[AlphaOne]

Oki here is mi question: Would new ship classes some larger some smaller be usefull in FS universe (after Cappella)?
To get an idea of what I have in mind I will describe some of them. I want you guis to well give resons why some would work and why some will not! If you can please give some tips on the missions they would be asigned to!
The first would be a new destroyer class vessel at a max of 2 km with incredible firepower but a limited fighterbay some 30 or 50 spacecraft. This ship would be the most advanced ships ever constructed (new weapons new engines new spacecrafts new armour). you get the point!

The seccond would be a dreanought at a max of 4,5 km with much more power that a destroyer but again with limited spacecrafts.

The third would be a battleship at a max of 5 km with just 20 or 30 spacecrafts to provide fighter/bommber protection. But with massive armour and firepower.

The fourth would be the carrier! Different sizes! The largest beeing able to carry about 800 spacecrafts!

Tell me what are youre ideas pros and against..and the reasons! Thanx!

[Herra Tohtori]

Oki here is mi question: Would new ship classes some larger some smaller be usefull in FS universe (after Cappella)?
To get an idea of what I have in mind I will describe some of them. I want you guis to well give resons why some would work and why some will not! If you can please give some tips on the missions they would be asigned to!
The first would be a new destroyer class vessel at a max of 2 km with incredible firepower but a limited fighterbay some 30 or 50 spacecraft. This ship would be the most advanced ships ever constructed (new weapons new engines new spacecrafts new armour). you get the point!

The seccond would be a dreanought at a max of 4,5 km with much more power that a destroyer but again with limited spacecrafts.

The third would be a battleship at a max of 5 km with just 20 or 30 spacecrafts to provide fighter/bommber protection. But with massive armour and firepower.

The fourth would be the carrier! Different sizes! The largest beeing able to carry about 800 spacecrafts!

Tell me what are youre ideas pros and against..and the reasons! Thanx!

+ It definitely opens new possibilities - never a bad thing.

- It also somewhat limits some possibilities. If a single ship is *huge*, it would demand a ridiculous amount of polies to look reasonably high-poly, especially at close distances. Smaller ships (mid-size capships) are more easy to make both beautiful and poly-reasonable.

+ Entertainment, if done right - closely connected to first plus.

-  Rationality. The Colossus took ~30 a to complete - even with current knowledge, ships even bigger will take a huge amount of time and resources, and the capacity is limited. Besides, I think that actually the FS universe will start going back to smaller but more technically advanced ships, precisely like naval warfare here in Earth after IIWW. There are no great battle ships built any more. The biggest role is with missile frigates offering close perimeter defence for carrier groups, then there are carriers offerinf air superiority and ground attack capacity. Then there are smaller MTB's of course...

So, instead of many huge warship classes more, I'd go for carriers. Actually, like was said in a Destroyer Thread, curent FS Destroyers actually are kind of carriers. So, perhaps double the size (at max), 3-4 times ship capacity, almost similar armament in offensive (Beamz) as the current destroyers, but many many more flak turrets for defense. Fighters and bombers provide space superiority and destroy enemy capital ships, interceptors and frigates provide cover from enemy bombers via long-range missile banks (trebuchet bank on a cap ship? DREAD, Bomberz!) and loads of anti-fighter beamz.

Frigates should be scaled somewhere between a cruiser and a corvette, perhaps being slightly more bent to corvette-size, but still a bit smaller.

So, in short. Instead of many new big ship classes, just one big (carrier) and one medium-size cap ship class would be tactically more effective, and of course in some missions there could appeare some old fellows like battered but still fit GTVD Aquitaine equipped with additional fighter bays but with reduced offensive capacity (it's not that great anyways). Besides, you can build at least 30 corvettes or perhaps 35 frigates with same basic materials as one Colossus (or even bigger ships) that give quite a much bigger a punch to an enemy. It's much more difficult to concentrate on multiple enemies all giving you the hell with flaks and anti-fighter beamz...

That's my opinion...

[Prophet]

When I think of FS battles... What is the need of a ship than can carry fighters and has great firepower. All fighters can make the required in-system jump to the battle. There is no need for a battleship to carri fighters in battle. Exept when attacking another system, but should there be need for fighters they can equip few with expensive drives. And once the node is clear, a carrier would arrive to service and deploy fightercover.

