Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: CT27 on October 01, 2016, 02:03:12 pm

Title: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: CT27 on October 01, 2016, 02:03:12 pm: It's been a while since I played the end of Tenebra, but I believe one of the debriefings said that Steele's attack on Earth will be within a week. With the GTVA bringing in more destroyers I think it's fair to guess we'll see some destroyer on destroyer action in the next WIH act released.

Losing a destroyer is a major deal in FS campaigns. Do you think either side will lose one?

My prediction is that both the GTVA and UEF will lose one. I don't know which one it will be for the GTVA (not the Atreus though) and my guess will be either the Toutatis or Eris for the UEF.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on October 01, 2016, 04:48:04 pm: The Toutatis would probably have more shock value, but the Eris seems the more "expendable", story-wise.
The Solaris seems unlikely, I can't see Byrne getting in position that would allow the GTVA to kill such a vital asset.

Spoiler:
IIRC, the new final cutscene of Tenebra shows the Eris being hit by the 3 main beams of a Titan-class destroyer. Even with ECM damage mitigation, that's gotta hurt.

On the GTVA side, I'd say the Imperieuse would be a likely target, to give the player another payback opportunity.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Azrael15 on October 02, 2016, 05:58:39 pm: There's a video on Youtube showing off a duel between
Spoiler:
the Eris and Toutatis against the Atreus.

I have a feeling the Eris will go down because we know next to nothing about it, haven't actually seen it, and I'd imagine Calder is necessary for Laporte's end run scenario.

As for Steele's attack on Earth, in the current end cutscene of Tenebra we see some of it play out. Steele jumps the Cassandra-predictive gun and, while we don't know the result just yet, I'd say it looks bad for the UEF.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Buff Skeleton on October 02, 2016, 08:11:36 pm: I'm more concerned about that new GTVA heavy bomber seen engaging the Masyaf in the ending cutscene (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Azrael15 on October 02, 2016, 10:17:01 pm: Quote from: Buff Skeleton on October 02, 2016, 08:11:36 pm
I'm more concerned about that new GTVA heavy bomber seen engaging the Masyaf in the ending cutscene (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

I can't be the only one who is hoping that she's not a free-floating cloud of Narayana debris, right? (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: CT27 on October 02, 2016, 10:18:19 pm: If the GTVA loses a destroyer my guess is it will be a Hecate.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Admiral Acorn Squash on October 03, 2016, 12:58:24 pm: Quote from: Buff Skeleton on October 02, 2016, 08:11:36 pm

I can't be the only one who is hoping that she's not a free-floating cloud of Narayana debris, right? (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

I'd assume she'd be damaged and forced to retreat, I can't imagine the Fedayeen losing the Masyaf that easily, but who knows honestly.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: QuakeIV on October 03, 2016, 01:53:56 pm: Quote from: Azrael15 on October 02, 2016, 10:17:01 pm
Quote from: Buff Skeleton on October 02, 2016, 08:11:36 pm
I'm more concerned about that new GTVA heavy bomber seen engaging the Masyaf in the ending cutscene (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

I can't be the only one who is hoping that she's not a free-floating cloud of Narayana debris, right? (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

You aren't the only one.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Phantom Hoover on October 03, 2016, 03:47:20 pm: I'm pretty sure the Masyaf is dead; the ending cutscene of Tenebra shows Steele launching the all-out attack prematurely because he knows about CASSANDRA and needs to throw off its predictions. He needs it dead and he'll get it dead.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Buff Skeleton on October 03, 2016, 03:52:12 pm: Wait, how does Steele know about CASSANDRA? Or is that just a working theory right now
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Phantom Hoover on October 03, 2016, 04:15:42 pm: Hmm. Battuta hinted at it pretty explicitly once, IDK about evidence in the text.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Azrael15 on October 03, 2016, 06:27:08 pm: Quote from: Phantom Hoover on October 03, 2016, 03:47:20 pm
I'm pretty sure the Masyaf is dead; the ending cutscene of Tenebra shows Steele launching the all-out attack prematurely because he knows about CASSANDRA and needs to throw off its predictions. He needs it dead and he'll get it dead.

That was exactly my thought, yeah. Sure, Steele's going all-in but I also think he'd just be happy with knocking CASSANDRA off the board.

Quote from: Buff Skeleton on October 03, 2016, 03:52:12 pm
Wait, how does Steele know about CASSANDRA? Or is that just a working theory right now

Quote from: Phantom Hoover on October 03, 2016, 04:15:42 pm
Hmm. Battuta hinted at it pretty explicitly once, IDK about evidence in the text.

