degree that you should be able to maintain what you are looking for

Included the part you removed from the quote.

Here is a real life example of carrier usage as most understand it. An aircraft carrier is ordered to attack something, do they crash into shore, start shooting off the deck while planes are trying to take off? No, they launch their planes which attack the target while they maintain a lower risk distance. Within each wing that takes off, there is a wing leader that designates the target assigned to them and the remainder follow their lead.

Regardless of how you are using them, whether that is a punching bag, weapons platform or a transport, I was addressing that the function of a carrier is not being met because it's only purpose right now is a transport.

For your issue of moving so many fighters, shift select them all, remove orders and tell them to fly to a location and they will go directly there. The only time they run off chasing red dots is when you are attempting to use wings as they should work ( follow the leader ).

[Morleond]

What if using travel mode used energy cells? Small fighters can't carry that much so a Carrier would have a big advantage. And then resupply ships could be used for bringing energy cells to carriers along with hull parts and missiles components. That would make them more useful

[Olfrygt]

What if using travel mode used energy cells? Small fighters can't carry that much so a Carrier would have a big advantage. And then resupply ships could be used for bringing energy cells to carriers along with hull parts and missiles components. That would make them more useful

This or, do it like star trek. With a inertia puffer/dumper system. Make it storywise with the need of a huge amount of energy and small fighter reactors simply can't handle it for a longer period of time.

There are enough was to do it. Fleet commads are the wrong way, thats a basic system of the game which should be working. And ship(class)balance is horribel bad (sry but its even X2 is more balanced and interesting here) anyway so they could adress 2 problems within a single adjustment.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Wait, what carrier goes 7,2km/s and what destroyer goes 8,6 km/s? Fastest I've seen with travel engines are around 4 ish...

Those numbers are for Condor & Phoenix Vanguards with all-round engines & purple mods for Chassis (mass mod) & Engines (forward thrust mod).
Probably could go even faster in travel mode (with a travel engine & specific travel mode mod), however the purple forward thrust mods come with a decent enough modifier for travel mode & prefer my capitals to have good performance on conventional drives.

Have you played without mods for the AI? Because I'm not going to go for 20-30 capitals with purple-grade mods that will get eventually shot down. I want the stock mass build ships functionality to be something before we start to judge one playstyle with mods as the way to do it.

I have and my experience seems to be in-line with GCU's, the trick with ALL L/XL craft is to not rely 100% on the AI plotting the routes for them (the AI inter-sector route plotting is borked in general). You need to manually direct them down the most efficient routes with 2-3 waypoints on average.

You fit combat engines to most fighters and they will be slower than even the Teladi Pheonix (the slowest of the Destroyers/Carriers) in travel mode. The ONLY time the S/M craft will get from A to B faster is if they fly exactly the same routes and most of that route has highway coverage - 10k m/s highway speeds are tough to beat. Even then you have to deal with fleet gather times at the end of the route if they travel individually - it is not as if the highways allow 40 ships to go from A to B as a single unit - they will be spread out along the highway. You do not have that concern with Carriers.

[sh1pman]

I wish there was a mod for L/XLs that makes them fly straight through the gate instead of screwing around for 10 minutes.

[dholmstr]

Those numbers are for Condor & Phoenix Vanguards with all-round engines & purple mods for Chassis (mass mod) & Engines (forward thrust mod).
Probably could go even faster in travel mode (with a travel engine & specific travel mode mod), however the purple forward thrust mods come with a decent enough modifier for travel mode & prefer my capitals to have good performance on conventional drives.

Have you played without mods for the AI? Because I'm not going to go for 20-30 capitals with purple-grade mods that will get eventually shot down. I want the stock mass build ships functionality to be something before we start to judge one playstyle with mods as the way to do it.

I have and my experience seems to be in-line with GCU's, the trick with ALL L/XL craft is to not rely 100% on the AI plotting the routes for them (the AI inter-sector route plotting is borked in general). You need to manually direct them down the most efficient routes with 2-3 waypoints on average.

