Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Enclosed or open-deck carriers? Thoughts and discussions

Discussion in 'General' started by TenshouYoku, Mar 11, 2018.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. TenshouYoku Apprentice Engineer

    So I guess this has been discussed for a while, but I still would like to hear some discussions about this (since personally I am also building carriers myself) so as to brainstorm about this a bit.

    There are some flared up discussions before, and after some data mining about designs, I came up with the following conclusions about their pros and cons.

    Enclosed Carriers

    -Carriers that have a large shell surrounding the fighter deck, or the fighter hangars are inside the carrier as a part of the interior.

    -Fighters are protected from a surprise attack or a particularly heavy meteor storm.
    -Repair crews are also protected from hazards-grinding and repairing is easier.
    -Runaway is possible for a fighter to escape its aggressors (if you have an enclosed runway).

    -The fighter hangar will be more confined in space, have a smaller capacity and/or increase the overall size of the carrier. This means more space will have to be used to accommodate the fighters and relevant conveyor systems.
    -More armor will be needed to surround the carrier which increases overall mass.
    -Landing and takeoff will be trickier because you will have to land somewhere to get into the hangar, especially if you don't have a runway.

    Open Deck carriers:

    -Carriers whose fighter deck is exposed to the environments similar to a modern carrier at sea.

    -Designing is easier as it's planar by nature.
    -Taking off is easier even if you don't use a VTOL or you use a forward heavy fighter because of a larger surface.
    -Stores more fighters as the whole surface can be used for docking of fighters.
    -More space is available for interiors such as cargo and repair stations.

    -Fighters are prone to bombardment and/or meteor showers.
    -Trickier for the repair crew to repair vessels especially if under enemy fire harassment.
    -Intel is gathered from your ship more easily (unless you have an interior deck as well).
    -Pilots cannot escape from enemy hostility by using the carrier runway as an escape.

    What kind of ships do you design? If you can, please also post your pictures to give an idea to everybody. Thanks.
  2. Malware Master Engineer

    I've never even considered having an open deck carrier. I just instinctively went to enclosed because I want to be able to pressurize the hangar to work on the ships. I worked with "pressure" in mind even before it was a thing...

    But then I don't do battle ships...
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. BlackScythe Apprentice Engineer

    well like you already said they both have their pros and cons. usually i built warships with enclosed hangars and civilian ships with a few open decks. IF the warship reaches a certain size i combine it so you can store all your fighters inside to protect them during journeys and get them out on the decks before a fight. With rdavs fleet command i experienced open deck carriers to be more practical.

    In fact @Malware is absolutely right, it is just so much more comfortable to work in pressurized areas. (Keen, give more Hangar Door sizes plox!)
  4. odizzido Junior Engineer

    Walls might be a good compromise. Only vulnerable from one side and you can take off easily. Plus you can load up the walls with guns
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  5. Sarekh Senior Engineer

    I actually have switched to non-pressurized hangars. One reason for that is meta: it means much less lag if this huge compartment does not have to pressurize and depressurize all the time. I also don't find it too annoying to grab me a bottle of oxygen and go out there to work on the ships. I am also not relying on the size of the hangar door and can create much more convenient access points. As for the enclosed part: I have adapted a BSG style / Wingcommander style for the access with an opened tube to land and to start from. It gives me the space I need to do combat starts and landings but it keeps the ships save as long as they are in the tube - it also has the advantage that there is no computer component as there are no gates and thus the entry / exit points will not be fired upon by the enemy turrets.

    • Like Like x 2
  6. dispair Apprentice Engineer

    All of my military ships have closed decks. Most have some sort of door. My civilian mining carriers often have open decks for easy accommodation of miners.