I think it was mentioned on the forums. Something like 'If you'd just found out that your enemies had a predictive supercomputer, you'd move your plans forward'.

Steele's canny and he's just suffered a string of improbable defeats, after all.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: CT27 on October 03, 2016, 06:47:56 pm: As far as destroyers in Act 4 go, what do you think Steele will be doing with the Atreus?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Azrael15 on October 03, 2016, 07:14:01 pm: Quote from: CT27 on October 03, 2016, 06:47:56 pm
As far as destroyers in Act 4 go, what do you think Steele will be doing with the Atreus?

Magnificent bastardry?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Admiral Acorn Squash on October 03, 2016, 07:20:14 pm: Quote from: Azrael15 on October 03, 2016, 07:14:01 pm
Magnificent bastardry?

Most likely, with a dash of gentlemanly psychopathy thrown in for good measure, I should think.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: crizza on October 03, 2016, 07:28:46 pm: Guess Steele will stay put and use the Atreus as a jump5 unit... or for finishing up Calder.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Phantom Hoover on October 03, 2016, 08:11:29 pm: The Atreus is basically built to constantly jump between the thick of multiple battles, holding back in reserve is what Titans are for.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: crizza on October 04, 2016, 05:14:29 am: That's what I meant.
Steele will supervise the greater battle, jumping from fight to fight to make a difference.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Mito [PL] on October 04, 2016, 05:32:42 pm: I'd love to see one of Tev TEI destroyers having its engines reduced to scrap metal thanks to a Naranyana point-jumping right behind it... Look at The Darkest Hour - a single salvo from two of these frigates can hurt even the almighty Atreus...
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Aesaar on October 04, 2016, 05:56:05 pm: Engines on TEI destroyers tend to be extremely well armored.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Phantom Hoover on October 04, 2016, 06:10:00 pm: And the UEF can't really do point jumps.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Mars on October 04, 2016, 08:54:20 pm: And the Atreus in that mission had just jumped multiple times, and was prepping for another jump. And still usually manages to take out an installation.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Darius on October 04, 2016, 09:50:37 pm: Quote from: Phantom Hoover on October 04, 2016, 06:10:00 pm
And the UEF can't really do point jumps.

Saturn shows us otherwise!
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: CT27 on October 04, 2016, 10:31:12 pm: If the Toutatis or Eris does die do you think it will be from:
-a GTVA destroyer
-Serkr
-massive bomber strike
-some combination?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: CT27 on October 07, 2016, 10:01:32 pm: What kind of destroyer would likely be used to take out a Solaris class of the UEF?

A Titan with a shockjump or an Erebus for a slugging match?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: QuakeIV on October 08, 2016, 03:32:05 am: I feel as if a Titan is somewhat more likely, due to its incredible firepower and long range.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on October 08, 2016, 03:37:56 am: I think the Erebus might be the safer choice. A Titan relies heavily on shock jumping to cripple or destroy its targets, and with all the E-warfare going around, there's no guarantee that its main beams will hit a Solaris and deal full damage. Even then, you'd need a couple of TEI corvettes to back it up.

Between ECMs, torpedo spam, gunships and bombers, it would be a risky engagement for the more aggressive GTVA assets. Better send in an Erebus + Diomedes & Deimos corvettes, then bring in bigger guns to deliver the killing blow or counter jump artillery frigates.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Haji on October 08, 2016, 09:48:26 pm: IIRC War in Haven was supposed to be five chapters. As such chapter 4 will end with one of two possible outcomes.

The first outcome is the defeat of the UEF with Tev victory, but the survival of the super secret Earth project which was well hidden (most likely in the kuiper belt). As the project will result in immediate UEF victory chapter 5 will be about survivors of the Sol forces defending it until completion. In such a case we will likely see the destruction of at least one, most likely two, possibly even all three Solaris class destroyers, but I also expect them to have a lot of Tev company - they already had some 4-5 destroyers in the system and more are on their way. We may see the destruction of several of those.
The second outcome is much more mundane. The UEF successfully defends Earth but there has to be a cost to an all out Tev attack, so at least one Solaris will end up dead, but it's hard to tell which one. Tautotis is being refitted with experimental long range railguns (those use on the heavy frigates) implying that it's supposed to be used more aggressively, making it a logical casualty. Eris is guarding Mars and we know rather little about it, so it may be relatively safe. Solaris is "safely" on Earth, but since Earth is the target, I'd say Solaris is in the greatest danger. That of course implies that Steele decides to not be crafty and attack Mars to throw off Cassandra. On the Tev side I'd say a failed all-out attack on Earth will result in quite few losses, at least a destroyer or two. I'd like to point out however that BP is big on rewarding player skill. For example under normal circumstances 2/3 of the enemy warships (including Hood, a Hecate class destroyer) will simply retreat, but may be annihilated if the player is good enough. As such we may see a situation where a destroyer or two will always end up dead and two or three more may survive depending on player competence.