I'd think that powerful battleships would act as muscle. Then smaller, and more specialized, ships will make the difference. Because if GTVA learned anything from the war, it's that tactics, not brute force, will save the day (Colossus fiasko).

As I imagine the GTVA economy being quite shot after Capella, they might concetrate on smaller warships and fighter support to deal with possible encounter with large shivan warships.

Example of a ship class I came up once:

Torpedo boat (cruiser in the game). Smaller than cruiser, bigger than bomber. Very fast. Crew less than ten. Carries less than five powerfull torpedoes (about fighter sized). Perhaps one or two morningstar type turrets to ward off fighters. And a rear launcher.
Jumps in, fallows waypoints towards target (destroyer or larger). Fires its torpedoes, then passes the target (if remaining) wery closely and releases a bundle of bombs or mines from a rear launcher that impact the target. After one pass the ordanance would be depleted and the torpedo boat would jump out.
Imagine the damage it would do. And would be cheaper to maintain than a cruiser as it would be deployed only in a emergancy. Say, when a juggernaut blasts trought your backdoor. Because of it's speed, anticapbeams would be ineffective against it. And because it spends only so little time in the battle, losses would be unlikely.

[wgemini]

Oki here is mi question: Would new ship classes some larger some smaller be usefull in FS universe (after Cappella)?
To get an idea of what I have in mind I will describe some of them. I want you guis to well give resons why some would work and why some will not! If you can please give some tips on the missions they would be asigned to!
The first would be a new destroyer class vessel at a max of 2 km with incredible firepower but a limited fighterbay some 30 or 50 spacecraft. This ship would be the most advanced ships ever constructed (new weapons new engines new spacecrafts new armour). you get the point!

The seccond would be a dreanought at a max of 4,5 km with much more power that a destroyer but again with limited spacecrafts.

The third would be a battleship at a max of 5 km with just 20 or 30 spacecrafts to provide fighter/bommber protection. But with massive armour and firepower.

Basically super Deimos. I don't think they will be useful since it's very hard for a destroyer or above to turn towards its target. Therefore, a group of Deimos would be more effective and cheaper. They will also take forever to build, the GTVA does not seem to have the resources.

The fourth would be the carrier! Different sizes! The largest beeing able to carry about 800 spacecrafts!

Not really useful. It will be a supply nightmare. They will never be able to fully equip the carrier. Even if they could, it would be like putting all your eggs in a single basket.

The Shivans are not likely to come again any time soon. Even if they did, they would be unstoppable using the conventional force. I see the GTVA concentrate on maintaining orders and rebuilding their economy. Therefore, more cruisers, maybe even smaller gunships for escorting convoys.

[kv1at3485]

Operational Missile Cruiser (Destroyer sized)
- Carries missiles (light bomber sized, subspace drive equipped, single large warhead)
- Carries 'fighters' (mainly to provide targeting for missiles arriving via subspace)
- comphrehensive AAA grid
-- designed to deploy ordnance indirectly

Tactical Missile Cruiser (Corvette sized)
- Carries missiles (light bomber sized, subspace drive equipped, single large warhead)
- comphrehensive AAA grid
-- designed to deploy ordnance directly and provide targeting for that ordnance

Escort Cruiser (Cruiser sized)
- comphrehensive AAA grid

SWACS Cruiser (Cruiser sized)
- limited AAA grid

[Janos]

I'm on the same lines as Prophet.

I don't really understand why GTVA pools resources into relatively weak ships like Myrm and destroyers. It would be wiser, both performance and tactical-wise, to focus on force projection of smaller, much more powerful tactical assets. Cruise missiles, tactical bombers, pure space-sup fighters paving way for heavy bombers, carrier groups and so on. NATO warfare, basically.

Even if a pure space-sup platform might be much more costly than a jack-of-all-trades fighter, it could be costwise much more efficient. No "hay guyz lets bomb that cruiser oh **** huge casualties uneffective weapons oh well lets fight maras in close combat instead" -moments FS is so proud of. Get in there, engage, keep the fighters in bay and let heavy assets to disable/destroy larger threats from safe distance. Disengage, recon, keep more personell safe.

[Herra Tohtori]

Myrmidon is a powerful fighter, it can carry four Helios torpedoes... 

