Well, i very much liked the notes Jamez88 brought up in his post some lines above.



I really like the battle system with strategic cards to enhance the tactics. How about a strategic card to hunt enemy till death? Probably you start a follower battle with this card, to opposite enemys just fleeing the battle.



Additionally i would like to see a 'Universe Creator' add on. So one could choose out of several aspects of a map and create a unique one. Like having clusters of stars that aren't connected with starting points to let factions grow before first contact. Or to have a picture of a 2D object as base where the map is drawn above, while you could choose the density of stars aso.



As a paid add-on there is mentioned allready enough. Most impressing would be different ship styles and races.



Probably you think about adding flags for the empires instead leader pictures, so it is possible to create factions out of allready given races. This might give a good opportunity into having rebels that cut off a empire that has too much upset points. Player then might choose to lead the original or the rebels further on. It might be also a good base for a story driven game...like 'manhood spread out into space, then some stars started a rebellion and created a new empire', mixed with different unique tech or diplomatic background.



Is it possible for a multiplayer round to have players with different difficulty levels, so newbies could co-exist with experianced players? This might offer some space for different aged races, but with the same goal.



There are plentyful of good ideas and i really enjoy the possibility to have a company that is counting on their gamers ideas.

I Like the Idea to improve the battles in Endless Space, but sometimes I just wish, the AI was clever enough to flee with my scout out of a battle when I was stupid enough to click on auto-fight again. Or if it was possible to choose it just before starting the automatic fight, it would save a lot of time.

The next big wish, I have for this game is just giving the AI that manages my systems a few advises. I mean it would be great to tell it, not to colonize gas-planets, just because its possible, and after round 50 with 15 systems I do not want to manage it all myself, exspecially in an multiplayer game...

The last thing is the ability to switch the positions of the researches that are planned with drag and drop, because I sometimes think it`s more useful now to change the order and than I have to do it all again, but thats just a little thing

One last thing. Coop-Victory, because sometimes you and a friend just wish to bash an AI...

If you want to emphasize battle in this expansion, I highly recommend adding a new UI for managing fleets and what belongs to them:

• we need a way to rally newly built ships to any system (so I don't have to cycle all systems by hand in a state of emergency, where every ship counts)
  
  
• creating fleets should be easier; there could be a simple button to form fleets either as large as possible or after certain user defined patterns (eg 4 corvettes, 8 battlecruisers and 4 dreadnoughts)
  
  
• whenever a battle occurs, the prompt should visually take me to the relevant system and not only name my fleet's position
  
  

I trust you

I want to be able to name my ships. Always love that in a game, gives personality to each ship.



Also, MUCH longer names for fleets and planets. Right now I try to give them something more to my liking (like the Edict of Order for an invasion fleet, though I would love to give that name to a ship instead) and I can't fit that, so I end up with EoO, which is nowhere near as cool.

oo expansion pack i just bought the game today! cant wait to play it, its been on my wish list on steam ever since it came out! bought the emperor edition straight away aha

The game should auto stack fleets that can be, otherwise it is a good way of preventing stacks of doom.

Improved Visual for Beam Weapons

Strike wings

Carriers

VieuxChat wrote:
A story. Or a way to create mods that are stories (that way I coul dcreate some kind of interactive tutorial).

The game lacks "narrative" things, me thinks.

I think what would accomplish this goal really well, and dynamically, would be randomly-generated "missions" that vary based on diplomacy status, with some careful writing for what you need to accomplish. The "story" could be made a lot more engaging by not just adding one mission (time-specific or not), but turning it into a whole chain of missions where mission #2 may go after you complete mission #3. They don't have to be super long or exhausting, it could just be gathering/donating resources (something like 10K+ Dust?), destroying pirates (generated over a system when the mission is made available to you, where accpeting or declining the mission would result in pirate fleets running amuck over friendly sectors or even your own).