In both cases however I'd say Atreus is safe. Steele was brought in specifically because the previous officers were not getting the job done, and he's the driving force behind the current strategy. In fact with the emergency powers getting activated, he may be the driving force behind the entire Tev war effort. If he's dead it will be very hard, story wise, to introduce a new, engaging antagonist.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Rabid on October 10, 2016, 12:09:44 pm: Quote from: Azrael15 on October 02, 2016, 10:17:01 pm
Quote from: Buff Skeleton on October 02, 2016, 08:11:36 pm
I'm more concerned about that new GTVA heavy bomber seen engaging the Masyaf in the ending cutscene (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

I can't be the only one who is hoping that she's not a free-floating cloud of Narayana debris, right? (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

-----
Im extremely disappointed in the (single??) UEF fighter assigned to the Masayf. 4 mere bomber-mounted autoturrets killed a Feydayeen pilot before they even fired a shot. The bombers didn't even use any primaries or secondaries.
I'll be further disappointed if the Masayf:

Has no other fighters available.

Is unable to call in the fancy Shielded Custos for support (where would they keep this ship hidden anyway? A secret Feydayeen base? why isn't it kept in the dark next to the Masayf if not deployed on some secret mission?)

Has no contingency for being discovered - If I'd been sitting still off in a quiet corner for any length of time, I'd have my nav officers compute 3 solid escape vectors and save the results, so I could jump quickly if ambushed. Especially if I was the cloak and daggers experts. I'd also keep my jump drive at least partially charged - im not using my frigate for shooting things yet, but the ability to be wherever I'm needed quickly seems to be a top priority.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Gray113 on October 10, 2016, 01:26:23 pm: Are we sure those are TEV bombers?

Might Byrne be willing to risk a bit of exposure to get the Feydayeen brought to heel? :nervous:
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Mito [PL] on October 10, 2016, 02:30:09 pm: @Rabid: I'd say that Spatha is a wing of fighters, not a single one. Fedayeen name their wings (at least stealthy ones) with names of Greek/Roman swords, and Spatha is of no exception. Plus, it seems that the bombers seen there just jumped in the vincinity of Masyaf - and it takes a bit of time to launch fighter wings.
And what makes you think that Fedayeen would make those three critical mistakes?

@Gray113: F3 lab -> GTB Gorgon. It looks Tev, smells Tev, acts like a Tev, its turrets shoot Tev Balor and it fires Tev bombs... Anything else to mention?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: niffiwan on October 10, 2016, 05:25:12 pm: the bombs fire beams :pimp:
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Gray113 on October 11, 2016, 11:46:37 am: first time I have seen the Gorgon, though she is pretty by TEV standards :)

I don't think the Masayf is a cloud of scrap yet though, I would think Steele has them on the run.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: -Norbert- on October 12, 2016, 12:26:04 pm: @Haji: There is a third possibility for chapter 4. Less likely than the two you listed, but still quite possible I'd think and with some potentially very satisfying bits in it.
If the Vasudans learn (and believe) the truth of what Steele did, they are quite likely to withdraw their logistical support - at least until Steele is put up on charges and replaced - which will almost assuredly push the final decisive battle back a long way.
Or in the most extreme (and most unlikely) case the Vasudans might even threaten the Terran part of the alliance into stopping the war, even if just temporarily.
Depending on how hard-headed Steele is and how strongly he believes that defeating the UEF is necessary for Human survival, we might even see Steele going rogue with his most elite forces, bringing the war between Steele and the UEF on a much smaller and more equal and more intense scale.

That actually sounds like a pretty cool idea, since Steele would have even more need (and chances) to show off his tactical genius without immediately annihilating all opposition due to his limited ressources.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: crizza on October 14, 2016, 07:11:26 am: If the Vasudans learn and pressure the TEVS, I guess Steele would be informored over a secure channel by Torqueville (Secretary General of the TEVs?) and he would order the operation carried out.
But in the ending cutscene we see that the operation has started, so no way he would stop it.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: docfu on December 02, 2016, 05:54:29 pm: Don't forget it's an election year...
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: SmashMonkey on January 22, 2017, 11:16:07 pm: Quote from: Rabid on October 10, 2016, 12:09:44 pm
Quote from: Azrael15 on October 02, 2016, 10:17:01 pm
Quote from: Buff Skeleton on October 02, 2016, 08:11:36 pm
I'm more concerned about that new GTVA heavy bomber seen engaging the Masyaf in the ending cutscene (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

I can't be the only one who is hoping that she's not a free-floating cloud of Narayana debris, right? (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

-----
Im extremely disappointed in the (single??) UEF fighter assigned to the Masayf. 4 mere bomber-mounted autoturrets killed a Feydayeen pilot before they even fired a shot. The bombers didn't even use any primaries or secondaries.
I'll be further disappointed if the Masayf:

Has no other fighters available.

