For fighters, I find that assault use missile, interceptors use beam, and guardians use kinetic.

I happen to think that each carrier type should have a high capacity version. I think similar modules should be available at the same time (basic first, high capacity later).

I'm not sure if ship roles comes into play much. I favor overwhelming firepower to crush my foes quickly.

Beam weapons has a flaw as the tier 2 version does not have a no-resource-cost version (fighters only use the no-resource-cost versions of weapons). So interceptors don't improve when you research tier 2 beam weapons.

Well, I've had others tell me different from their experiences. So really, who knows at this point.

Honestly, I don't really care about which ship roles carrier fighters end up with, except the Guardians with Kinetics often end up sitting at the back of the fleet, and don't get within range to participate in the battle until it's too late. And that's just not right, they're supposed to be offensive elements of the fleet, not sitting behind being useless.

It's why I'd prefer that carrier fighters that become Guardians be at least armed with Missiles; this at least gives them the range to participate in the battle, even if they're sitting back.

Totally on board with this, whether the carrier fighter types are Assault/Interceptors/Guardians or Beam/Missiles/Kinetics. Either way, at least we'll get some control over which weapons our carrier fighters will be packing when they spawn.

Yeah I've had someone tell me this as well, and I agree it's something that needs fixing.

I've also had someone show me that a possible reason my carrier fighters keep spawning as Guardians is because they spawn with Armor modules for some reason, pushing their Fortitude value above their Threat values.

Is it possible to make carrier fighters spawn with no defenses whatsoever? Apart from weighing them too heavily towards becoming Guardians instead of Assault Fighters or Interceptors, these are Tiny hulls; they're supposed to die like lemmings anyway.

I'd be happy to ask them, if only they could be bothered to respond and engage with us on this topic. I mean, this thread has been around for about a week now, and still not a peep from the devs. Seriously, is there anyone at home here? Anyone? Frogboy?

IMO, carriers should serve as a means of giving swarms of Tiny ships the strategic maneuverability they need to be useful in the mid to late game. Personally, I like to go 2 engines + 2 life support on my ship designs, but that's not really viable for individual Tiny ships without compromising their firepower too much.

With carriers though, I can toss the same setup on a single Cargo hull and have myself my swarm of Tiny fighters with the moves and range I need. Now if only those same Tiny fighters don't keep spawning as all Guardians all the time, leaving them utterly useless.

And that's ultimately the problem, isn't it? Carrier fighters are useless, precisely because we can't control how they're fitted out.

Frogboy, or really, anyone at Stardock. Is it not possible to just throw out the way Carrier research currently works in the tech tree, and replace them with new ones altogether that doesn't depend on whatever screwed up algorithm the game has for deciding how carriers currently spawn?

For example, you could have three new carrier techs that perhaps could be slotted within the respective Beam/Kinetics/Missiles weapon tree, just so that carrier fighters are locked into using whatever weapon their modules are a part of. And High Capacity equivalents of those three carrier modules, as well.

Also, you could lock them all into the Assault role, instead of changing them based on their values. At least that way, the carrier fighters will be guaranteed to be in the fight.

I haven't had problems with carriers in respect to weapon choice at all. I think you're just not accounting for how the "optimal" fighter loadout is based on your researched miniaturization tech.

You can have really strong beam fighters but you need to forego missile and kinetic tech. Carrier tech is often most efficient when you research to bias fighter builds towards glass cannons: just beams, no defences. Even adding miniturized defense advancements will suck away the mass dedicated to your strongest weapon options.

I regularly play entire games with only one weapon (usually Beams still) fully researched to maximize carrier return. Building more complex fighters will make them less strong in any one capacity and generally lead to longer engagements and so on. Glass cannons are the way to go!

I'm pretty sure none of this has been a secret since even before Crusade. It was never considered a big deal likely because carriers have always been relatively strong to overpowered in every update. Barring an interface to allow you to explicitly assign bespoke fighter designs, algorithms are exactly how fighter design seems intended to work. The limitation you're having problem with is probably a balancing boon compared to older patches.

I don't know what else there is to say? Sorry you don't like it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well they are still quite strong if you invest in miniaturization tech. It might require more compromise than prior patches, but it seems very much like that's the intent. You don't even have as far to bee-line it to carrier tech anymore but yes, creating highly efficient fighters requires prioritization on mass/weapons research that's a civ-wide cost/benefit consideration. You're probably going to have to choose between dominant fighters and well-rounded capital ships until much later in the game. That seems like the point of the re-balanced design even if you don't like it.

A solution for players who want an easier road to stronger carriers in the current build is to start with a race that has the Dense trait and whichever abilities provide a mass edge. 

It's likely just that even less advanced beam tech offers a higher "threat" ratio on a tiny hull. Even in your example, your Beam and Kinetic are still relatively close. To swing it heavily towards one or the other it probably requires a much broader gap in research. Basically, you can get clues from the tiny hulls that are upgraded each time you research a new tech. It's these algorithmically built ships that the carriers select best "bang for the buck" fits from. 

Bumping this thread. Hi, Stardock devs. Could any of you be so kind as to at least offer a response for this?

Hell, at this point I'll take you telling me to go fuck myself as a sufficient response. At least that way I'll know not to expect anything on this end and adjust my expectations accordingly, instead of remaining in limbo.

If it's going to take several months to fix carriers, then so be it. I just want to know that the Stardock devs are, or aren't, willing to work on it in the first place, if only so I'd know I won't be waiting in vain.

And I hear you on the complaints of OP carriers; however, what I'm asking for is not a buff to carrier fighters, but rather a quality of life change. It's fine if carrier fighters remain as squishy as they are in the current build, but if I'm dedicating my research to a particular weapon line, I just want a guarantee that my carrier fighters will spawn using weapons from the same line.

Having carrier modules for each weapon line gives us players the choice to guarantee we get the carrier fighters we want, while saving the devs from having to tweak the algorithm yet again.

Also if possible, it's best if carrier fighters can be prevented from spawning with the Guardian role, if only to avoid the possibility of them sitting back in the fleet and not contributing to the fight.

No, saying that you don't want a change to the game for whatever reason counts as constructive criticism. Acting smug like EmperorVir and going all "that's just how the game works" and "sorry you don't like it" is just jerking off, and fully deserving of the bite-back I gave him.