Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: SF-Junky on April 15, 2008, 12:04:05 pm

Title: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: SF-Junky on April 15, 2008, 12:04:05 pm
Destroyers are very powerful, but very expensive ships. They are flagships, the créme da la créme of the fleet. The mothers of space faring war machine... and the only ships in FS that can carry fighters and bombers. But isn't that kinda stupid? I mean, if a fleet loses its destroyer(s) it hasn't any fighter and bomber support left at all. E.g. Koths invasion fleet in EP: After they have lost the Normandy and the Repulse, the remaining forces were on their own - and had to surrender.

I think [V] should have added one smaller carrier type vessel to any species.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BengalTiger on April 15, 2008, 12:09:14 pm
um...
SCv Moloch?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: SF-Junky on April 15, 2008, 12:14:34 pm
um...
SCv Moloch?
:rolleyes:
I'm sure you know what I mean...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mobius on April 15, 2008, 12:16:58 pm
That "créme"...uhm...I'm hungry...

You're right. Not only the number of spacecraft a faction can bring into a certain theatre of operation is incredibly low but leaves an immense number of spacecraft...without a mobile base.

Quote
XSTR("Learning a lesson from the bomber losses of the Great War, Vasudan defense contractor Akheton designed the GVB Bakha, a fast, agile bomber that could still deliver a warship-shattering payload. The Bakha's dual Akh-12 engines are baffled and masked, giving it a small profile for heat-seeking missiles. The bomber's speed and maneuverability make it the craft of choice for taking out destroyers and corvettes with multiple flak, AAA, and anti-ship beam turrets. Over 6,000 Bakhas have been produced in the orbiting shipyards around Vasuda Prime.", 3116)

Where are they? That number's too high even for outposts!

um...
SCv Moloch?

Able to carry just one wing? Nah...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Zoltan on April 15, 2008, 12:17:18 pm
Not much to discuss there, Volition didn't want smaller ships to have fighter bays, and that's the way it is. You should take into account though that fighters are pretty large ships, and there really isn't that much room relatively in a corvette. I mean what could it hold, one wing? I say it's not worth it for the combat effectivness you would likely be losing.


um...
SCv Moloch?

Yes, and that vessel sucks; it is the proof you need that smaller vessels shouldn't hold fighters or bombers.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mobius on April 15, 2008, 12:19:20 pm
One of :v:'s errors. You know, FS isn't always perfect.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Zoltan on April 15, 2008, 12:24:04 pm
One of :v:'s errors. You know, FS isn't always perfect.

Well you have the Moloch as precedence, it is the only Shivan vessel that is decisively inferior to its counterparts. Perhaps the GTVA experimented with smaller vessels acting as fighter and bomber platforms, but we'll never know...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: SF-Junky on April 15, 2008, 12:41:32 pm
Well you have the Moloch as precedence, it is the only Shivan vessel that is decisively inferior to its counterparts.
The Moloch doesn't suck because its fighterbay would be too small. It sucks because of its stupid (standard) armarment and its poor turret armor.

I am not talking about corvettes here or if they should have equiped them with a hangar. My point is that there aren't any smaller vessels, specialized to carry fighters and bombers into a combat zone. Some counterpart to the cruisers and corvettes quasi.

Cruisers/Corvettes -> fight
Carrier -> carry combat craft
Destroyer -> both
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mobius on April 15, 2008, 01:55:40 pm
I think the Moloch should've had at least one LRed. Maybe people at :v: removed it.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Flipside on April 15, 2008, 02:00:21 pm
Actually, I seem to recall the technical jargon claiming it was only classed as a Cv because it was too big to be a cruiser?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mobius on April 15, 2008, 02:04:29 pm
That brings back the "strike cruiser" concept...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mars on April 15, 2008, 02:06:32 pm
Axem made a cargo container that holds fighters at some point

As for the Moloch
Quote from:  FS2 Demo Tech Room Description
This big Shivan Mama is loaded with turrety goodness. Moloch is the name of another larger form of Aeshma, a many armed, many weaponed Indian goddess.
Quote from: FS2 Tech Room Description
Only one class of Shivan ship is classified as a corvette - the SCv Moloch class. Though they're physically as large as the GTCv Deimos class, Molochs do not seem to pack the same punch. They are far more deadly than any Shivan cruisers, however.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Titan on April 15, 2008, 03:14:25 pm
see, why couldn't they have kept it like that?  :lol:
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mars on April 15, 2008, 03:31:57 pm
The Aeolus had a better one
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 15, 2008, 05:34:57 pm
I think the Moloch should've had at least one LRed

I always thought it would be cool for it to have a beam in its "eye" (especially on the HTL one)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Fearless Leader on April 15, 2008, 06:48:33 pm
I dont think the Moloch was something to be looked at like a lone ship that can launch operations and engage enemy fleets solo. Its more like a ship that would deploy in pairs so they could cover each other or complement a small fleet that had no fighter support
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mars on April 15, 2008, 07:20:18 pm
I think the Moloch should've had at least one LRed

I always thought it would be cool for it to have a beam in its "eye" (especially on the HTL one)
Then it would be too good.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Flipside on April 15, 2008, 07:23:39 pm
I think the Moloch was designed more with the game in mind than the storyline, I suspect a Moloch armed like a Deimos would quite easily take down a couple of Destroyers, it would have been too powerful.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mars on April 15, 2008, 07:28:15 pm
I'm always conflicted about FreeSpace

I understand that the story requires some ships of the same type to be better than others...