(It's a good craft even without using that easter egg - three sec banks and all)

[aldo_14]

Oki here is mi question: Would new ship classes some larger some smaller be usefull in FS universe (after Cappella)?
To get an idea of what I have in mind I will describe some of them. I want you guis to well give resons why some would work and why some will not! If you can please give some tips on the missions they would be asigned to!
The first would be a new destroyer class vessel at a max of 2 km with incredible firepower but a limited fighterbay some 30 or 50 spacecraft. This ship would be the most advanced ships ever constructed (new weapons new engines new spacecrafts new armour). you get the point!

The seccond would be a dreanought at a max of 4,5 km with much more power that a destroyer but again with limited spacecrafts.

The third would be a battleship at a max of 5 km with just 20 or 30 spacecrafts to provide fighter/bommber protection. But with massive armour and firepower.

The fourth would be the carrier! Different sizes! The largest beeing able to carry about 800 spacecrafts!

Tell me what are youre ideas pros and against..and the reasons! Thanx!

How come every time you crop up here it's to 'suggest' some humungeous overpowered death-ship with usually the only nod to balancing being the vague concept of 'less fighters'?

[NGTM-1R]

I'm still mucking about with anti-juggernaut ideas.

The list so far:

Monitor-type vessel. Essentially a flying heavy or superheavy (BF-category) beam. Cheap and possibly automated, they would be deployed against a juggernaut en masse. Maybe based on an Aeolus hull.

Corvette-sized vessel with a one-shot saturation attack using Helios or Cyclops warheads. Essentially it jumps in, dumps upwards of a hundred bombs, and jumps out again.

PTM-type vessel carrying a much smaller one-shot saturation attack using Cyclops warheads (24), roughly half of cruiser size.

[AlphaOne]

Well I dont sugest anything I just wanted good advice and good arguements on some ship sizes and theyr usefullness in a post cappela FS universe! Also I must thank you guis for all this really usefull sugestions I will take them into consideration!

The friggate was suposed to be larger than a corvette but smaller then a destroyer.But what the hell! Thanx!

[achtung]

I agree with Prophet and Janos on this one.  Makes loads more sense.  But of course a game needs eyecandy so you can only expect massive vessels.

[Black Wolf]

No, No, Maybe, No.

Big, nasty death ships don't work in FS2. The fighter is, and always will be, the ultimate, ultimate weapon, because it's a fighter simulator, and, even if you're interested primarily in the universe (rather than the game, from a useful to mission design POV), that fighter centricity leaks over into the canon - consider The final mission of FS1, the Hammer and the Anvil, Slaying Ravana, Bearbaiting, Rebel Intercept, and... err, that one with the Mjolnirs when you're covering the node against the NTF using...Artemises I think (unless that is RI) - canonical points where fighters own capships.

So, from the point of view of the universe, and from the point of view of making fun missions, fighter related ships should be the most important. What you're proposing are capships designed to kill capships, and that's just not where GTVA ship design has to go. Consider the Shivan Threats -

Lucifer - They seemed pretty confident the Collossus' beams could kill it. If beams can kill it, then you can use Corvettes, or specially designed single BFGreen Emitter ships. If not, then you'rte forced to use nodes and bombers to kill it anyway.

Demon - Hardly a threat - kill with bombers.

Ravana - Dangerous to capships, taken out by a single bombing run.

Sathanas - Definitely a danger, and too big for bombers alone to take out, but can be destroyed by sustained conventional fire if bombers take out the four main claw guns ala bearbaiting.

Fighters and Bombers - dangerous, be can be dealt with in the traditional manner (i.e. friendly fighters)

The key element? Every Shivan ship can be dealt with, if bombers, fighters and ordinance is made available. Ships related to fighters, either carriers designed to ferry them around, or small ships designedc with fighter defence in mind are the way forward for the GTVA. Hmmmm... I should write some of this down...

[aldo_14]

It's really rather simple logic that, in a game - with no realism* restrictions - about playing as a fighter pilot, it's good gameplay to have a role in fighting any opponent you come across.

*including 'accuracy to the source' within the definition of realism for TCs.

[TrashMan]

When people rant about having battle-focused ships (alla batleships) would be dumb becoause long-range missiles and fighter-strikes can take them out, they forget one thing in FS.
subspace

Effectivly, subspace travel is the ONE thing that makes BB's more belivalbe to have. Why?