Completing the above missions could reward the player with tech (possibly even a few UNIQUE tech pieces that you can only access by completing the mission chain), Dust, different faction or UNIQUE ships, new heroes available, discovery of new solar systems (would appear on the map once the quest is completed by the player or ANY player/AI in a Multiplayer/Singleplayer game... meaning that anybody could claim it at that point, however the completing player would obviously be informed about it, just may not be the one to claim it.), status bonuses, etc., etc.... there are a TON of options here that can add a creative story into an otherwise personality-lacking game (which I still love based on even the current state). Of course regardless of your decision, there could be a nice little pop-up text which details the consequences of your actions with maybe a picture slide-show or something (I'm not expecting cinematics lol). This could probably integrate some cool player stories and fan art from some sort of forum contests (winners would get the new expansion for free?).



On the opposite end of the spectrum, refusing missions (or a part of the mission chain) could result in a large number of consequences that could be exploited if you want... for example: Your "ally" next door is taking-up space you intended to colonize... and here comes a quest stating that a pirate fleet is coming/doomsday weapon is deployed/other race's people are dieing from a mysterious virus. You could potentially decline to help, which would result in majority of their fleet being destroyed and losing control of a few solar systems/a sector actually being BLOWN-UP in a supernova/lower population + lower production + loss of money + etc = your weakened "ally" is now ready to backstab to get your system you wanted but were in no position to get before. NOTE: In multiplayer, a player being affected randomly with the negative effect would be notified via the same random event once the other player has made their decision to boost or degrade their impression of the other player (a REAL moral choice system with rewards/consequences when other people know you are or are not helping them, regardless of in-game diplomacy status).



In essense, there could be a Mass Effect-type good/bad metter to track your decisions which could also give you different effects/status during the course of the game, making your decisions have a lasting effect on the course of the entire game.



All of the missions could use the same exact mechanic as the random events you have already added, just give 3 or more options are "responses" and add a race alignment factor if it comes from one of the other factions in the game, or if it is done like a true random event (such as a pirate invasion of one of your systems or interaction with an Endless artifact you discover in a system/randomly appears in an event), then just remove the race alignment.



Honestly, this sounds like it would belong in a totally different "Story Expansion" deal... and yes, I would absolutely pay money for it (I paid $17.99 for the current game... I would probably pay up to $30 for this expansion if it added something like 30 random mission archs with an average of 3 missions per arch for a total of 90 missions with some being "epic" 5-mission chains, with some being quick 1-time deals). There would definitely be replay value added with something like this, as you would probably never see all the possible missions/combinations in any single game.



With that said, some of the basic mechanics such as those discussed in the very first post that enhance combat and invasions would probably need to come first (extra emphasis on improving the lifeless event of invasions please, there are some older space 4x games that manage to make invasions very memorable, where in this game you just park some ships over a sector = the end).



Thank you for listening, and good job with the game so far! I played a "trial" version of this game first, but after reading about it and playing it for a little bit I immidiatetly got on Steam and paid for it... going to be purchasing a copy for one of my buddies also.



P.S. My buddy is a HUGE Emperor of the Fading Sun fan, and to this date very few games have the sort of political intrigue/story of that game that really make it FEEL like you are becoming stronger/important in the game world without a pop-up telling you that you are stronger or some arbitrary score. The above story/mission structure can be made to say anything your creative player-base wants it to say... any topic/theme is possible (business, internal politics, war, improvement, etc.).



P.S. #2 I guess this has nothing to do with the planned expantion, huh? lol

Personally, I feel that one major way to make each game played feel unique would be finding a creative way to mix up the tech tree. I am brand new to the game but have been a fan of the genre ever since the original Master of Orion. Something that seems to be a constant in these games is that once the player realizes the optimal tech path, the AI no longer stands a chance. Basically, why start up a new game if there's no way you can lose? Then I discovered the 'uncreative' trait in Master of Orion 2, what that did was essentially limit your choices in tech to a random selection within each tech category, and you had to do the best with what you got. I was hooked. There was real challenge in that and due to the randomness, every game was wildly different from the last.