But part of me wants some asymmetric balance, eg the same way every corvette has some advantages and disadvantages to each other
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Roanoke on April 16, 2008, 05:26:54 am
For years I tried to make a ship, about the size of a very large bomber, that could ferry a Fighter Wing (say, 4 Herc2s) through a jump-node. I figured about half a dozen would make a credible expeditionary force prior to the arrival of Cruisers and Corvettes.

Something roughly the same shape as the Carry-All from C&C Tib.Sun. I could never get a shape I was happy with though.  :doubt:
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 16, 2008, 11:47:56 am
For me, I've messed about with the concept of a raider carrier for a long time, something capable of carrying and supporting a small number of fighters for a couple of weeks. I have a corvette design that can carry a reinforced squadron but cannot really support them that long, and I have cruiser capable of long-term supporting a single wing; but neither is a purpose-built design, just part of the modular ship design thing I've been working on.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: SF-Junky on April 16, 2008, 11:49:47 am
I think the Moloch should've had at least one LRed. Maybe people at :v: removed it.
I also think that it would be too powerful then. Three SReds are okay imo, but in my eyes they should have added a medium sized shivan beam gun, as many fan mods do. The Lilith e.g. is very overpowered with its LRed.

Axem made a cargo container that holds fighters at some point
For the Triton, right? I saw this one on some web page as wip several months ago.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BS403 on April 16, 2008, 12:12:06 pm
Isn't their somewhere were a moloch fires an lred? I remeber someone saying something. either the cover of the fs2 box had it or you could hear it somewhere.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Roanoke on April 16, 2008, 12:16:56 pm
I think the Moloch should've had at least one LRed. Maybe people at :v: removed it.
I also think that it would be too powerful then. Three SReds are okay imo, but in my eyes they should have added a medium sized shivan beam gun, as many fan mods do. The Lilith e.g. is very overpowered with its LRed.

Axem made a cargo container that holds fighters at some point
For the Triton, right? I saw this one on some web page as wip several months ago.

I made one, at the request of I froget who(Blitzerland ? Madbomber ?), years ago. Just a Triton box with a simple letter-box opening and some table mods. I thought it was a bad idea but when Axem's was released people really liked it.  :doubt:
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mustang19 on April 16, 2008, 12:20:57 pm
Quote
For me, I've messed about with the concept of a raider carrier for a long time, something capable of carrying and supporting a small number of fighters for a couple of weeks. I have a corvette design that can carry a reinforced squadron but cannot really support them that long, and I have cruiser capable of long-term supporting a single wing; but neither is a purpose-built design, just part of the modular ship design thing I've been working on.

That would be interesting given the proportions of bulk versus fighter complements you see in the game.

The Orion has an incredibly greater volume than an American aircraft carrier yet carries the same amount of fighters. The Colossus is absolutely huge yet carries only 200 craft. You never see more than a few GTVA wings at a time in action in any case- and never anything launching from the Colly- so the majority of those craft may be for casualty replacement or simply aren't stored on board.

The Shivans appear to be the only people able to put up a decent swarm, as evidenced by the Dragons in the FS2 intro. Plus, they have the smallest fighter-launching ship in the game, the Moloch, as already mentioned. So the Shivans seem to know more than "we" do about cramming a lot of fighters into a small space.

Realisitically, a ship traveling at bottle rocket speeds and equipped with a generator that gives it unlimited laser fire wouldn't be that hard to support. The Deimos is way bigger than a Nimitz class and should be able to carry fighters, yet GTVA ships of its size do not (although the Plato seemed to carry an escape pod...). So either the FreeSpace "reality" or GTVA doctrine militates against stationing fighters on smaller ships.

Quote
Isn't their somewhere were a moloch fires an lred? I remeber someone saying something. either the cover of the fs2 box had it or you could hear it somewhere.