Is unable to call in the fancy Shielded Custos for support (where would they keep this ship hidden anyway? A secret Feydayeen base? why isn't it kept in the dark next to the Masayf if not deployed on some secret mission?)

Has no contingency for being discovered - If I'd been sitting still off in a quiet corner for any length of time, I'd have my nav officers compute 3 solid escape vectors and save the results, so I could jump quickly if ambushed. Especially if I was the cloak and daggers experts. I'd also keep my jump drive at least partially charged - im not using my frigate for shooting things yet, but the ability to be wherever I'm needed quickly seems to be a top priority.

1) Are we sure that the stealth fighter was killed? Was it even a stealth fighter?

I find it hard that a Fedayeen fighter would be so easily killed by bomber turrets. Fedayeen operators are amongst the best pilots in the UEF - and perhaps even in the GTVA. Just 4 Fedayeen operators in "Her Finest Hour" slaughtered wing after wing of the Carthage's fighters.

2) If Steele really knew how important the Masyaf was, there would a dedicated hunter-killer team jumping in. The Tevs most likely saw that there was a single, isolated frigate on their scopes, and decided to send a small contingent of Gorgons for a test-run.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: FrikgFeek on January 23, 2017, 01:37:43 am: Judging by the unmistakable red particle effects seen in the final cutscene that fedayeen fighter has exploded. It was black and really hard to spot against the skybox so it was almost certainly an Ainsarii. An Uhlan or Kentauroi would be much easier to see. Whether the pilot ejected or died is irrelevant.
Also, massed bomber turrets are no joke, especially on the Gorgon. 4 Gorgons with quad balors on their turrets results in 16 balors worth of firepower. That's 1408 shield DPS and 1216 hull DPS. That will 100-0 an Ainsarii with perfect shield management in under half a second.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Phantom Hoover on January 23, 2017, 03:07:28 am: There were only two gorgons in the strike, as I recall.

The Masyaf is almost certainly dead because Steele would not commit to a strike on it unless he knew it would succeed.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: General Battuta on January 23, 2017, 03:23:14 am: I think there are a lot of scenarios where that's not true. An ineffective or reduced Fedayeen capability is worth showing some cards.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: FrikgFeek on January 23, 2017, 04:02:28 am: Even with only 2 gorgons you're dealing with 8 total balors, making the TTK just under 1 second. That's still an insane amount of firepower and the big, sluggish Ainsarii would have trouble avoiding it.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: SmashMonkey on January 23, 2017, 05:09:56 pm: Quote from: General Battuta on January 23, 2017, 03:23:14 am
I think there are a lot of scenarios where that's not true. An ineffective or reduced Fedayeen capability is worth showing some cards.

Out of curiosity, how many other Falcatta-equivalent fighter squadrons do the Fedayeen have? Maybe 10-20ish?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Darius on January 23, 2017, 05:32:10 pm: Depends how many bases and carriers the fedayeen have to house them. The Masyaf can carry and service about eight fighters for active duty.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Snarks on January 23, 2017, 06:51:00 pm: Quote from: Darius on January 23, 2017, 05:32:10 pm
Depends how many bases and carriers the fedayeen have to house them. The Masyaf can carry and service about eight fighters for active duty.

Wait, does that mean the Masyaf's entire strikecraft operations is dependent on Falcata and Spatha wing?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Phantom Hoover on January 24, 2017, 02:06:12 am: I mean the Indus only supported about 8 fighters too.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: FrikgFeek on January 24, 2017, 03:16:32 am: Looking at Delenda Est the Indus fighterbay can hold 8 Kents and 8 Uriels but I'm guessing it doesn't have the crew necessary to operate all of them at once since only 2 wings fly off the Indus.

These are frigates, not destroyers. They can't support the 10-12 wings a destroyer can.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Aesaar on January 24, 2017, 05:12:48 am: Destroyers support way more than 10-12 wings. They run 10-12 squadrons. IIRC, the Erebus supports 11 squadrons, which is 132 strikecraft of various types. The Solaris carries 16 squadrons (192 strikecraft). Destroyer air wings are huge.