Other games have done similar approaches. Some are optional like in Alpha Centauri where you could select 'blind research' (which allowed you to choose from categories but not specific techs) in the options, but was not required to do so. While Sword of the Stars has certain techs randomly available in a game while others remain a constant. Also in Sword of the Stars, the connections between techs were occasionally different as well.



In addition, research was further spiced up in Master of Orion 2 and Sword of the Stars with the chance for research setbacks and breakthroughs. Though its never fun to get a setback as a player, the fact that you could not always predict with 100% accuracy on when you will get that tech is a great element to the game, and forces the player to take risks at times.



The trick is finding the right balance. I've thought up several different approaches and each would impose a varying level of difficulty on the player. However in all of these I would recommend that the limitation be put on the player only. I am still too new to the game to understand all the mechanics of the AI, but doubt it can make reasonable choices for tech development if the techs moved around on it.



Here's some ideas in no particular order:



-Have all techs within each category be randomized but retain their tier. (basically an early tech remains early, and late remains late, but each game the path to reach them is different) / alternatively, just randomize the connecting lines between each tech. A tech may lead one way in game A, but lead to a different tech in game B. Either approach would accomplish the same goal: the path to technology changes.



-This would use the above idea, but in addition, all future techs would be unknown until you research 1 or 2 techs before it. Essentially a 'fog of war' in the tech tree. Along with the challenge of not knowing the future, I can picture a science focused race getting a bonus in being able to see techs further down the tree than normal races. *note: This would be somewhat more harsh on new players because they would not have the techs memorized and so would not know what tree has a tech they need, so perhaps this would be more appropriate as an optional choice for the 'blind research' similar to how Alpha Centauri did it. (Though I must admit, this here is what I am really wanting: blind and random research)



-certain (but not all) connecting lines connect to different techs each game



-If tech breakthroughs/setbacks are implemented, certain techs could be considered high-risk and more prone to setbacks, likewise other techs could be considered easier and more commonly given breakthroughs



-Have certain techs be 'floating' techs. They are randomly available in a game and so you do not know if they will appear or not. This can become more interesting if each race's tree is made independently, meaning one race has a tech that another cannot get without trading for it (or stealing)



-Arrange certain techs to be on the borderline between different categories. Each game it is randomly chosen which category actually connects to it. So one game you get it from the exploration tree, another game you get it from the diplomacy tree.





While I am at it, here's a couple things that I think would be interesting to be added into the game:

-troop transports (always seems silly to me that my ship with no troops can invade an entire planet given enough time)

-ground combat (don't think it needs an entire game element like space combat, but the fact that heroes have entire stats dedicated to it makes me feel that some more focus should be spent on it. Master of Orion 2 had a good approach, troops automatically got tech upgrades, heroes added their bonus, and the battle was visually played out, but it was not an entire mini game to conduct the battle)

-independent minor races similar to city states from Civ 5. (Don't let them expand but defend their star systems)

-pirates taking/holding systems

-the wonders are neat but because only one person owns the planet with them on it, there's not really a race for it once the colony is settled. Add wonders that are made available via tech but only one each may be built in the galaxy

-while I'm on wonders, extra stats are nice and all, but there are so many things that just stack on stats (heroes have the same problem) I'd much rather see unique benefits



And something else; honestly when I first found out that every planet in the game will either get a luxury or strategic resource i was flabbergasted. It is ridiculous that every planet gets to be 'special' because none of them are special as a result. After just ONE game I found myself already lost all excitement of finding some planet with a desirable resource. after all, if it doesn't have one now, it will later. Just colonize everything. I want to be excited about finding a planet with a resource. Not secretly annoyed that I got some early resource instead of some later resource I had been hoping for. I understand that resources are meant to be a type of bottleneck to make games unique, since one game you have one type and another game you have a different type. That's great, but you can still have that same effect with less of them. In fact, if there were just less in general (and some planets having none) I'd be totally happy. Create some scarcity and now there could be some fights over a strategic resource because after all it really is needed strategically



That's all I have for now, thanks for reading!