I dunno. It has an Sred by default and doesn't do much harm to your friendlies in Exodus, when an Lred would be able to take down your escorted ships in one pulse. You never see a Moloch really kicking ass in the main campaign, so I'd say it uses puny Sreds all the way through.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 16, 2008, 02:16:24 pm
Remember, Freespace fighters are a lot bigger than present-day fighters.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mobius on April 16, 2008, 02:57:20 pm
Not enough to make the equation work, however. Craft like the Ursa are big thanks to their height which shouldn't have a lot of importance when talking about fighterbays.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mawhrin on April 16, 2008, 08:25:58 pm
For me, I've messed about with the concept of a raider carrier for a long time
I'm thinking escort carrier, for escorting convoys across a few systems, defending against pirates or stray hostile fighters that may have slipped past node blockades. A convoy can cover a significant area, so needs fighter cover if its attacked. Such a craft could have benefited Homesick and Sync.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mad Bomber on April 16, 2008, 10:59:13 pm
I made one, at the request of I froget who(Blitzerland ? Madbomber ?), years ago. Just a Triton box with a simple letter-box opening and some table mods. I thought it was a bad idea but when Axem's was released people really liked it.  :doubt:

It was me. I still have it.

And I wasn't aware Axem's was ever released. I thought he never got around to UVing it and it languished.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: SF-Junky on April 17, 2008, 08:05:53 am
And I wasn't aware Axem's was ever released. I thought he never got around to UVing it and it languished.
Nor me. I searched for it yesterday, but only found this: http://www.axemspace.com/shipyard.html?wp_start=9 A great pity that it hasn't been finished yet.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 20, 2008, 03:17:19 pm
I'm thinking escort carrier, for escorting convoys across a few systems, defending against pirates or stray hostile fighters that may have slipped past node blockades. A convoy can cover a significant area, so needs fighter cover if its attacked. Such a craft could have benefited Homesick and Sync.

I actually built one back when I used to mod. :D

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/SoR/Images/TMBNL-Charon03.jpg)(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/SoR/Images/TMBNL-Charon01.jpg)

Unfortunately I never got around to learning to texture properly and it's now rather low poly for a capship these days. :)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Snail on April 20, 2008, 03:29:07 pm
Is that for the Mercury Affair?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 20, 2008, 03:33:17 pm
It's for SoR which is the prequel. It probably would have been shoehorned into TMA if I ever got around to fixing the rather massive plotholes SoR opened up. :)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Snail on April 20, 2008, 03:36:10 pm
So Seeds of Rebellion is going to be an "evil conspiracy" campaign? I always like those...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 20, 2008, 04:58:54 pm
TMA was the conspiracy one. There's some signs of the plot in SoR though. :)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Kie99 on April 20, 2008, 05:30:18 pm
Are either of those campaigns going to happen now?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 20, 2008, 07:11:29 pm
So basicly the GTVA needs a carrier that is not as huge and as slow as the main capitalships meaning Destroyers.

Then go dedicated carrier on their arses. Or build smaller carrier tipe vessels capable of holding just 50 or so crafts loads of aaaf defences limted beam cannon ability.

Also they should have a dedicated rapid lunch system capable of lauching all the fighters/bommbers in its complement in a matter of seconds. or 2 or 3 minutes at the worse. Perhaps something similar to the lauch tubes of the Galactica?

Hell that beeing said the GTVA need monitor class ships realyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bad. Since deployng slow moving destroyers or corvettes would be a real pain in the arse just to deal with a lone cruiser or something like that. Just send in 2 wings of monitor class ships get in fast kill everithing in sight then secure the area fast for larger warships.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Solatar on April 20, 2008, 10:32:05 pm
The thing about freespace fighters is that they have jump drives. If a wing of fighters is launched from a destroyer, they can reach their destination fairly quickly. Also to escort a convoy, the "support ship" (destroyer) needn't be around the convoy, as they fighters jump in and jump out when done. Having a small carrier class is just asking for several wings of fighters to be destroyed "on the runway" in a heated battle. Better to keep the destroyers away from smaller fights and let them act as command ships.

The only time you'd ever really benefit from a small carrier would be a multi-system convoy escort, in which case you'd have to weigh how much intersystem jump drives cost vs. new ship classes vs. seperate escort wings on both sides of the node.

However logistical problems aside, I'd still use one if a good one was available...They would certainly offer some variety to campaigns. It seems I'm always stationed on a giant destroyer.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mawhrin on April 21, 2008, 04:19:56 am
Hell that beeing said the GTVA need monitor class ships realyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bad. Since deployng slow moving destroyers or corvettes would be a real pain in the arse just to deal with a lone cruiser or something like that. Just send in 2 wings of monitor class ships get in fast kill everithing in sight then secure the area fast for larger warships.
A wing of light bombers with escort would do the trick against a cruiser or two. FreeSpace favours fighters. The only time where anti cap ship beams are really needed is against a Sathanas, or presumably a shielded ship like the Lucifer.

But then, what makes sense from an in-universe strategic perspective is different from what makes sense from a game design perspective, compounded by an AI that makes poor use of strategies available. Fighters can easily disarm any destroyer using trebuchets, but a target ship could protect its turrets by erratically rolling and spinning.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 21, 2008, 04:35:57 am
Hmm, the charon! Looks great actually!

