You know, the space battle over Naboo is actually something I'd tend to cite as an example of a scenario in which dedicated carriers are essentially worthless. The Trade Federation "battleship," which is more along the lines of what would be referred to as an armed merchant cruiser in the real world (at least, using WWII terminology), is for all practical purposes invulnerable to fighter weapons; there is no evidence within the movie that the fighters so much as scratched the paint on the ship's hull until plot contrivance let a 10-year-old who shouldn't have been anywhere near the battlefield fly an essentially out-of-control fighter into a hangar bay and fire some torpedoes into an important bit of machinery which is for some reason exposed within the bay. If the only way your fighters can seriously threaten an armed merchant cruiser is to fly into its fighter bay and fire torpedoes at critical equipment which is for some reason exposed and unprotected within the hangar bay, your fighters do not represent a credible threat to the armed merchant cruiser, barring incredible incompetence on the part of the target's crew or incredible luck on the part of your fighters or both. If your fighters do not represent a credible threat to an armed merchant cruiser, chances are that they also do not represent a credible threat to a real warship; armed merchant cruisers are not generally known for having defensive capabilities superior to those of dedicated warships. The only evidence within the movie that the fighters actually represented a threat to the Trade Federation ship is that the Trade Federation ship actually bothered launching fighters to engage the attacking fighters, but on the other hand I'd not expect that the commanders of ships of the Trade Federation to be the most competent commanders for space battles.

Star Wars (well, the setting as depicted in the live-action movies; the EU is full of things not particularly well supported by the movies, and having not ever watched the animated stuff I cannot speak to that part of the franchise) is not a good setting to use to justify space carriers as the preeminent space capital ships; all six of the live-action movies provide far more support for the notion that whatever value fighters have in large-scale space battles is more in line with harassment and attacks on other light ships than in being a credible threat to capital ships. The ability of the Rebel fighters to threaten the first Death Star rested upon a single design flaw, the ability to hit something which is regarded by characters who should be knowledgeable about such things within the universe as a very difficult target, and the general lack of effective response by the station's commanders to the attack (yes, some defensive guns engage the attacking fighters, and considering that these are apparently anti-capital weapons rather than anti-fighter weapons, they don't do that badly, but the appropriate response should have been to launch fighters, and this is not done until Vader, who appears to be more along the lines of an important guest than someone who can actually order the onboard personnel around, orders his personal fighter force into play). Executor was only lost to that A-Wing because the Rebel fleet, which had multiple large capital ships of its own, concentrated enough fire to bring down the shields before the A-Wing crashed through the viewport, and even then it's unlikely that the ship would have been lost or even particularly badly damaged had there been time for the crew to regain control of the vessel before it crashed into the second Death Star. The ability of fighters to threaten the second Death Star rested upon its incomplete state; indications are that whatever information the Rebels had on what the finalized Death Star would have looked like, that information was sufficient to convince that what did the first Death Star in would not do for the completed second Death Star. If starfighters are, as you suggest, so powerful and effective in the Star Wars setting, well, the prequels provided a full-scale galactic war in which fighters should have had ample opportunity to demonstrate their power and effectiveness by virtue of the numbers of fighters employed on both sides and the large scale of the war, and yet the dominant post-war capital ships appear to have shifted away from the carrier and towards the battleship. Heck, if you accept the word of the Expanded Universe, the original trilogy's standard Star Destroyers (Imperial, Imperial-class, Imperator-class, whatever you want to call them) were already beginning to be introduced towards the end of the Clone Wars and supplanted the Venators (the only Star Destroyers I recall seeing in Revenge of the Sith) not long afterwards.

Yes, we're aware that in the Second World War, carriers were the preeminent capital ship. It isn't at all clear that carriers, despite being the capital ship of choice of today's dominant naval power, will always be the preeminent capital ship. You know why carriers became the preeminent capital ships of the Second World War? Because they could effectively engage targets from far greater ranges than anything else available. This is no longer true; guided and homing missiles can in the present day engage targets at ranges similar to the effective striking range of modern carrier-borne aircraft, and ship-launched missiles are at present about as effective as the attacks of carrier-borne aircraft. Missile cruisers may well supplant the carrier as the preeminent capital ship at some point in the not too distant future. Or they might not; I'm no more blessed with knowledge of the future than anyone else is.