Curiously, the Diomedes can support 12-16 strikecraft up to and including the Artemis.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Mito [PL] on January 24, 2017, 05:25:24 am: ~~I thought a destroyer can house 10-12 squadrons...? How many fighters would that be? I think it was mentioned somewhere that a Solaris can carry over 100 fighters (160? I don't remember).~~ Aesaar nailed it.

Quote from: FrikgFeek on January 23, 2017, 01:37:43 am
Also, massed bomber turrets are no joke, especially on the Gorgon. 4 Gorgons with quad balors on their turrets results in 16 balors worth of firepower. That's 1408 shield DPS and 1216 hull DPS. That will 100-0 an Ainsarii with perfect shield management in under half a second.
Nah. That's two Gorgons, I think, and be aware of the turrets' layout - I don't really think that this kind of bomber can fire more than two of them at the same target simultaneously. That's 4 Balors worth of firepower...

And, well, Asinarii is a stealth vessel. It shouldn't get shot just like that. Gorgons have AWACS integrated into their spaceframe? Okay then, Fedayeen, it's time to arm your UX Accelerators and Grimlers.

I don't really like overinterpreting things. That's why I see just two new bombers attacking the Masyaf. Two bombers. Oh, and they can target stealth fighters - I think the tech description reflects that.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: FrikgFeek on January 24, 2017, 06:29:03 am: But they totally fire with all 4 balors on the Ainsarii in the cutscene, it's not even difficult to get all 4 on the same target. The 2 turrets have 2 balors each and they're on the wings so they have a very good firing arc.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Erebus Alpha on August 04, 2017, 09:04:47 pm: If two or four of these Gorgons are powerful enough to blow up the Masyaf...why did the GTVA even bother building Erebus spaceframes?

Just fill the Imperiuse with a 50/50 Nyx/Gorgon air wing and go nuts.

Run into a sathanas fleet? Bomb the forward beams & slice them up with the carrier's beams.

A bomber of this magnitude would solve every (military) problem the Tevs have. So one of the following is likely true:

1: Bomber is brand new, not in mass production, and the UEF is royally screwed the instant this changes.
2: Giant ships are sexy, so the super-bomber does not enjoy mass production for stupid political reasons.
3: Masyaf is going to be fine, the new bomber is just a modern Ursa with turrets that don't suck.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Neptune on August 05, 2017, 08:19:30 am: Quote from: Erebus Alpha on August 04, 2017, 09:04:47 pm
If two or four of these Gorgons are powerful enough to blow up the Masyaf...why did the GTVA even bother building Erebus spaceframes?

I don't think it's that simple. Take a look at the Erebus' tech description:

Code: [Select]
But a modern Alliance admiral asks about the weapons last. The platform's truly revolutionary capability lies with her tactical systems. Communications systems built to the Alliance's BACKBREAKER standard provide common operational capability in the face of most jamming, but the Erebus also boasts a command theater for battle group coordination in non-permissive comm environments. The Erebus' informational weapons systems are built to partner with a Titan-class destroyer, incorporating the Titan's air wing and battle group into force awareness. When multiple Erebus-class destroyers operate in the same theater, BACKBREAKER can designate a group leader or coordinate a flat, decentralized operational schedule which intelligently distributes tasks across the Erebus battle groups. Future upgrades may integrate AWACS capability directly into the destroyer. The Erebus' primary design tradeoffs lie in her fusion drive, air wing, and logistics. As a line combatant, the Erebus carries few strike craft. She is as fast as a Sathanas, but no faster, relying on her subspace drive to keep the range. And while tactically independent, the Erebus requires more logistical tail than many next-generation warships. But it would take something radically new to challenge an armada of more than eighty Sathanas juggernauts. And here there was room for conflict. Some factions pushed for an end to the destroyer class, moving to a doctrine of corvettes and light carriers. Others wanted supercarriers, or 'juggernaut destroyers', massive flying beam cannons with limited defensive capability. Ultimately, a verdict was achieved. Supercarrier and Massive Mjolnir advocates would get an answer in the Titan destroyer. But something more was needed.
There's a lot more in the Erebus and Titan's descriptions, but that describes why the Erebus was not only laid down, but why it's good. It might not be as much of a "massive flying beam cannon" as the Titan or a supercarrier, but instead, it only does everything. Think of the 14th BG; All of the TEI warship assets are supposed to work together, not as independent assets. While there might be some disagreement about just how they're supposed to be used (See: How steele uses the Impereuse and Serkr, and the Titan tech entry), they're still supposed to be used together, and the Erebus shines in such situations. While the Titan has big beams and stuff, the Erebus has a lot of attributes that can't be tabled.

Quote
Run into a sathanas fleet? Bomb the forward beams & slice them up with the carrier's beams.