I've always wanted to see that one in action!
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 21, 2008, 07:08:15 am
The thing about freespace fighters is that they have jump drives. If a wing of fighters is launched from a destroyer, they can reach their destination fairly quickly. Also to escort a convoy, the "support ship" (destroyer) needn't be around the convoy, as they fighters jump in and jump out when done. Having a small carrier class is just asking for several wings of fighters to be destroyed "on the runway" in a heated battle. Better to keep the destroyers away from smaller fights and let them act as command ships.

The only time you'd ever really benefit from a small carrier would be a multi-system convoy escort, in which case you'd have to weigh how much intersystem jump drives cost vs. new ship classes vs. seperate escort wings on both sides of the node.

I tend to disagree with that and it's the reason I made the Charon. While at the tactical level you're correct the facts are different at the strategic level. A change in deployment of a destroyer is seen as a major thing. Look at the number of destroyers that the GTVA have that don't appear until the **** really hits the fan. For some reason the GTVA seems to loathe pulling destroyers away from the home systems to reinforce trouble spots.

But the problem is that you can't bring new fighters to a a new system unless you have some sort of capship to bring them in. Not unless you want to waste your expensive intersystem jump engines on cannonfodder. For that reason a light carrier is useful. It can carry enough ships to bolster a GTVA position. It can't replace a destroyer, it's far to weak for that but used together with one it can ensure that the GTVA can strengthen one star system without having to weaken another.

Are either of those campaigns going to happen now?

TMA, not so much. I've been having massive problems with plot holes there. SoR, well I was FREDding for that earlier this week so it's not forgotten by a long stretch. :)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BengalTiger on April 21, 2008, 07:19:36 am
Fighters can easily disarm any destroyer using trebuchets, but a target ship could protect its turrets by erratically rolling and spinning.

What about capships getting countermeasures?

Also- since modern caps use countermeasures- why don't FS ones do?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 21, 2008, 07:22:40 am
I would personnally see the charon as a raider!
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mustang19 on April 21, 2008, 08:46:41 am
What about capships getting countermeasures?

A very original idea, and a useful one considering all the bombs that are lobbed at capships. But you really should be able to dumbfire your weapons at a target of that size. Plus, once one of your missiles has a lock on a capship, it can probably go sensors-blind and just home in on the anticipated position of the target since large ships don't manuever that much.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BengalTiger on April 21, 2008, 08:53:13 am
A capship dropping CM's would be harder to disarm with a Treb missile or a Stilleto II, unless you get close enough to be in range of the ship's guns, so the idea still makes sense.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 21, 2008, 09:09:48 am
Unless the countermeasures use EMP bursts or some sort of countermissile/point defence laser I don't see how they could hope to prevent a missile hitting a 2km long ship, travelling at 10-20m/s launched from a kilometre or two away.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on April 21, 2008, 10:36:38 am
Then go dedicated carrier on their arses. Or build smaller carrier tipe vessels capable of holding just 50 or so crafts loads of aaaf defences limted beam cannon ability.
Like the Moloch? One of the weakest and most useless vessels in FS2?

Quote
Also they should have a dedicated rapid lunch system
Funny typo :lol:

Quote
Hell that beeing said the GTVA need monitor class ships realyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bad. Since deployng slow moving destroyers or corvettes would be a real pain in the arse just to deal with a lone cruiser or something like that. Just send in 2 wings of monitor class ships get in fast kill everithing in sight then secure the area fast for larger warships.
Good idea. I would like to see the Mentu with a BVas, for example. Vasudan Lilith. :yes:


The thing about freespace fighters is that they have jump drives. If a wing of fighters is launched from a destroyer, they can reach their destination fairly quickly. Also to escort a convoy, the "support ship" (destroyer) needn't be around the convoy, as they fighters jump in and jump out when done. Having a small carrier class is just asking for several wings of fighters to be destroyed "on the runway" in a heated battle. Better to keep the destroyers away from smaller fights and let them act as command ships.

The only time you'd ever really benefit from a small carrier would be a multi-system convoy escort, in which case you'd have to weigh how much intersystem jump drives cost vs. new ship classes vs. seperate escort wings on both sides of the node.

However logistical problems aside, I'd still use one if a good one was available...They would certainly offer some variety to campaigns. It seems I'm always stationed on a giant destroyer.
QFT :yes:


I tend to disagree with that and it's the reason I made the Charon. While at the tactical level you're correct the facts are different at the strategic level. A change in deployment of a destroyer is seen as a major thing. Look at the number of destroyers that the GTVA have that don't appear until the **** really hits the fan. For some reason the GTVA seems to loathe pulling destroyers away from the home systems to reinforce trouble spots.
In FS2, the Aquitaine is sent from Deneb to GDrax, then to the Nebula, back to EPeg, into the Nebula again, to GDrax, yet another time into the Nebula... Destroyers seem to shift positions pretty easy IMHO.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 21, 2008, 11:16:56 am
the way I would see it would be dedicated classes, of carriers, like the renegade legion. (cruiser class carrier, corvette carrier, destroyer carrier, etc...). And each one of them could be deployed in function of the tactical situation (cruiser carrier=raiding action, etc...)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 21, 2008, 02:01:06 pm
In FS2, the Aquitaine is sent from Deneb to GDrax, then to the Nebula, back to EPeg, into the Nebula again, to GDrax, yet another time into the Nebula... Destroyers seem to shift positions pretty easy IMHO.