Your position essentially boils down to "because modern naval carriers have been the preeminent naval capital ships for the past ~75 years, vessels similar to modern naval carriers will always be the preeminent capital ships of any force which is remotely based upon the present-day navy." Allow me to explain why this is wrong by way of an example. If the present day were, say, 1915, the preeminent naval capital ship would have been the battleship. Ships similar in nature to the battleship would have been the preeminent naval capital ship for more than two centuries. By the same argument that you make for carriers, battleships should therefore be the preeminent naval capital ship in 2015, and would also be the preeminent capital ships for the space navy, despite the space navy operating in a completely different environment. We can go back even further in time; the trireme and ships like it were the preeminent naval warships in the Mediterranean for ~500 years, and various types of oared galleys whose primary attacks were ramming and boarding continued to be the predominant warships of the Mediterranean for another one and a half thousand years or so. If this game had been introduced in the 15th century Mediterranean, then, 2000 or more years of historical precedent would say that ramming and boarding should be the primary modes of attack for the capital ships of the future. Your argument takes no account of how technologies may evolve. It takes no account of how the environments differ. It takes no account of how people's views on what constitutes acceptable losses may change. Your argument is entirely based upon historical precedent in an environment which bears little resemblance to the environment in which the game's large and small warships will operate. I'm sorry, but this argument is deeply flawed.

Additionally, the mere fact that carriers are at present the preeminent naval capital ship and have been since the Second World War provides very little information about what the preeminent space-going capital ships will be ~250 years from now. Space is a very different environment from the ocean. Aircraft are considerably faster and considerably more maneuverable than warships; starfighters are not guaranteed to be considerably faster or more agile than space-going heavy warships. The starfighter may well be to the space-going capital ship what the American PT boat or the British Motor Torpedo Boat or the similar craft of other nations was to the battleship in the First and Second World Wars, and neither PT boats nor their tenders, despite PT boats and MTBs being credible threats to capital ships under the right conditions, have historically supplanted the battleship or carrier as the preeminent capital ship of its time.

Beyond that, though, is the question of whether or not any of what you've written even matters. Galactic Civilizations III is not a game which is trying to portray WWII-era naval combat in an accurate manner, nor is it attempting to portray modern naval combat in an accurate manner. Nor, for that matter, is the degree to which Galactic Civilizations III accurately reflects the state of modern naval warfare particularly pertinent to the question of whether or not Galactic Civilizations III carriers are overpowered, nor is this pertinent to the question of whether or not it makes sense for Galactic Civilizations III carriers to be overpowered. Galactic Civilizations III carriers (which are space-going warships, not sea-going warships) are, when properly designed and when benefiting from the proper bonuses, effectively uncounterable except possibly by other Galactic Civilizations III carriers. Whether or not this is 'realistic' is immaterial; whether or not this is an enjoyable or desirable state is material. The fact that this is the case greatly reduces the player's freedom of design when creating ships, at least if the player wants to create competitive ship designs. In my opinion, and I rather suspect in the opinions of many others, this is detrimental to the game.

There's no effective anti-aircraft guns, nothing which is much better against small ships than larger (and visa versa tbh). Kinetics and missiles ought ot be fulfilling these roles, but there's simply not enough difference between them.

I disagree. I rarely build carriers and go up against the all the time.  Yup they are tough but not overpowering so.  Typically i use missile boats (but not always) with range ex, god shields and PD; gives me a good alpha strike, fast tack down & ability to soak up damage.   It is REALLY easy if you bring a tank escort in your fleet but this is really a cheese imo.

Carriers are good but in no way game breaking

Hmmm... I see. Well it seems my post was rather simplistic in dealing with the situation. My history lesson was meant to show that battleships should loose when going up against carriers alone or in a small group and that carriers have a tactical advantage, so long as they have fighters. And yes GC3 is not a simulation of ww2 naval combat but GC3 is a space simulation of our (human) view of combat so comparing to naval history makes sense, I think anyway, as space ships in the game have the same roles as naval ships today, or are relatively easy to compare to. And yes the Trade Federation ships shields were too powerful for the Naboo fighters to even harm it. It wasn't destroyed until the main character accidentally went into the hangar bay and destroyed the ship from the inside. Which I think should be a possibility in GC3 since different civs can have a vast difference in techs.

Anti carrier craft weapons are essential.But it is hard to even in other games like Distant Worlds, build a battleship that has big guns and all the stuff necessary to also take out fighters.

I am wondering if the correct solution to this problem is in the following information http://galciv3.gamepedia.com/Ship_roles

and not in re programming the game itself. And I don't support a code change as I don't believe carriers are over or under powered.

Combat and the way ships decide what to target is dependent upon what is talked about in that wiki article and it looks like it may not be as simplistic as I made it out to be but after you read this info and understand it I believe countering carriers should be easier. I didn't read that before I posted this topic, sorry. But reading over this short but very descriptive page on how combat is handled by the computer in GC3 can help us understand whats going on and counter carrier issues.