If you have a ship with superior anti-cap firepower and heavy armor that jumps in next to enemy warship (carrier or destroyer), it can (within seconds) tear the enemy apart or cripple it heavily before it jumps out. Plasma blobs and beams can't be slowed or countered.

Think of a damage a Orion can do when it jumps in and gives a full broadside. Now multiply that by a order of magnitude

A Destroyer or a dedicated carrier couldn't do that. Enemy fighter/bombers heading towards you can be slowed down by your fightercover and AAF's, and enemy bombs can be shot down. Basicly they can't deal enough damage fast enough and the enemy warship would escape with little or no damage.

However, such ships should be used as either a plot devide or scenery, since a plyer could not take it down uless you give him a super-uber-extra-invincible-bomber or you help him by giving him 30 wingman.

[karajorma]

Didn't we already have this argument? Didn't it result in you making up **** to counter the fact that a battleship is ****ed when dealing with ships armed with the maxim cannon?

Why are you back for more?

[Shade]

As I see it, non-carrier capital ships in FS2 really are no good for pure combat roles. But then, I also don't see that as being their main mission. Rather than combat power, what they have going for them is staying power. They can go to an area of interest, park there, and remain in the area indefinitely providing a deterrence from attack. Or they can escort a freighter convoy from start to end without break, even if it takes 12+ hours.

Fighters cannot do this, they eventually need to be replaced as the pilots grow tired or run out of supplies, which can be a problem if it's in the middle of nowhere and there isn't a carrier in the area. So basically, having the mid sized capships is a means to cut down on the number of carriers needed. Without them, you could need 1-2 carriers in every system, just on the off chance you might need to escort something. But then, you can park two Aeolus cruisers in the same system instead and they can pretty much cover that base for you with much fewer resources spent, and keep your carriers near the front where they can really make a dent in the enemy.

Won't work against concentrated attacks without fighter support, of course, but that's when you jump in a carrier from a nearby system while the cruisers hold the line.

[karajorma]

Hit the nail on the head there Shade. That's exactly the way I've thought of them.

[Prophet]

While huge battleships are big and powerfull, the aren't nearly as cost effective and flexible as multiple smaller ships. Only advantage of size, that I see, is long range support. Big ships can carry bigger guns (long range beams or fenris sized massdrivers), but subspace makes all that kinda useless...

[Shade]

Indeed. One would be much better off simply building another carrier/destroyer instead of a massive dedicated battleship. If you really need long range support, I'd rather go with the Homeworld solution and take one massive cruiser sized beam cannon/missile launcher, then slap a few engines on the back end and call it a frigate. Gets you long range firepower, cheap, with more flexibility as you can deploy each weapon seperately.

The one thing that a battleship might be useful for would be surprise strikes. Jump in, lay waste to everything nearby with massive beam salvos, and jump out 20 seconds later before anyone has a clue what happened. But really, this one option isn't worth the cost, not to mention destroyers (well, orion class destroyers) can already do it to a degree while carrying a ton of fighters at the same time.

It might as first glance seem like they'd be great for blockade busting, but I disagree. Mass bombers will own them in short order if they can't launch a fighter screen shortly after entering.

In closing, if you ask me, destroyers and carriers in Freespace make sense, cruisers make sense, corvettes make sense as they're really supposed to act as cruisers on steroids and do this very well indeed, hell, even the colossus makes kinda sense as a blockade buster since it can launch it's own fighter screen after breaking through a blockade. Frigates homeworld style would make sense if they existed. But battleships do not. They simple don't have a role to fill where they could survive while filling it.

[karajorma]

The one thing that a battleship might be useful for would be surprise strikes. Jump in, lay waste to everything nearby with massive beam salvos, and jump out 20 seconds later before anyone has a clue what happened. But really, this one option isn't worth the cost, not to mention destroyers (well, orion class destroyers) can already do it to a degree while carrying a ton of fighters at the same time.

I don't think that would be possible. Capships appear to need a few minutes to recharge their jump engines immediately following a jump. The only ship we ever see do anything different is the Iceni when it goes through the Knossos. Even then the indication seems to be that it may have been specially designed or rigged for such a manouver.

We see the NTF and GTVA lose numerous ships that might not have been lost had they simply jumped out.