Quoting S_Holmes, reply 22Just to make a quick correction to some bad math in the OP. The Sova costs 3000 credits. The TEC carriers cost 835. So you can have about 3.5 for the price of a Sova, not six.
That equals 7 sc from carriers(assuming u can build a half cc ) to the six that Sova can carry.
Actually, just ignore my last post, since it's irrelevent. Comparing light carriers to capital carriers is comparing apples to oranges - it can't be done. You can compare the Sova to the Halcyon or Skiranta (or even to other capital ships), and you can compare the light carriers of each race, but you can't compare capitals to cruisers (well, you can, but nothing useful will come of it).
Yes, they both carry strikecraft, but that's where the discussion ends. Economically speaking, you are asking people to compare 3-4 unarmed, moderately armoured/shielded cruiser-type ships to a single, armed, heavily armoured/shielded capital ship. The number of strikecraft you'll get is all you can talk about - 6-8 with the light carriers, 2-3 (starting at lvl1) with the capital ship. But then how do you reconcile the heavier protection and weaponry of the capital ship? Is it irrelevent? It's not, of course, but is the damage that can be produced by the ship's guns and the added hitpoints/armour/shield over the course of the game worth the extra credits that could have been spent on extra strike craft instead? Damage and hitpoints that increase over time with upgrades and levels? There's no system for making a viable comparrison, especially when you realize that you can start with one capital ship for free, while the light carriers must be paid for, not just by themselves, but after an initial investment of Military Labs and the research to be able to build them at all.
The same thing occurs if you look at them both strategically. In terms of grand strategy and fleet tactics, they're both designed to fill different rolls. The light carriers sole purpose is to cheaply fill a grav-well with swarms of strike craft to do with as you see fit. A capital ship's role is much more complex. Being armed and generally well protected, they can lead fleet into battle directly, inflicting damage with both their strike craft and onboard weapon systems. They also have a complement of abilities (some tactical, some strategic) that can shape how a battle plays out. Also, light carriers can be taken apart one at a time, whereas a capital ship must be completely destroyed before it's strike craft can be taken out permanently (though you lose a much greater investment in time and money losing one capital ship over 3 or 4 light carriers). Just as with the above example, there's no way to compare these complex variables in any meaningful fashion that players can use to make informed decisions about how to play the game.
What's better - 4 Percherons or a level 1 Sova? Why? How about 4 Percherons and a level 10 Sova?
Even that falls apart when you take into account that you're building other types of ships too. So what's better - A level 1 Sova and ten Cobalts, or seven Percherons? Again, why? How about that Sova and 5 flak frigates against those same seven Percherons? Or four Percherons and ten Javelins against a level 3 Sova and seven Hoshinkos?
Now what you can do is talk about what you prefer to build and play, because personal play style is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion that can provide useful information for players, letting them consider new tactics and strategies that may not have occured to them. That's a meta-game, and that's healthy. But you can't start saying that one strategy or ship or race is definatively better than one or the other without a lot of proof to back you up - proof which rarely (if ever) presents itself in these types of threads. I may not post a lot on these forums, but I read them everyday, and the huge amount of disagreement over just what constitutes the 'best' strategy to run, or the 'best' ships to build, or the 'best' race to play, demonstrates to me that there isn't a 'best' anything.