-Druski

- New faction and traits (focusing on new battle techniques?) - This sounds like an interesting idea (and most expansion packs generally have new races/factions etc etc anyway, so it's a no brainer really)

- Finding artifacts on moons or planets could be equipped on ships or heroes - not sure if i like this. I think fleets with heroes are plenty powerful already.

- More different weapons types, more hybrids and new types. - I think the weapon types are good as they are now. Adding more would just lead to frustrating battles and worse, frustrating ship designs.

- Visual impact of weapons on ships (I doubt we can go there...) - No. Though you might want to rethink the ship destruction animation. It's space.. not water. Destroyed ships 'sink' apparently. You should let them slowly explode and drift off.

- Space stations to defend systems -Omg, yes! This is a 'jizz in my pants' yes. Nothing is more annoying than going to war and having another faction backdoor your systems because you need all your fleets at the other side of the galaxy.

- Options to make planets more unique by building special unique buildings. special building appear on planets / system. - not sure about this one. There are only 4 resources, the FIDS.. we can already only build one structure to boost a resource on a planet. Making it unique. Please explain unique buildings more.

- Ground Battles to accelerate the sieging if the invasion is successful. It would then be visual, on the planet ground. - interesting concept, though this would require capturing ships to have actual 'planet capture cards' no?

- Huge Ships - Huge all the things, really! Huehuehue

- Planet defenses that damages sieging fleets - If you have space stations defending your planets, there is no need. Maybe combine planet defense with the space stations?

- Razing planets / Systems - elaborate?

- Destroying entire star systems (will disappear after being destroyed) - I do not even want to know how stoned you guys were to even consider this as a possible feature. Just.. no.

- Espionage and sabotage (also resulting in sabotage during the fleet battles). be able to trick the enemy with fake informations. - Espionage adds a new tactics to warfare. And tactics are always fun in warfare.

- Heroes exploring artifacts unlock technologies on the tech tree - no, we have research and discovery events for this, dummies.

- Construction queue sorting options ( I guess this was meant more towards sorting possible constructions on the systems..) - Elaborate?

- Boarding ships can capture enemy ships and keep them to use them for privateering under a fake flag (the flag of the original owner). - Uhh.. turn pirate you say? well.. no. Just add a pirate faction? :/





Thoughts of my own:



Cloaking on scout ships

Technologies to reveal cloaked scout ships

Make your colonies visible on colonized planets. (haven't really noticed them if they are already there. If they are, make them more obvious? )

Ability to build a space station on an empty planet slot in a star system. (works like a planet but with additional options? Like building refineries and such?)

Technology that allows us to travel to those pesky galaxies in the background. They are taunting me. I must explore them!



Also, cats. Especially in multi player. No internet anything should go without cats. >:3

Well this is something to look up to... I like the game as it is but this will make it even more awesome. Thank you!

I'm very much for rally points and automated fleet creation. There's just too much micromanagement towards the end of the game. And while we are on the topic of micromanagement:



- Finding artifacts on moons or planets could be equipped on ships or heroes - I don't like the idea too much, sounds like too much micromanagement to me. If there are artifacts, they should be somehow useful on the empire scale. I think heroes are quite powerful as admirals as it is.



- Boarding ships can capture enemy ships and keep them to use them for privateering under a fake flag (the flag of the original owner). Another idea that would probably only result in too much microing with no real benefit.