Three main categories the computer uses to determine the basic role of a ship, if the user doesn't set it themselves when designing it, are threat, fortitude, and value. These are not ship roles. If you don't assign ship roles at all the computer will do it for you based on these three factors and it may not be what you intended. These three factors are dependent on the type of and number of modules added to your ships when designing them. Depending on the threat, fortitude, and value values will change what is targeted and when in combat by your ship.  Please read the ship roles article. I'm going to try to talk about it according to my understanding here though.

Support ships will target low fortitude rated ships which are fighters (what the article calls "interceptors") compared to other ships, usually. If you encounter a higher tech race in GC3 their interceptors could very well have a fortitude rating, and also maybe more hit points, than your battleship. So the relativity of the enemy threat, fortitude, and support values compared to your own could cause your fleet to not behave the way you think it should in combat. But even though every ship role has its own target priority if its preferred target is not in range it will shoot at enemy ships in range. If I have just confused you please forgive me and read the article link I put in the post to the Gal Civ 3 wiki on ship roles.

But here are some ideas I have to squish your enemies carriers. Based on reading the article it seems to me the computer expects carriers to have a high "value" value and be assigned to the role of "support." And ships with the role of "interceptors" in the game have support ships as a high priority target and will move towards those ships first if they exist firing at everything that comes in range until their preferred "support" target is in range. Ships with the "escort" role have capital ships and thus battleships as a target to defend so they will move with battleships and their weapon range is expected to be within the battleships weapon range. So when fighting an enemy carrier force you could do something like this...

------

***A FEW IDEAS

A few ideas. Ships with the role of "guardian" will target "interceptor" ships (usually fighters) first even if ships with other role types are in range. Build your battleships but assign them the role of "support" this way they will hang back in a battle but fire at anything that gets in range. "Guardian" role ships defend (move with) support ships first and if they are not present then with "capital" role ships. "Support" role ships highest target is also "interceptor" role ships. So you could make another battleship size ship but assign it the role of "guardian" Why not assign your battleship a "capital" role when going up against a fleet that has fighters if you want your battleships to concentrate on fighters? Well "Capital" role ships target "escort" role ships first and "interceptor" role ships are 4th on the list. So your battleships are going to only target the enemy carrier fighters if they are the only thing in range or only after "escort", "capital", and "assault" role ships are gone. If they are present they will move towards those role types also. You may think to just build a battleship and let it be assigned the role of "capital" ship and add a few ships with the "escort" role to move with it. Well escort role ships also target interceptor/fighters as number 4 on their targeting list. So you can have your very nice battleship have the "capital" role but have your escort type ships actually have the role of "guardian" and if you don't have any "support" role ships in the fleet they will move with (defend) your "capital" role ships as that is 2 on the list of defending. And when fighters/interceptors get in range they pulverize them, hopefully.

Figuring out what you want your ships target priority to be is important when designing.

And in multiplayer combat when people understand this they can really give each other a hard time in battle by changing roles around from what the other players expect them to assign to their ships. 

If I have confused anyone I'm sorry. I just read this article on the ship roles in GC3 and I do believe an understanding of this wiki page along with how weapon types interact with the defenses of ships can keep your fleets from becoming carrier food. Once you understand ship roles and target priorities in battle you can design fleets that have ships which will target enemy fighters immediately. And of course fighters are usually targeted at the beginning by all your ships because they are the first ones in range but once a "capital" role ship has an "escort" role ship come in range it will stop firing at the fighters and focus on the escort ship.

The power of carriers in this game is based on the fact that weapons fire in batteries rather then individually. This means that larger ships will waste a lot of firepower when taking out lots of little ships. Larger ships have 2 advantages: you must eliminate all hp before they do less damage, and generally they are more efficient, so can be packed with more engines, life support, etc. The second advantage that large ships have over smaller is largely negated by carriers, which is why you would have carriers instead of just fleets of small ships. This means that the best counter for carriers is, unfortunately better carriers. Then carriers have 2 additional major advantages: free upgrades, and free regen of fighters. I love carriers, but I think some more interesting ways to deal with them, or some more severe trade-offs for using them would probably improve the game.

P.S. I don't care at all how carriers work in the real world or other sci-fi settings except so far as it informs making GCIII a more fun game.

not true, i do it all the time. 

This is a key component of ship design which it seems many players miss (and certainly the AI does thankfully).  Just because your building a large or huge hull ship doesn't restrict it to being a 'capital' ship.  I designate various ship types/sizes as 'assault' or 'interceptor' so my fleets will more effectively target the major assets in the enemy's fleet sooner - will still strip away the protective layer of 'escorts' and 'guardians' but then go for the 'capital' or 'support' ships before getting back to those remaining 'interceptors' or 'assault' ships of the enemy - even if my fleet goes down the enemy fighters have no home to go to and a slow trip back to wherever.