    Closed decks even light armor can protect a lot, but I use heavy armor and park ships "upside-down"
  7. Dax23333 Junior Engineer

    A lot of mine end up with semi enclosed hangers, I tend to do a hanger that is open at both sides but has a roof and floor composed of the rest of the ship. Protects fighters much much better than a completly open hanger but can allow for easier drone docking. Even the possibility to dock them on both floor and ceiling!
  8. Sinbad Senior Engineer

    i tend towards pits for ancillary vessels. they provide protection in all directions except the top (dont forget the non-deformable blast door linings!). each has a pilot egress airlock and connectors for resupply. if i need to repair something i bring it into an internal hanger. i say ancillary vessels rather than fighters because i will generally only have 2 fighters, and they are more like armed sharp shooter tugs than classic fighters. plus a few miners, welders, grinders, dedicated tugs and planetary landers. great big over sized limpets clinging to my mobile factory. one pressurized hanger big enough to fit a single max size ship (tiny tiny doors!) is enough for easy maintenance.
  9. Jikanta Apprentice Engineer

    Interplanetary ships of mine get enclosed hangers since they usually house more than just (drone) fighters. Repair and mining craft in case I find myself a little more than off course and in need of repairs.
    Then there's the short range carrier. Open hanger. It's going into a fight and needs to be ready at the drop of a rotor head.
  10. Calaban Junior Engineer

    My opinion on this will be the easy out: I think it should be Both.

    Open deck for launching and retrieving, rapid scramble, and repeat drop offs of stuff like loot crates.

    Enclosed hangar for ship building, repair, refit, etc.

    I would much rather a piloted craft be ready on the outer deck of the ship hazarding the outside Weather... than the alternative: having a piloted craft ready for launch- but INSIDE, with the only way out being broken and on fire (caused by the aforementioned Outside Weather)

    because at the end of the day in the heat of the moment, when a Argentavis is sending fun your way [or you lose power in a gravity well, or a hammerhead frigate in on ramming course] would you rather:
    A: negotiate the interfaces for the doors to open/launch
    B: detach landing gear and separate immediately

    I know which I'd prefer. Plus I also realize: Clang hates us
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    If the carrier is in CQB, you are doing something wrong:
    - Open deck or spindly tree branches for small craft to perch on, all around
    - A single-ship repair/construction hangar to allow pressurized or vacuum fabrication/repair (no repairs mid-battle!)
    - A grinder bay to consume debris and damaged-beyond-repair ships

    In battle: aggressively attack with small craft, pilots respawn at medbay and jump into new ship and/or control drone swarms
    Out of battle: produce small craft at a low rate from the repair hangar
    CQB/incoming missile: jump away
    Small craft type: disposable, weapons >> armor, economic warfare
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. TenshouYoku Apprentice Engineer

    I like the hangar design of this ship. But wouldn't it be dangerous to have reactors at places as prone as the head section though?

    I personally wanted to make a hybrid, with an easy-access runway and a more deeply located hangar, but eh it's much more complicated than necessary (ships crashing onto the interior walls etc). Would be interested if anyone did that successfully.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  13. Sarekh Senior Engineer

    not particularly, no. My ships are designed for line battles if enganged. Either they take the weaponry of the enemy down or they will suffer the consequences - the hull is a double layer composite hull with blast armour alignments and blast pockets as well as with a connected repair system for key components. Redundancy systems are decentralized - but most importantly, @Arcturus is completely right: if a carrier is in CQB you are doing it wront (actually, might as well buy me a shirt with that wording :) )

    If the fighters and the armour and the turrets and the fleet and the repair systems cannot protect the reactors in that place? I deserve to be blown to smithereens :)
  14. The Churrosaur Junior Engineer

    This is kind of off the mark of the discussion, but most carriers I've build/fought alongside for actual PvP have been open-topped, simply for the expedience of being able to scramble your (freshly printed) fighter with as little hassle as possible. Also, as @Arcturus and @Sarekh have said about CQB...