You make it sound like that's easy. You're forgetting that:
- It's been referred to as a risky procedure in "A Time for Heroes"
- We can hit restart if you mess up the bombing and your ships die. When you die in-universe, you're dead.
- We're also Alpha 1. Not every pilot can be as incredible as shooting Helios at turrets as we are.
- Bombers are flying coffins. If your escort messed up, you'd be swarmed and shot to hell by the Sathanas' air wing, even with your balor turrets.
- The Sathanas fleet has other options available to them then just plodding straight at you at 25 m/s. What happens if one shock-jumps you from the side like Their Finest Hour? A Ravana is sortied as a distraction? Your air wing is busy performing miracles, so you have nothing available to cover you.

Amongst other things.

Quote
A bomber of this magnitude would solve every (military) problem the Tevs have. So one of the following is likely true:

1: Bomber is brand new, not in mass production, and the UEF is royally screwed the instant this changes.
2: Giant ships are sexy, so the super-bomber does not enjoy mass production for stupid political reasons.
3: Masyaf is going to be fine, the new bomber is just a modern Ursa with turrets that don't suck.

The Gorgon is a TEI Wave 2 craft, meaning that like the Nyx and co, it's only recently come out. I couldn't find the details of the TEI in the fiction viewer entries/table/vps - if someone could point me towards them that'd be great - but I did find these two (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=91282) forum threads (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=80789.0) which might give you a bit more info on the TEI.

While the Gorgon, operating at 100% narrative potential, looks fairly nightmarish (As the gorgon handles now, just as it's tabled, it's a pretty hilarious deathtrap if you're not careful - if great at spamming trebuchets and heavy ordinance), I think it's fairly naive to think that it's going to simply solve all the GTVA's military problems - for example, what if it's ridiculously expensive and thus limited to high priority operations? The GTVA isn't made of money or resources, after all - as much as they want to, you can't just use "muh shivans" as justification for anything to the civilian populace. What if it's very fuel and power intensive and thus can only operate for a short period of time (similar to the UEF craft), as opposed to the extended operating capabilities of regular Tev fighters? There's no such thing as a magic bullet that's going to fix everything, there's always a downside somewhere.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Erebus Alpha on August 07, 2017, 09:01:38 pm: GTVA Capella-era strikecraft outperform Shivan strikecraft. UEF strikecraft outperform GTVA Capella-era strikecraft & most TEI strikecraft too. The Ainsaari, with its stealth characteristics, antimatter cannon, and quad sidhes, is pretty much the UEF's apex predator (we never see one of the white guard fighters in action, they might outperform the legendary Ainsaari).

If not even the Ainsaari can sneak up on one of these bombers & give them a completely lethal antimatter-sidhe wedgie, the Shivans don't stand a chance.

Think about how much easier "Bearbaiting" and "A Time for Heroes" would have been...if you had an almost bottomless bay of trebs. It's not unreasonable to imagine the GTVA bomber engineers sitting down and saying "Okay, this procedure works for defanging a Sath. But it's really risky and difficult. Let's build a ship that can do it much more reliably."

Saths do appear to excel at shock-jumping targets (they certainly have the firepower for it), but let's also not forget that larger ships do not typically have the subspace agility of fighters. We have never seen a bomber shock-warp a target. I suspect it would be almost unstoppable, because bombers emerging too close to their targets in user-made escort missions is quite a game-breaker. Never mind that it's probably much easier to get a bomber into perfect firing position upon warpin, and bombers are probably much more sprint-drive compatible than comparatively huge & ponderous destroyers.

Perhaps most importantly, if blowing up Sath fleets en-masse is the GTVA's objective (and I can see no reason why it would not be), way better bombers & a destroyer full of them seems like the best way to do it. Bombers are always going to be way more agile, both in and out of subspace, and they will be able to safely approach the forward vector of a Sathanas.

At best, an Erebus might succeed in staying away from the beamspam-emitting parts of a Sath until it's dead, but even that didn't work well in "A Time for Heroes." If anything, that mission proves that in a one-on-one Erebus vs. Sath fight, the Shivans will easily turn an Erebus into a very expensive spray of fireworks.

That extremely close call also seems like it might have prompted the GTVA to take a step back, admit that the Erebus didn't work as intended, and precisely like ye olde Capella-era ships, is 100% dependent on its bomber wings to avoid imminent death.

Do you really need a destroyer-size spaceframe just to house all the Erebus' CNC stuff? The motivation for designing and producing the Erebus instead of a Gorgon super-bomber corps of identical cost seems increasingly political rather than practical, best summed up by a UEF pilot in "The Plunder":

"Maybe they need big ships to feel safe."