That could easily be interpreted as the Aquitaine moving because it is the only Terran Destroyer that can be spared. Why else would they drag a destroyer back out of the nebula even with Shivan forces still present and the nebula still largely unexplored to deal with the invasion of Epsilon Pegasi?

Quote
Command anticipates the arrival of the Aquitaine and the Psamtik will shift the battle for Deneb in our favor and force the NTF to withdraw to Sirius.

Note that the GTVA consider the fact that they have sent a grand total of 2 destroyers to Deneb to be something that can swing the course of the entire battle there in their favour leading to the rebels pulling out entirely from a contested system. If moving destroyers is easy then why wouldn't they have simply done that 18 months ago?

Hell even shaking loose a couple of corvettes seems to be a major achievement.

Quote
With recent victories on the civil war front, the GTVA Security Council has authorized the deployment of two Deimos-class corvettes into the nebular theatre of operations. The Lysander and the Actium crossed the subspace portal in Gamma Draconis at 2335 hours and joined up with the Aquitaine's battle group.

If sending in corvettes to join a battle group facing the most dangerous enemy the GTVA has ever faced is only possible when things are going well on other fronts it doesn't speak to me of a massive ability to mobilise the fleet unless there is a really big problem.

Besides even if I do buy the argument that they could easily move destroyers around, just because it held true before the end of FS2 doesn't mean it would still be true afterwards. The GTVA lost a lot of destroyers during the war.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: TrashMan on April 21, 2008, 03:43:44 pm
In FS2, the Aquitaine is sent from Deneb to GDrax, then to the Nebula, back to EPeg, into the Nebula again, to GDrax, yet another time into the Nebula... Destroyers seem to shift positions pretty easy IMHO.

That could easily be interpreted as the Aquitaine moving because it is the only Terran Destroyer that can be spared. Why else would they drag a destroyer back out of the nebula even with Shivan forces still present and the nebula still largely unexplored to deal with the invasion of Epsilon Pegasi?

BEHOLD THE POWER OF PLOT!
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 21, 2008, 03:51:35 pm
That power works just as well for FSF's argument too though.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mad Bomber on April 21, 2008, 08:13:42 pm
I support the idea of escort carriers and such because it only takes one or two well-positioned Liliths to turn an uber-expensive destroyer into scrap, thus killing off or orphaning dozens of fighters and bombers.

Smaller, more numerous carriers (Iceni-sized, 3-5 squadrons each) would solve this by keeping the eggs from being all in one basket, so to speak. Even if a destroyer gets pwned, there would still be sources of fighter cover. It would take the enemy far longer to root out the friendly force, particularly if guerrilla tactics are emphasized. I think, had the NTF lasted longer, they would have built light carriers of their own for this express purpose.

As another example, think of what would have happened in FS1 had the Bastion not been around to recover you in Deneb.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Solatar on April 21, 2008, 10:23:04 pm
I'll concede my point about small carriers being useless because Karajorma made a good point with them being far more mobile. Do I think they'd number very many? No, probably not. However I'm good and ready to have a few of them made because I think whether or not they're strategically sound they're very good to have in game for plot use.

Although it does raise the question of GTA/PVN/GTVA fighters being launched from controlled planets in a system. If I have a nice big planet I can launch fighters from, that gives me an advantage...until a few harbingers get dropped.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on April 22, 2008, 02:53:35 am
Although it does raise the question of GTA/PVN/GTVA fighters being launched from controlled planets in a system. If I have a nice big planet I can launch fighters from, that gives me an advantage...until a few harbingers get dropped.

    That assumes the fighters are able to operate in an atmosphere, and more importantly, able to achieve escape velocity.
    I wouldn't want to try re-entry in a Hercules that's for damn sure.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 22, 2008, 03:02:42 am
Please DO NOT compare the Moloch with a poket sized carrier that can carry 50 or so fighters and bombers and that actualy has an impresive arsenal of aaaf defences but low beam capabilaties. Perhaps some slashers (vasudan ones please) in order to at least give the illusion that it can actualy dish out some dammage to enemy cap ships. However such a thing would have to be the exception and not the rule since the role of a carrier is NOT to engage the enemy directly but rather deploy fighters/bombers and coordinate them  for various tasks on the battlefield.

Also putting a BVas on a monitor class ship would be even more overkill then the LRed on the Lilith.