    That said, especially for iterations with stricter fleet restrictions I've seen 'battlecarriers' which are often primarily fleet ships with a secondary fighter/pmw printing capability. The 'hangar' here being armored as it's intended to be in the line of fire.
  15. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    The question for "closed" carrier designs is can you get ships through less than four blocks? If your ships can't pass through the air tight hangar door blocks, then you'll have to use some system of rotors and pistons. If you plan on playing on a server, they will more than likely kill you long before your ships and fighters will come under attack.
  16. Timuroslav Apprentice Engineer

    You're forgetting that the airtight hangar doors only stretch to 1x2x1 blocks. This means your fighters will have to be smaller than the mail slot.
    Open deck carriers can service any ship. Connecting to them is easier and faster, but the cost is both ships defenses. Your guns can't fire if your ships are blocks the view.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    I have started watching Battlestar Galactica for the first time and I'm going to have to vote for closed deck because ALL THE FIGHTER PILOTS WOULD BE DEAD if it was open *__*
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  18. Malware Master Engineer

    That's 1x3x1 with 2 being the door part. 4 large blocks is 20 small. It's also 10 meters. For fighters I'd say that is enough.
  19. TenshouYoku Apprentice Engineer

    Theoretically, yes.
    In reality, it's usually a tad bit too low for errors. My planes are very forward heavy (oh god I really want aerodynamics to be vanilla...), And things like crashing into a gate is not unlikely.
    Open decks are much easier to land because there, well, isn't an overhead you'd crash onto.
  20. Malware Master Engineer

    Theoretically? Given my hour count I'd make the claim that it's gone way past theory long ago :p Of course open decks are easier to land on, that's like stating "water is wet" :p but I don't really find it too difficult to enter 4-block hangars. It's just standard practice for me.

    That's really what it boils down to. What you prefer. Like I said, I don't do battleships. Hasty scrambles isn't a thing. Secure storage and easy, pressurized maintenance is.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Timuroslav Apprentice Engineer

    Carrier shouldn't be near the battle zone, but yeah. Fun fact the origin of the Carrier is actually submarine tenders and supply boats. The Aircraft carrier in carrier is kind of a mid war phenomenon.

    They carried the majority of the fuel for the flotilla.
    Submarines would often resupply at them.
    Because it carries your stuff heh get it?
  22. TenshouYoku Apprentice Engineer

    I am sure I am a pretty sloppy aircraft pilot that is.... That's why I said "theoretically" because sure it isn't hard to land into a 4-by-sth for better pilots and a standard sized plane but there are always idiot pilots like me.

    And BTW I finally finished my own very carrier. I will upload it later.
    --- Automerge ---

    So this is my carrier that I've built after gathering stuff from here.
    It is capable of fighting in both space and planetary conditions, as well as taking off from Earth to space alone.....cuz why not.
    It also has a maximum capacity of 28+12 (in hangar+exterior refuel station) and has in-built refinery and stuff for maximum sustainability.
    The problem is it's extremely massive and wide but it shouldn't be engaging front lines too much even though it *should be* able to do so.
    The bad point of having an external hangar on the sides is they are huge targets themselves, but the good news is the ship can be made really redundant and have its important bits well secured.
  23. Calaban Junior Engineer

    On that Arcadia: nice design and concept, I cannot d/l the blueprint (@ work), so some Questions:

    - I'm wondering what the center hull is doing/used for. reactors and refineries and assemblers? cargo?

    - is the top of each side pylon a staging area? parking field for fightercraft? if so it need connectors & cargo hatch ports on the deck surface for work/arming/resupply while the fighters get their h2 tanks topped off and batteries recharged through the connector. If not- well, there's an idea for design growth.

    - is there a auxiliary side hangar/port/deck for receiving ore and ice from mining support vessels? These could be like helicopters on Aircraft carriers, not for the combat, per-se, but for support of the ship as a whole. Does the craft process ores directly? or is it dependent on outside support more fully?

    -When a craft enters a side pylon, does it encounter other parked craft in it path? or is there a large bay leading to the center hull for such parking of half disassembled ships? Or do the fightercraft get latched "up high" like the tie fighters in The Force Awakens?

    -If a pylon gets blasted off and separated from the main hull... is it self sufficient enough to keep power on, batteries charging, and craft launching.. regardless?