Unless of course, the more likely option is true: The Gorgon is not a super-ship at all. It's just a better Ursa, the Masyaf is going to be just fine, and the Gorgon pilot that scored the kill against a Fedayeen operator is the luckiest SOB in the Blue Planet franchise. At least, until that operator's wingman comes along and gives them an aforementioned antimatter-sidhe wedgie.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Snarks on August 08, 2017, 03:07:21 am: While Fedayeen, the Masyaf is still only a frigate. I don't see how an advanced bomber destroying a frigate is revolutionary, much less extrapolating it to being a Sathanas slayer. TEI corvettes can already gut a UEF frigate easily.

The Ainsaari's most powerful asset is its stealth. If this can be nullified or mitigated (which it seems like the Gorgon might be able to do), then it's suddenly a lot less dangerous. All this says nothing about how the Gorgon would fare against vastly numerically superior numbers of Shivan fighters. Fighting the Fedayeen is one thing, but fighting the Shivan is another. The Gorgon might be the most powerful bomber in the entire GTVA, but that doesn't change the fact that the Shivans can pull out 80+ Sathanas. And it's worth noting that Shivan anima do adapt with the technological progression of their enemies, as noted by the presence of new Shivan ships in the Second Incursion. Even a lot of the existing Shivan strikecraft are noted to not be operating at 100%.

The GTVA is trying its very best to outmuscle the Shivans, but it is ultimately an untenable objective, which is probably one of the principle reasons why the Elders oppose the GTVA and probably why Shambhala exists.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: General Battuta on August 08, 2017, 12:16:16 pm: Gorgons are AWACS which is handy dandy for fighting Ainsarii.

The Masyaf will be sufficiently damaged to enhance Steele's chances of success.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Mito [PL] on August 08, 2017, 12:57:47 pm: If the data on BP Wiki is correct, AWACS on these bombers can be easily countered with the UX Accelerator. Full 2000m of range, it's more than enough to just park your Asinarii at that range from the bomber and just spam these devastating rounds at it while Balor turrets can't hit you. The sheer size of the bomber would make it pretty easy...

And why does everyone get the impression that Masyaf gets killed by a pair of these bombers?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: xenocartographer on August 08, 2017, 06:53:09 pm: I don't think the Masyaf dying off-screen would be very satisfying from a narrative perspective.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: QuakeIV on August 09, 2017, 01:59:25 am: Nobody said it dies off screen, they could easily cut back to it at any point and show it exploding...
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Federal Spacefarer on August 09, 2017, 07:28:26 am: And speaking of exploding Capitalships, given the aforementioned destroyer speculations of what gets killed, I find it more likely that the GTA to lose at least two of them during the next series of engagement of the story as they are in greater quantity to their Fed counterparts (also the fact of a generally older and lower quality force of them due to their aging). Historically, this has been the case and ultimate victory had still been achieved by that party involved with greater numbers.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: xenocartographer on August 09, 2017, 07:47:02 am: Quote from: QuakeIV on August 09, 2017, 01:59:25 am
Nobody said it dies off screen, they could easily cut back to it at any point and show it exploding...

Alright, fair enough - let me rephrase that. If the Masyaf goes down, I don't think it'll be to two bombers in a "oh, by the way" cutscene. It's just such an anticlimactic way for the Fedayeen, who are such a cool element of the setting, to be defeated.

Now, I could see it being destroyed in Act 4, possibly even to two Gorgons, but I can't see it happening in such an anticlimactic way. Losing the Masyaf should be a big deal to the player, yeah?
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Federal Spacefarer on August 09, 2017, 10:31:52 am: I never said that the Masyaf did, nor do I think she should in such a manner for the very reasons you stated (plus it wouldn't make sense for them to be that lousy at operation 'don't get murdered' so to speak), just to clarify in return.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: General Battuta on August 09, 2017, 11:21:17 am: It would be a waste of narrative capital to just annihilate the Masyaf, since the core question of the Fedayeen ('how far can you go to achieve victory without losing yourself?') is very different than the Wargods' ('how does camaraderie/esprit de corps survive in a war of technical inhumanity?'). But it is interesting to see how Laporte, deprived of her quasidivine Fedayeen support, carries their lessons back into line Fleet duty. Neither the Wargods ethos nor the Fedayeen ethos alone will be enough.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: xenocartographer on August 09, 2017, 11:22:45 am: Heh, I was responding to Quake, sorry!
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Federal Spacefarer on August 09, 2017, 01:16:21 pm: No, forgive me, I was a bit of a dumb-dumb and failed to see the quotation that was obvious right in front of my eyes before responding.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Erebus Alpha on August 11, 2017, 03:18:06 am: Quote from: General Battuta on August 08, 2017, 12:16:16 pm
Gorgons are AWACS which is handy dandy for fighting Ainsarii.