Also the fact that in FS2 we do not see Command actualy using all of its milatary assets at disposal in order to engage the enmy is well campaign PLOT. Story. Call it whatever you like.


Also to move a destroyer several star sistems away must be a last measure thing . Why?

Well you can not just moe around THE biggest cap ship you have like a fighter now can you? It takes time for the destroyer to arrive at its designated location and it eats up resources. Also i would believe that aside from the actual recharge time of the jumpdrives there must be some sort of wear and tear on the actual jump engines themselfs. While fighters should not ahve the same prolem as i immagine fightersized jump engines are less succeptibe to such dangers.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 22, 2008, 03:07:49 am
I'll concede my point about small carriers being useless because Karajorma made a good point with them being far more mobile. Do I think they'd number very many? No, probably not.

I tend to agree. The GTVA would probably want them as a stopgap while they rebuilt the fleet and as a reserve for times of war. For something like the NTF they might be a little more common though. In fact given that the Iceni was built as a blockade runner it's rather surprising  that they lacked a similarly fast method to support it.

Had the GTVA managed to find Bosch at any time between Endgame and Return to Babel it would have been in real trouble without such a ship or a fighterbay of its own.

Quote
However I'm good and ready to have a few of them made because I think whether or not they're strategically sound they're very good to have in game for plot use.

Despite their small number they'd probably appear a larger than expected number of times. In many FS2 campaigns we tend to see an initially small confrontation snowball. And a fast carrier is the kind of ship you'd expect to see initially deployed to that sort of situation.

Quote
Although it does raise the question of GTA/PVN/GTVA fighters being launched from controlled planets in a system. If I have a nice big planet I can launch fighters from, that gives me an advantage...until a few harbingers get dropped.

If fighters can't jump out in an atmosphere you've got a large part of the explanation there. Travelling at FS2 speeds it would take about 10 minutes to climb sufficiently far out of the atmosphere to jump out.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on April 22, 2008, 03:14:44 am
Also putting a BVas on a monitor class ship would be even more overkill then the LRed on the Lilith.

      As with all things it depends upon the size of the ship. The Leviathan is essentially a monitor because it's so damn slow . . . if it was a little larger (corvette size? or a bit less?) I can see one BVas on there. Basically a decent sized ship with one big gun and some good overall defensive coverage but piss poor speed?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 22, 2008, 03:27:37 am
A monitor class vessel is suposed to be rather small very fast and armed with very powerfull weapons as per its size. So basicly a monitor class ship is not suposed to be slow. but rather fast.

Also there was this poket sized carrier ship in a campaign with 2 forward facing beam cannons and about 50 or so spacecrafts. Cant remember the name though. I though that ship was awesome and just the thing for FS.

Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Wanderer on April 22, 2008, 03:49:46 am
Umh? Monitors were - historically - small lightly armored and exceedingly slow vessels armed with disproportionately large guns.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 22, 2008, 05:04:42 am
Well i remember i saw this link about the new monitor class vessels which do not seem al that slow but in fact very agile and reasonably fast with deadly combinations of weapons.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Roanoke on April 22, 2008, 05:32:28 am
For years I tried to make a ship, about the size of a very large bomber, that could ferry a Fighter Wing (say, 4 Herc2s) through a jump-node. I figured about half a dozen would make a credible expeditionary force prior to the arrival of Cruisers and Corvettes.

Something roughly the same shape as the Carry-All from C&C Tib.Sun. I could never get a shape I was happy with though.  :doubt:

I'm gonna have another crack a this. I'll shamelessly copy the flying hunters from the earlier Terminator films.  :D
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 22, 2008, 06:07:45 am
Well i remember i saw this link about the new monitor class vessels which do not seem al that slow but in fact very agile and reasonably fast with deadly combinations of weapons.

Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_%28warship%29). Dimly remembered recollections has lied to you and is sleeping with your gf. :p
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 22, 2008, 06:12:34 am
Agreed 100% :P So i made a booboo :P

But anyhoo i was thinking of something along the lines of a Whistar tipe of monitor ship since that comes the closest except for its unparalelled speed.

Something of equall value and power should exist in FS for the GTVA since the shivans have enough ships to threaten anithing the GTVA throws at them.

Something a bit smaller then a cruiser pointless to sugest it has to be faster then any GTVA cruiser by a fair amount . And it has to pack a combo of powerfull weapons to threaten cruisers and even corvettes to some degree. sure one ship alone wont be enough to acomplush this but imagine a pack of them unleashing against a cruiser corvette even destroyer sized warships.


OWNAGE.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 22, 2008, 06:18:05 am
But what would cruisers DO then? :P you're suggesting to replace them with a new class.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 22, 2008, 07:27:03 am
Welll yeah make cruisers into larger more powerfull battlecruisers and make these fast(er) then cruiser ships. Keep in mind that one such vessel would be a threat to cruisers but that does not guarantee that it will win just that it will do enough damage to pose a threat . That is whi a pack of them would be neede to efectively cancel out the enmies larger more powerfull ships. However im not sugesting such ships should be as available as fighters and bommbers. Hell no . That would be ridiculous .