A balanced fleet composition will also improve the survivability and effectiveness of that fleet - and don't forget those other support roles of jamming and fleet repair, especially during battle.

Once you get to huge hulls can also fit out a range of ships with different or even combined drone capabilities.

Here's the root of the problem: your expectation is off. The rest of the problem is that GC3 combat mechanics are simplified and faulty.

Carriers ON WATER are, from 1942 on, more powerful than battleships in the same time period. Carriers ON WATER from 1914 to 1943 are NOT because they had few aircraft and those were of more primitive design (and because the procedures for managing an attack and defense weren't worked out - but we don't need to get into that now).

Carriers IN SPACE are in a different medium - they are not on water but in space. Fighters in GC3 are not in air but in the same medium as the ships, space. They use the same engine, defenses and weapons as other ships (aircraft do not use the same engine as ships and usually have different models of defense and weapon). The GC3 fighters derive part of their power simply because there are bonuses if you have a lot of firing ships, and part from - as said above - the fact that a ship has to use all of its main weapons on one target and the first hit will zero the defenses and do no damage even if it is 1000 attack to 1 defense. And finally, GC3 carriers are immune to any incoming fire until every other ship is dead, when any sane person would ignore armored, weaponless hulks and shoot up the carriers.

Please do not assume carriers are always superior just because they are called carriers. That wasn't true for 500 years of naval combat and has been true for only about 75 years. In a different medium - not water - who knows? In GC3 carriers are unable to strike from distance (a prime reason carriers are potent today), and GC3 fighters take advantage of unsubtle rules in attack and defense to dominate combat. Please don't think you are using anything like a modern-day carrier and its air wings.

To make GC3 carriers more like the ships we now have (if that is desirable) then fighters should be able to attack at a range of one or more, ships should be able to build 'anti-fighter' weapons and ships of all kinds should be able to build 'fire control' stations that not only let you improve your range and accuracy but split fire among multiple targets. Standard naval doctrine from 1600 on is that every enemy ship must be engaged by its opposite number and that concentration of multiple firing ships on one target reduces the chance of hitting. GC3 has the mechanics of its warfare exactly backwards.

Since a combat redesign isn't going to happen, the current game mechanics do make carriers overpowered. The easiest fix would be to reduce the power of fighters.

I apologize I came across as offensive. I wasn't going for that. I believe the key to beating carriers, if you don't have them, is in ship roles. As those who have been playing for months can see GC3 is not a rock, paper, scissors type of combat. A fleet without a carrier of it's own would have to operate differently to win than if it was fighting only battleships and cruisers. It is expected battleships, and all ships, are at a very bad disadvantage against multiple fighters launched from a carrier.  The best way to counter a carrier is with another carrier.

Edited: Think about GC2. NO carriers in the game. But one of the best ways to win was to increase your logistic tech and have a glob of smaller ships with multiple weapons attacking a smaller group of larger ships that were more powerful. Doing what carriers do is a very good strategy. An idea to counter carriers if you don't have them is to design support ships that have lots of missile weapons. Your whole fleet doesn't need to be full of support ships but these support ships should also be affected by augments that increase missile range, damage, and accuracy. You will eat at the enemy fighters. Unless of course they are beefed up in point defense. In which case we are back at countering carriers with carriers.

I'm not defending carriers in CG3.  Carriers even in 1940 were stand off type weapons.  Remember the Bismark was damaged by 6-8 very old Swordfish bi-planes, not to mention the Italian BB and two UK BB's sunk in December of 1941.

So I bet the goal was to mimic this in CG3.  But the problem is in WW2 and even today if you take out the LIMITED number of fighters and bombers then the carrier has no offensive power left.  In CG3 doing this part of the task is almost impossible due to combat mechanics.

Having said that I like the idea of carriers and they should be extremely powerful.  But if I have capitals and escorts I should be able to counter by having the right type of escorts (maybe with lots of jammers) handling the fighters while my main ships close the gap to the carriers.  But that gap is never closed right now.

You haven't even played the god damn game. Shut up until you do.

Yes, it's relevant.  I haven't built a guardian drone ship yet.  I wonder if mixing in a guardian drone module with some high capacity modules would be a good balance?  

On a different and maybe off topic note, I always put a missile or 2 on my carriers if they fit.  That can make the carrier itself less vulnerable when the fighters don't completely regen after a good battle.  I've had carriers go into a fight with limited or no fighters after several rounds of fighting other carriers and they get wiped out pretty quickly.  There's also little warning that your fighters won't be regenerating that round.  I've learned to watch for the number of fighters to go down at the start of battles.  A drop of just 2 fighters can signal that you'll have few or none the next round.