You fit combat engines to most fighters and they will be slower than even the Teladi Pheonix (the slowest of the Destroyers/Carriers) in travel mode. The ONLY time the S/M craft will get from A to B faster is if they fly exactly the same routes and most of that route has highway coverage - 10k m/s highway speeds are tough to beat. Even then you have to deal with fleet gather times at the end of the route if they travel individually - it is not as if the highways allow 40 ships to go from A to B as a single unit - they will be spread out along the highway. You do not have that concern with Carriers.

But if you need to micromanage the AI plot route why is it any harder to say, Shift-click 50 fighters to a point just before the conflict area to regroup before going in on attack? And we still got that AI dance around the gate, not that this is the ships fault. Btw the speed differens could be less than we imagine. Yes the top speed of L/XL you can get them to 8km/s but it takes way longer for them to reach that than a fighters 3-4km/s. At a range of 500km or below, that build up of speed isn't in favor for the big ship. Let alone the highway sectors, but lets skip them. Should do a test from Antigone Wharf (think thats in the same place for everyone at game start) to Black Hole Sun. This route would not really use any highways, maybe in the beginning in Antigone. The gates are somewhat far apart so the speed could come into play. Other sectors could be the paranid ones below the ring.

[GCU Grey Area]

But if you need to micromanage the AI plot route why is it any harder to say, Shift-click 50 fighters to a point just before the conflict area to regroup before going in on attack? And we still got that AI dance around the gate, not that this is the ships fault. Btw the speed differens could be less than we imagine. Yes the top speed of L/XL you can get them to 8km/s but it takes way longer for them to reach that than a fighters 3-4km/s. At a range of 500km or below, that build up of speed isn't in favor for the big ship. Let alone the highway sectors, but lets skip them. Should do a test from Antigone Wharf (think thats in the same place for everyone at game start) to Black Hole Sun. This route would not really use any highways, maybe in the beginning in Antigone. The gates are somewhat far apart so the speed could come into play. Other sectors could be the paranid ones below the ring.

For me the long distance travel benefits of carriers are far less relevant than relatively short journeys within hostile sectors (well under your nominal 500km). In such circumstances I prefer to keep the various elements of the fleet as close together as possible, it's just safer & more effective that way.

Even if the fighters could get to the next point of conflict faster I don't want them to get there much faster than the rest of the fleet. Their role is to distract the turrets of Xenon capitals from shooting at my destroyers. All they'd be doing is taking unnecessary damage if they arrive at the target substantially ahead of the destroyers, to no real benefit - fighters need to get there first to be fully effective, but ideally only by a km or 2 (just far enough ahead that the enemy turrets pick them as a target rather than the destroyers).

Keeping the fleet together makes it much easier to coordinate the different elements of the fleet so everyone does the right thing at the right time. Fairly easy to accomplish with the destroyers & carriers (speeds are similar), much harder with fighters due to the huge discrepancy in speed compared to my capitals - without carriers they're always either lagging a long way behind the fleet if the ships are in travel mode, or pointlessly running ahead of the fleet if on conventional drives. Either way it's a mess.

Also, since all my fighters have modified engines, there's even a fair degree of difference in the speed of individual fighters - on longer journeys (IS) there's a distinct tendency for them to get quite widely spaced out, easy victims to being picked off 1 by 1 when they arrive in turret range of their target. Much better to put them all back inside the carriers even for IS journeys - at least inside a carrier they're all travelling at exactly the same speed until I decide it's the optimal moment to order the attack.