GTCaFury was the name of the ship i had in mind regarding a smaller agile carrier tipe vessel . However it is a bit too big for mi taste and i believe it could be toned down a bit in terms of beam cannons capabilaties just 2 beam cannons MGreen ones . but more aaaf defences.


Remember such a ship in fact any dedicated carrier has to be a terror to enemy fighters and bommbers but has to be terrified of enemy capships. Asuming any of them get close enough to it.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BengalTiger on April 22, 2008, 08:14:29 am
But what would cruisers DO then? :P you're suggesting to replace them with a new class.

Weren't corvettes meant to replace cruisers?
If so, monitors would be welcome, IF there is a nice couple wings of fighters to protect them (I'm assuming they will be miniature Liliths with terran/vasudan weapons and less anti-bomber guns).
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: karajorma on April 22, 2008, 10:30:30 am
But anyhoo i was thinking of something along the lines of a Whistar tipe of monitor ship since that comes the closest except for its unparalelled speed.

You're describing a gunship not a monitor. Stop calling it that.:p
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 22, 2008, 10:51:45 am
Also, IMO corvettes were meant to fill a gap between cruisers and destroyers, NOT to replace cruisers.

Several situations will favour the aeolus rather than the deimos (fighter supression).
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Roanoke on April 22, 2008, 11:08:13 am
Nope. Corvettes were to be the mainstay as Cruisers were withdrawn. Mentioned in a couple of cut-scenes, IIRC.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 22, 2008, 11:53:33 am
Why did they devellop the aeolus then?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Vip on April 22, 2008, 12:01:03 pm
Wasn't the Aeolus cancelled ? :P Maybe they decided that cruisers like Aeolus are too expensive for the cost/effect ratio they offered and decided to put more emphasis on 'vettes ? As the GTVA just can't afford to deploy a quadrillion ships to counter the SHivan advance, they probably decided on a more multi-role vessels, capable of both anti-fighter and anti-capship combat - behold the corvettes.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Jeff Vader on April 22, 2008, 12:03:34 pm
If we take a look at the Tech Room descriptions and apply some logical deduction (or is it induction? Black hell, our language has only one word for it), it is obvious that the Fenris and the Leviathan are both old cruiser designs. At some point, the Aeolus was designed and several were constructed. Production of the Aeolus class ended in 2365. The Deimoseseses (****ing plurals...) were meant as the foundation of the future fleet, with the Fenris and Leviathan being phased out.

So, I'd take it that the older cruisers are slowly being replaced by corvettes and the Aeoluses remain in service as long as they remain intact, but no new ones will be built. Right?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Vip on April 22, 2008, 12:26:12 pm
That would seem correct. Of course now, after the Capella going bye-bye and a large part of the GTVA Fleet being wrecked (or so we are led to believe) I somehow can't see phasing out the old designs in the nearest future. But yeah, they will probably concentrate on the 'vettes and/or learn a lesson from the Shivans and perhaps develop their own version of Liliths AKA Mjolnirs-with-engines-and-more-armour - so that a group of such ships could realtively quickly engage and damage/cripple/destroy a Sathanas. I believe that most of the research power of the GTVA would now go for a)stopping a Sathanas fleet and b) re-establish contact with Sol.

And that would be deduction, Lobo ;)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Jeff Vader on April 22, 2008, 12:31:05 pm
Cheers. I never remember which one was which and it doesn't help that the only Finnish equivalent for both of them is 'päättely'. Unless we accept the international words 'deduktio' and 'induktio', but I'd still be  :confused: with those two options.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Vip on April 22, 2008, 12:36:16 pm
Generally, deduction is about logical thinking and stuff like this, whereas induction is connected with a) physical stuff such as electromagnetic induction and b) induction as a way of proving things in the mathematical logic (which has almost nothing to do with logic known as "common sense" :P).
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Admiral_Stones on April 22, 2008, 03:33:29 pm
That would seem correct. Of course now, after the Capella going bye-bye and a large part of the GTVA Fleet being wrecked (or so we are led to believe) I somehow can't see phasing out the old designs in the nearest future. But yeah, they will probably concentrate on the 'vettes and/or learn a lesson from the Shivans and perhaps develop their own version of Liliths AKA Mjolnirs-with-engines-and-more-armour - so that a group of such ships could realtively quickly engage and damage/cripple/destroy a Sathanas. I believe that most of the research power of the GTVA would now go for a)stopping a Sathanas fleet and b) re-establish contact with Sol.