- Espionage and sabotage (also resulting in sabotage during the fleet battles). be able to trick the enemy with fake informations. Might be useful with the adventurer/spy heroes but please don't make it a too complicated system. I find that having to move spies and scouts around in strategy games is a huge micromanagement pain and it should be as automatic as possible. Galactic leaders have their way of getting information to them

Viljanen wrote:
I'm very much for rally points and automated fleet creation. There's just too much micromanagement towards the end of the game. And while we are on the topic of micromanagement:



- Finding artifacts on moons or planets could be equipped on ships or heroes - I don't like the idea too much, sounds like too much micromanagement to me. If there are artifacts, they should be somehow useful on the empire scale. I think heroes are quite powerful as admirals as it is.



- Boarding ships can capture enemy ships and keep them to use them for privateering under a fake flag (the flag of the original owner). Another idea that would probably only result in too much microing with no real benefit.



- Espionage and sabotage (also resulting in sabotage during the fleet battles). be able to trick the enemy with fake informations. Might be useful with the adventurer/spy heroes but please don't make it a too complicated system. I find that having to move spies and scouts around in strategy games is a huge micromanagement pain and it should be as automatic as possible. Galactic leaders have their way of getting information to them

Please consider this (read from top to bottom in order of your comments).



1.) Yes, there is a ton of micromanagement in larger games, which pretty-much force you to switch most planets to AI. I have not really had an issue with fleet management since I had way fewer of them than planets, and you don't have to do more than move them and occassionally redesign a ship model and then updated them all fleet-by-fleet. I will agree that having upgraded fleet queues and rally points probably would make more complicated games (especially in multiplayer) a lot more manageable/accessible to gamers.



2.) You have only a handful of heroes in any given game, and I imagine the artifacts in question would be relatively rare. I don't see how it is really "micromanagement" by adding RPG elements to your heroes beyond the current system. It's not like the artifact or Hero will force you to do anything every turn like planet upgrades do... and if they do require some extra interaction, well, that's just more to "do" in the game.



3.) The idea of capturing enemy ships is that you can make other nations in both SP and MP think that your ship is actually still the enemy's. This allows you to potentially attack a planet (this may be a SP-only feature as it may only work against AI's) and start a war... I'm assuming there would be extra features associated with said captured ship than you would normally be able to do with your own ships.



4.) Well, we have AI controls for system exploration and systems management (with a focus), so I kind of also hope that spying can work similarly. I just hope there are consequences to spies being detected, and hopefully there are features for counter-spying that could be useful even against normal players... for example: a player sends a spy to another player's planet to spy on the production queue, check on total FIDS output, etc, however you have detected him after X turns due to a new tech you had researched/installed. Instead of just telling the first player who sent the spy "your spy was detected and executed" (which should be an option to send a message), you should probably also have an option to send false information back through the spy that is NOT announced to the original player. The false information can be anything, such as making it "look" like there are powerful fleets in orbit around the planet, the planet displaying a much larger defensive value than it actually does, no production queue/low FIDS output, etc. This would make spies a double-edged sword, and would likely benefit from being used manually, however would still not be necessary for those people that hate "micromanagement" (ironic statement for anybody that plays 4x games).

The idea of fighters, bombers, intercepters leads me to ask: Will they be individuals? In squadrans? Or launched from a new class of ship called the carrier? I like the carrier idea the most because it would that instead of weapon modules, it would carrier ship modules, kind of like weapons with three classes. Fighters, bombers, and intercepters as the three classes, along with new defenses to counter the new threats.

I would like an expansion around enhancing the combat experience.



A bit of pie in the sky but I would like to see an optional turn based tactical game to replace the current battle system. Without that I don't see any point in expanding combat options. To me, this is what provides the fourth X.



At the very least I would like to see the model for combat damage looked at so that its not "what weapon do I equip all my ships with so they hit one defense". This creates automatic optimal choices which really diminishes the value of more choices in ship design.



In all cases, I think just adding features without looking at the underlying damage system will provide little value. I would like there to be more interesting decisions. I do understand that this presents additional AI and balance issues.