The Masyaf will be sufficiently damaged to enhance Steele's chances of success.

This makes much more sense. The AWACS-enabled piles of turrets & bombs do seem like they could throw the Fedayeen a bit of a curveball, and a couple of stray beam-bombs to the Masyaf's fighterbays might wreck Fedayeen ops for a few weeks. Which is more than enough time for Steele to do his magnificent bastardry!

It's probably in the most heavily armored part of the Masyaf, but think of what might happen if a beam-bomb pierced the CASSANDRA room! If Shambhalla doesn't work out for any reason, CASSANDRA is the UEF's next best option.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Cyborg17 on August 11, 2017, 12:24:45 pm: Quote from: General Battuta on August 09, 2017, 11:21:17 am
Neither the Wargods ethos nor the Fedayeen ethos alone will be enough.

My excitement for Act 4 more than doubled just now.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Mito [PL] on August 11, 2017, 05:57:31 pm: What if CASSANDRA gets shot? Uhm, well... If the damage would happen to somehow disable Cassie's firewall abilities and the Fedayeen would still be in the Nagari network... They'd effectively be an unprotected entity in there, and we all know that there's *something* that really likes to roflstomp these kind of tresspassers. Just imagine, Fedayeen becoming something that is totally incomprehensible for human mind, and destroying the Universe, starting with the UEF and GTVA.

That GTVA operation would have the biggest backfire consequence in history.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: xenocartographer on August 11, 2017, 08:37:02 pm: If the dead Shivan is what permits access to the network in the first place, shooting it would just lock the Fedayeen out, as well as shut down the Dreamscape and Al-da'wa... which is why I'm so down on the possibility, at least so soon after such effort has been spent introducing those elements.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: QuakeIV on August 11, 2017, 09:51:38 pm: I suppose an unlucky burst of radiation from the ship being bombed could injure cassandra in some way and reduce its usefulness.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Azrael15 on August 16, 2017, 12:45:59 am: Quote from: General Battuta on August 09, 2017, 11:21:17 am
Neither the Wargods ethos nor the Fedayeen ethos alone will be enough.

It is time. Light the beacons and awaken the sleeper. Unleash Ricardo.
Title: Re: Destroyers in Act 4
Post by: Rogue Assassin04 on December 01, 2017, 08:43:23 am: Quote from: SmashMonkey on January 22, 2017, 11:16:07 pm
Quote from: Rabid on October 10, 2016, 12:09:44 pm
Quote from: Azrael15 on October 02, 2016, 10:17:01 pm
Quote from: Buff Skeleton on October 02, 2016, 08:11:36 pm
I'm more concerned about that new GTVA heavy bomber seen engaging the Masyaf in the ending cutscene (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

I can't be the only one who is hoping that she's not a free-floating cloud of Narayana debris, right? (http://i.imgur.com/zz2sUTP.png)

-----
Im extremely disappointed in the (single??) UEF fighter assigned to the Masayf. 4 mere bomber-mounted autoturrets killed a Feydayeen pilot before they even fired a shot. The bombers didn't even use any primaries or secondaries.
I'll be further disappointed if the Masayf:

Has no other fighters available.

Is unable to call in the fancy Shielded Custos for support (where would they keep this ship hidden anyway? A secret Feydayeen base? why isn't it kept in the dark next to the Masayf if not deployed on some secret mission?)

Has no contingency for being discovered - If I'd been sitting still off in a quiet corner for any length of time, I'd have my nav officers compute 3 solid escape vectors and save the results, so I could jump quickly if ambushed. Especially if I was the cloak and daggers experts. I'd also keep my jump drive at least partially charged - im not using my frigate for shooting things yet, but the ability to be wherever I'm needed quickly seems to be a top priority.

1) Are we sure that the stealth fighter was killed? Was it even a stealth fighter?

I find it hard that a Fedayeen fighter would be so easily killed by bomber turrets. Fedayeen operators are amongst the best pilots in the UEF - and perhaps even in the GTVA. Just 4 Fedayeen operators in "Her Finest Hour" slaughtered wing after wing of the Carthage's fighters.

2) If Steele really knew how important the Masyaf was, there would a dedicated hunter-killer team jumping in. The Tevs most likely saw that there was a single, isolated frigate on their scopes, and decided to send a small contingent of Gorgons for a test-run.

The Spatha Fighter is destroyed by the Gorgon Bomber...
In the log, it registers that one of the Spatha Stealth Fighters are destroyed.