    - Jump Drives- does it have more than it needs- so that it can leave a jump drive in standby in case it jumps in someplace.. unfortunate, and needs to make an immediate jump back away?
  24. TenshouYoku Apprentice Engineer

    Yep, basically it's the main hull for everything. Originally it's the hangar itself, but one friend of mine mentioned that it's a huge waste of space as well as I find it ridiculous to land and turn especially because my plane designs are horrible at that, so the runways became the hangars themselves. This leaves massive amounts of space as a side-effect which is now the powerhouse.
    The charging site is at the belly of the pylon instead of the above. Originally I wanted to install a shield or an array of solar panels, or even a runway for aerodynamic/forward heavy fighters, but I haven't did anything about it so far. (it's a multi-environment carrier.)
    Originally I wanted to have Multi-Purpose Silos, which are used to mount these crafts, or even rovers and PMWs if needed. It was however dropped because it's a pain in the butt to locate and will make this already massive carrier even more massive than it would be.
    The underside of the pylon is also a docking bay, but exposed. They can both transfer stuff in and out to the main system just like the insides of the pylon.
    Yes, they will encounter other crafts, but the craft hangar is dual-ways, which can store two planes per row.
    It was expected for the dude who parked first to stay at the innermost portion of the pylon.

    Actually I was thinking about a rehaul which has a central disassembly/assembly station for this reason, but.....meh, takes more time that I can afford atm.

    Except it would be harder to move forwards, blowing off a hull has no performance drop because there are practically nothing inside them (apart from the loss of a whole hangar but it has enough space for 20 planes per side). None of the power sources are on the pylons precisely because they are kinda exposed and vulnerable. (to make landing and docking on the bottom side easier, it actually doesn't have boosters other than the rear.)
    Depending how do you define "enough". It has (afaik) 6 drives which is enough to propel it for slightly more than 1600 km.
  25. Calaban Junior Engineer

    By enough I meant the number of drives to jump a satisfactory distance... PLUS the "oh, CRAP!" extra, which is left fully charged up but offline, standing by for moments notice rejump
  26. TenshouYoku Apprentice Engineer

    Yes, I think the ship will have enough drives for that.
  27. tankmayvin Senior Engineer

    It doesn't matter in the least because true carriers are role-playing vehicles that aren't especially useful for PVP with the way the meta is: dominated by gunbricks, PMW spam and similar operated from some sort of base.

    If you're going to operate a tender or whatnot, which is basically just a semi mobile thing that can print replacement pmws and fighers, and refuel/rearm things, a flattop with a spaced and armored/blastdoored landing deck is key. Because eventually someone is going to go splat trying to land and a flat deck tender is tough and the mess is easy to clean up.

    Also armor or not doesn't matter versus PMWs anyway. They'll still gut your hangar contents.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  28. Calaban Junior Engineer

    some would say that gunbricks and printed grid spam is the root cause of all ded. server sim speed lag, and that players that think thats how the game is to be played with others need to be rounded up. -and shunted to play on servers only with each other.

    But of course this discussion is about a roleplaying style sandbox design of a carrier, how we would shape/configure one to our best engineering, not pvp, ability.

    Where landing on and reaching orbit from earth and alien world by the megatons is the engineering challenge, not the "can I drag my SP sim speed down the most" or "kick over other players' sandcastles the fastest" challenges.
  29. TenshouYoku Apprentice Engineer

    "Where would you rather die? Here, or in a Jaeger?" (Pentacost in Pacific Rim)
    If anything I'd probably just ban deathcubes/bricks and printers for the sake of balance and fun should I decide to host a server for SE.

    But in all seriousness, I did attempt to put a ship printer in on of the earlier models, but finally gave up not only because it doesn't seem very viable in Survival and is too massive even for this anything-but-small ship, the last time I did it, it tore a massive hole inside my few thousand tons worth ship and sent it adrift like cows in a tornado. All because of a motor being locked.
    It also causes massive amounts of lag (even in single player) and a lot of worrying stuff like wobbling even when locked.

    This ship is engineered to be able to take off even in Survival. Virtually you can just fly a miner and dock randomly and your ice/ore/whatnot will be fueled into the ship and have it process it automatically, and you can extract stuff from the ship anywhere.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
  30. Audiacious Trainee Engineer

    I prefer closed decks. Inside this i have 8 smaller ships with room for more if I make smaller crew quarters. The front is the main exit and hangar while just under the bridge is a smaller hangar for 2 quick response fighters. Still tweaking the ship as I go and will most likely be taking off some of the armament in favor of making it quicker.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.