I agree that battles can use an update, I find it hard to decide on my first move sometimes by the beginning of combat. Also, I like the idea of having more options, such as fighters,bombers, and boarding parties. Finally, I think it would be really cool to implement the exploration features, and really give players more incentives to be the first one there, rather than extra dust or maybe a free tech.

Mr.Spartan126 wrote:
The idea of fighters, bombers, intercepters leads me to ask: Will they be individuals? In squadrans? Or launched from a new class of ship called the carrier? I like the carrier idea the most because it would that instead of weapon modules, it would carrier ship modules, kind of like weapons with three classes. Fighters, bombers, and intercepters as the three classes, along with new defenses to counter the new threats.

Actually at first I thought that only Carriers were being discussed this entire time... the idea of units that consist of a "squad" of a smaller ship with it's own set of strengths/weaknesses intrigues me. :O



If when you start the game you have access to cheap fighters that are effective against larger ships such as Destroyers or better BUT very weak to Coverttes, you would have a hard-counter to early-game Destroyer rushes. Later you could unlock bombers, which would be an improved/more expensive version that would have the same weakness, but would be brutally ineffective against Fighters, so could potentially be destroyed by an equally matched group of fighters, while doing next to no damage to them. Intercepters should be an advanced tech that would be a hard counter to swarms of fighters and or bombers AND resistant to Corvettes, however with no real way to damage larger ships.



Along those lines, Corvettes would always be effective against Fighters and Bombers because they would get a major attack/defense bonus against them, which could work as a hard counter to swarms of Fighters and Bombers only, however the trick here is that the Corvette would need to be bristling with KINETIC weapons, as opposed to Beam or Missile. This would in affect make one of most pointless/easily skipped units/weapon combinations viable all the way to the end-game. Yes, other ships equipped with Kinetic weapons should be able to destroy fighters/bombers also (just through shear number of rounds being fired), however they would not get the huge attack/defense/accuracy/evasion bonuses of the Corvettes versus those same ships.



If the above model for figher/bomber/interceptor ships is introduced, Kinectic weapons should be the main weapon for dealing with them, not Flak (as suggested by many). There would also not be any sort of "anti-fighter" defense on larger ships. This would force players to use BALANCED fleets that consist of something other than just Destroyers or Dreads. Every good fleet (in SP or MP) would require the use of a small ship class, medium ship class, and Dreads, to the degree that if you leave one of those classes out, you would leave a huge gap in your defenses that could be easily exploitable.



Here are some example of a fleet setup and it's strenghts/weaknesses (assuming end-game in a large galaxy and 22 as maximum fleet size):

1.) 3 Dreads +3 Interceptors +3 Destroyers = Interceptors useless against any fleet without Fighters/Bombers, easily countered by fleet of entirely Destroyers (with heavy casualties) or Dreads, but with a defense against all fighter/bomber fleets like the one attacking the fleet in example #2.



2.) 5 Dreads + 2 Interceptors = Swarms (22?) of Fighers/Bombers would be enough to destroy the Dreads, but would ultimately lose more than half the bomber fleet to the 2 Interceptors.



3.) 7 Fighters + 8 Bombers + 7 Interceptors = Effective against similar fleets (with heavy casualties), very effective against Destroyer/Dread-only fleets, however completely destroyed by a much smaller fleet with 4-6 Corvettes packing a lot of Kinetic weapons, doing next to no damage to the Corvettes (of the same tech level).



4.) 3 Dreads + 4 Destroyers/2 Battleships + 3 Corvettes + 3 Fighters/Bombers/Interceptors = a very balanced fleet that can be over-whelmed by fleets that may use more Dreads, but with very heavy casualties. In fact, this last fleet would be the hardest to counter as it would fall squarely in the middle of the attack/defense equation, so it would not be a steam-roll event for any fleet that would rely on only one ship type. Versus an all-Dread OR Destroyer fleet, the above fleet would be able to do heavy damage, and win if they brought more Bombers than Fighters/Interceptors (obviously a lot faster to produce than a fleet of Dreads). In the event of an all-Fighter/Bomber/Interceptor fleet, the above would likely lose all or most of the larger ships (depending on luck and which commands were issued), however the Corvettes would decimate everything other than Interceptors, however would probably still win if there was a fleet or two of Interceptors assisting the Corvettes.