[TallonHunteR]

Remove just one aspect of abstraction, and carriers become useful.

everything in the X universe runs on energy cells, yet only production currently uses them. so add an energy cell cost per time unit of operation, also powering shields and weapons.

carriers will then:
a) ensure your fighters are topped up when they reach combat
b) have a massive re-suppy benefit over most destroyers (medium pads mean more energy cells faster)

additional benefits would include:
1) assaults will now have disruptable supply lines ( energy cells needed )
2) sieges are now possible ( once a station runs dry it will be defenseless )
3) over saturated energy cell market will be less so.

[dholmstr]

But if you need to micromanage the AI plot route why is it any harder to say, Shift-click 50 fighters to a point just before the conflict area to regroup before going in on attack? And we still got that AI dance around the gate, not that this is the ships fault. Btw the speed differens could be less than we imagine. Yes the top speed of L/XL you can get them to 8km/s but it takes way longer for them to reach that than a fighters 3-4km/s. At a range of 500km or below, that build up of speed isn't in favor for the big ship. Let alone the highway sectors, but lets skip them. Should do a test from Antigone Wharf (think thats in the same place for everyone at game start) to Black Hole Sun. This route would not really use any highways, maybe in the beginning in Antigone. The gates are somewhat far apart so the speed could come into play. Other sectors could be the paranid ones below the ring.

For me the long distance travel benefits of carriers are far less relevant than relatively short journeys within hostile sectors (well under your nominal 500km). In such circumstances I prefer to keep the various elements of the fleet as close together as possible, it's just safer & more effective that way.

Even if the fighters could get to the next point of conflict faster I don't want them to get there much faster than the rest of the fleet. Their role is to distract the turrets of Xenon capitals from shooting at my destroyers. All they'd be doing is taking unnecessary damage if they arrive at the target substantially ahead of the destroyers, to no real benefit - fighters need to get there first to be fully effective, but ideally only by a km or 2 (just far enough ahead that the enemy turrets pick them as a target rather than the destroyers).

Keeping the fleet together makes it much easier to coordinate the different elements of the fleet so everyone does the right thing at the right time. Fairly easy to accomplish with the destroyers & carriers (speeds are similar), much harder with fighters due to the huge discrepancy in speed compared to my capitals - without carriers they're always either lagging a long way behind the fleet if the ships are in travel mode, or pointlessly running ahead of the fleet if on conventional drives. Either way it's a mess.

Also, since all my fighters have modified engines, there's even a fair degree of difference in the speed of individual fighters - on longer journeys (IS) there's a distinct tendency for them to get quite widely spaced out, easy victims to being picked off 1 by 1 when they arrive in turret range of their target. Much better to put them all back inside the carriers even for IS journeys - at least inside a carrier they're all travelling at exactly the same speed until I decide it's the optimal moment to order the attack.

What is "long distance travel" in you opinion? I didn't say that send fighters directly into the fray of battle, I said to a point where they regroup and then order them to attack. And that you have fighters all with different speed because of modding well that is your modding problem. Different speed 'cause of different ships then I understand. Distracting enemy turrets all fine but they can also shoot back, question is does that one carrier bring more bang than a dozen extra fighters (while distracting even more)?
Long distance IS travels and get widely spread out is a problem but that has more about the AI than ships. And that docking up when taken alot of damage, I so would like that...automated for carriers.
Oh and travel with the carrier and giving then the order for all fighters inside to attack, yes please, but damn it takes time for those idiot AIs to take off. Again more about AI mechanics than ships.

[GCU Grey Area]

What is "long distance travel" in you opinion? I didn't say that send fighters directly into the fray of battle, I said to a point where they regroup and then order them to attack. And that you have fighters all with different speed because of modding well that is your modding problem. Different speed 'cause of different ships then I understand. Distracting enemy turrets all fine but they can also shoot back, question is does that one carrier bring more bang than a dozen extra fighters (while distracting even more)?
Long distance IS travels and get widely spread out is a problem but that has more about the AI than ships. And that docking up when taken alot of damage, I so would like that...automated for carriers.
Oh and travel with the carrier and giving then the order for all fighters inside to attack, yes please, but damn it takes time for those idiot AIs to take off. Again more about AI mechanics than ships.

