Free Allegiance Forums

Since we moved to a new board, Ihave to reopen the thread. Carriers are small game cheese and need the SY tag.

Seconded. Agreed, especially with Tac/Patty Rush, just way too much in a small game.

1. Push them through the enemy op sector to their ref
2. Kill their miners, if fail, PU at carrier
3. Periodically fight off attacks
3a. Distract the enemy with the carrier while you freely mine
4. Nan the carrier, when podded, PU at carrier, rip back in, nan again
5. When bomber comes, rip carrier out
6. Nan carrier
7. Repeat as desired

Those were the basic points, I believe.

Completely agree Grimm.

As I said before, give a light carrier type thing in garrison, if sy tag is on change it to the regular carrier, and what the heck, don't allow enh carriers without sy built maybe?

I reckon if there was a poll on this, 75% plus would be in favour of moving carrier to SY.

Noir doesn't make changes based on public opinion.

Also, I am NOT talking about moving the carrier to the SY. I am talking about binding the carrier to the SY tag, as Noir did it with the fighter bombers, XRM, etc...

I'm going to have to second this.

Carrier rushing is a lame strat in smaller ( < 20 v. 20 ) games.

I think the ability to "turn off" carriers should exist.

How about slower carrier energy regen and carrier don't pick up pods.

Grim I understand what you mean, I agree that carriers should have the sy tag.

However, I'm also saying that standard and enh carriers are too limiting overall...

in relation to both those points above, and the fact that many comms are used to carriers one way or another; we should have a light carrier always available in garrison, if sy is on it allows comm to upgrade to a standard carrier, and if that is researched, then enh carriers should be available to be researched in the shipyard.

/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Changes are already being planned for carriers.