5.) The rare fleet consisting ENTIRELY of 22 Interceptors (you just know somebody would try and make one) = Would have ultimate anti-fighter/Bomber superiority, would suffer heavy casualties from similar fleets (on both sides), and would take sever damage from Corvette fleets that they would not be able to hurt themselves (only heavy damage to the Interceptors). In that respect, while a player could use the annoying tactic of simply destroying ALL of the fighter/bombers of an attacking fleet and then ending the event with a tie, the attackers could bring a fleet of anti-Interceptors with them, specifically to counter this tactic (granted with about 2 turns needed to destroy the whole fleet of Interceptors). Similarly, you could bring a sacrificial fleet of Interceptors with you that could result in mutually-assured destruction, and THEN attacking with a full-force balanced fleet.



To make it even more interesting, I would suggest giving Fighters Beam weapons (kind of O.K. against both large and small ships, but the point being that they are cheap and can hurt everything other than Corvettes), Bombers Missile weapons (just plain makes sense), and Interceptors with Kinetic weapons (that being the anti-small ship weapon going forward since the weapon is not very good against anything else currently).



Carriers could also work into this equation by being VERY expensive Fighter/Bomber/Interceptors "hiders" (you would not be able to see what they are carrying until the battle starts) with additional support weapons/modules that could assist in a number of ways (including have a ton of HP that could be used to produce a tie in worst-case scenario just by absorbing hits). They would need to get a bonus to something, possibly with the ability to bring more Fighters/Bombers/Interceptors into a battle than normally possible without them. Carrier-only battles would be possible but due to the extreme varsatility of the ships, however they would lose their bite when all of the small ships are destroyed, only producing high exp targets with not enough weaponry/armor of their own to do anything other than run.



EDIT: Hopy **** that turned into a long post. O_O

I like the idea of including Fighters/Bombers in the game as well. I feel that they would not be able to move on their own between systems. To travel between systems, they need to be attached to a fleet with a fighter hanger. Also, I feel the fighter hanger would be a support component of a ship. The more hangers on the ship, the more fighters can be carried by that ship. As for a ship being designated a hanger, it would simply be a normal ship with tonnage bonuses for hanger bay components.

The idea of base-ships with included fighters for fleet battle and bombers for planetary attacks sounds quite interesting. The point to pick them up from a planet an transport them to another would raise the micromanagment too much in my eyes to have this working in a multiplayer game.

As for the tech-tree the base-ship could be an further advanced transport ship to be researched in different classes. The bigger transporters could be used for people or troop transport duty or could get equipped with the fighter/bomber modules then.

Another idea:

Fighters/Bombers/Interceptors being primarily used for system defense on a space station, however with carriers having access to them also. The ships would be indestructible modules, not actual "ships" with HP or any of their own modules.



Potentially, if we want to be lazy with this, the Fighters/Bombers/Interceptors could be modules that can not be destroyed, but could be defended against with some sort of module. To be even lazier, the small ships could be defended against with the current modules in the game, they would just have different properties (number of phases the damage would start doing damage/how fast they would get to the target/how fast they can switch targets). If we are talking about space station defenses for systems, they could function exactly the same as stronger versions of Carriers... possibly even utilizing the exact same modules, maybe with a few more options on the space stations... probably having a much larger tonnage and being able to launch more ships at once.



The key with space stations would be that the system they are located on would have to produce them and they should be VERY expensive, so that every system could not have one simply due to the production/number of turns required to build them on a system.