Long distance travel for me is any journey between sectors where I'm not expecting combat en route (though there always remains the possibility of a wandering K, etc).
Rally points where fighters regroup prior to an attack still leaves them waiting somewhere, vulnerable to attack without the rest of the fleet around. Not something I'm keen to do, prefer to keep them with the fleet & for that I consider a carrier essential.
Different speeds due to modding may have issues with unit cohesion, however it does help to keep each fighter in one piece - noticed substantially fewer casualties since I started modding my fighters to increase hull, shields & speed. Overall the benefits of modding fighters outweighs the negatives.
As to the value of carriers relative to just having more fighters, certainly prefer to have carriers & fewer fighters myself - just the advantages of making fleet management so much easier make them well worth the investment IMO.
Fighter docking for me is essentially already automated by using the 'dock & wait' behaviour. They dock automatically when the fight is over. Alternatively a simple 'remove all orders' can be issued to remove damaged fighters from the battlefield & have them automatically fly back to the safety of their carrier (obviously they don't necessarily have to be damaged for this to work, that's just the usual circumstances in which I might want a specific fighter to retreat from battle).
Not having any issues at all with respect to launch times from a carrier after fighters have received their attack orders. That's kind of the point of carriers - they have the fastest fighter launch rate of any ship class, with specialised launch tubes to deploy fighters with mere seconds between launches - i.e. every fighter the carrier's got launched in maybe 5-10 seconds max (not timed it, just watched it - but it's bloody fast). Orders of magnitude faster than deploying fighters from any other sort of ship, where they have to rely on standard docking platforms - primary reason I go to the expense of using carriers, rather than having my destroyers carry their own fighter support.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Not having any issues at all with respect to launch times from a carrier after fighters have received their attack orders. That's kind of the point of carriers - they have the fastest fighter launch rate of any ship class, with specialised launch tubes to deploy fighters with mere seconds between launches - i.e. every fighter the carrier's got launched in maybe 5-10 seconds max (not timed it, just watched it - but it's bloody fast). Orders of magnitude faster than deploying fighters from any other sort of ship, where they have to rely on standard docking platforms - primary reason I go to the expense of using carriers, rather than having my destroyers carry their own fighter support.

Exactly this. It is worth noting though that the paranid (L-size) mining ships have 4 internal S-size launch tubes to the 10 tubes on the Paranid/Argon Carriers (6 on the Teladi Carrier) so could serve well as a light patrol level reaction force. Anticipated launch speeds with those ships would probably be around half that of the carriers (at best) but with a much slower recovery time due to only having one surface pad at last check.

To clarify: if it takes 10 seconds to launch 40 S-size ships (with all 40 ships internalised) on a Zeus/Colossus then I would expect it to take around 17 seconds on a Condor, and around 25 seconds on a Paranid mining ship.

[GCU Grey Area]

It is worth noting though that the paranid (L-size) mining ships have 4 internal S-size launch tubes to the 10 tubes on the Paranid/Argon Carriers (6 on the Teladi Carrier) so could serve well as a light patrol level reaction force. Anticipated launch speeds with those ships would probably be around half that of the carriers (at best) but with a much slower recovery time due to only having one surface pad at last check.

Thanks, useful info - will have to try to remember that if/when I start a Paranid game. Sounds useful early game when full sized carriers are a bit too expensive to contemplate.

To clarify: if it takes 10 seconds to launch 40 S-size ships (with all 40 ships internalised) on a Zeus/Colossus then I would expect it to take around 17 seconds on a Condor, and around 25 seconds on a Paranid mining ship.

17 seconds is a little too high for Condor. Out of curiosity decided to test. A Condor with a full load of 40 fighters in internal storage can be emptied in around 8 seconds. Would expect other XL carriers to manage this in around half the time, since they have substantially more launch tubes.