And that would be deduction, Lobo ;)

Then they design a 12 km long superjug constructed to repulse Sathanas Class Juggernauts and they in fact never get to see one again and eventually get pwned into the face by a 12 km long shivan superjug with five RHOSReds (Ridiculously Humongeous Overpowered Super Reds).
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: TrashMan on April 22, 2008, 04:53:21 pm
Deimoses being the foundation of a fleet doesn't mean they are the smallest element of the fleet, but the basic one.

A corvette might be the mainstray of the fleet (as it's doing the most work - since it's a multi-purpose warship), means it will most often lead attacks, cruisers are supporting vessels, not ships of the line. IMHO, cruisers will continue to be built.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Thanatos45 on April 22, 2008, 05:18:21 pm
Also, corvettes are simply too big and costly for some tasks... it´s far more cost- effective to deploy a cruiser to attack a lightly defended convoy or something like that, to deploy a corvette for those kind of things would be like using an elephant to squash a fly.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 22, 2008, 05:37:05 pm
That's my opinion on things.

Besides, isn't a fenris faster than a deimos?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 22, 2008, 05:38:42 pm
Actually, the Deimos is faster.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on April 22, 2008, 05:48:57 pm
Deimos - 30m/s
Fenris - 20m/s
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 22, 2008, 08:08:27 pm
While a group of smaller carriers would in theory make the fighter strength of a fleet less vunerable to a single knockout blow, it also would make it much more vunerable to attrition tactics. A single not-so-well-placed Lilth can take out a corvette, particularly one that has compromised its firepower and armor to carry fightercraft in some decent number.

Put simply, the bird farm lacks the power it once had. Carriers came to their posistion of dominance on the oceans because they can reach beyond the range lesser vessels can harm them from. It was never that battleships and heavy cruisers could not kill carriers, it was that they could not get close enough to do so. If you don't believe me, ask the crew of the USS Gambier Bay. The problem was that these ships did not have the durablity or the defensive power to run the gauntlet of airstrikes and get within range of a carrier.

The subspace drive revoked the stranglehold of the carrier's long-range striking power on combat. Only a blockaded jump node between you and hostile warships provides security against surprise attack by heavily gunned ships of the line. The destroyer classification is a logical extension of this fact. A carrier must not only be able to carry fightercraft, it must also be able to survive the punishment of a ship of the line's guns and respond in kind at a moment's notice if it is to survive. There simply is no other viable defense. In this environment, the Orion is much closer to the ideal warship than anything else. It has the necessary degree of durablity to reply with a counterstrike, it has excellent armament to reply to hostile warships with, and knowing that the best defense against a fightercraft is another fightercraft and not shipboard guns, it has fighters to defend it against hostile bombers. The Ravana, if it were not poorly served by the general feebleness of Shivan fighter defense, would be closer yet.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mawhrin on April 22, 2008, 10:45:22 pm
It may not be possible to launch fighters from a planet, but any inhabited system is likely to have an installation, for trade if nothing else, capable of launching fighters.

Generally, deduction is about logical thinking and stuff like this, whereas induction is connected with a) physical stuff such as electromagnetic induction and b) induction

as a way of proving things in the mathematical logic (which has almost nothing to do with logic known as "common sense" :P).
I suggest people consult Wikipedia. Deduction and induction are both forms of reasoning. Deduction offers proof (with respect to its starting points), induction does not. Induction is extrapolation from known data points. Deduction is following inevitable implications of data. Science uses induction. Mathematics uses deduction.

Mathematical induction is a form of deduction, it's misnamed. Electromagnetic induction has nothing to do with reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Common sense is undefined, and in my opinion a very wishy washy term that should be avoided.

</mathematician>
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Solatar on April 22, 2008, 10:58:14 pm
I don't really think a Deimos can replace a good cruiser like the Aeolus. In a universe where subspace makes strikes ultra quick, quick response is the name of the game. Spending less money (presumably) on cruisers for patrol duties, where they can quickly be rerouted is a much more viable economic option in the years after the Capella war. Production was probably stopped in 2365 because with the wartime economy (wartime government spending stimulates the economy), Deimos corvettes could have been produced almost non-stop. With the major recession that is sure to follow the Capella incident, smaller investments are the name of the game. Sure 3 cruisers might cost the same as 1 corvette, but construction can be spaced out, less raw materials are needed, and they can be produced more quickly. For the same amount of money, several cruisers can secure more star system.

Fleet reconstruction would come from the bottom up. While they would be creating corvettes and destroyers, it would make sense to pump fighters, bombers, and cruisers off the assembly lines to quickly fill in the ranks until the economy gets back on track. Like I said, you sacrifice pure stopping power for the ability to secure a larger area (and the Aeolus is nothing to sneeze at either...if a large threat comes along, just have two or three patrols hook up with each other and those frontal beams can do a lot of damage).

EDIT: Obviously in a large battle, you can't beat large ships. However, the ability to take control of situations before they escalate seems to be important (hence why fighters play such a pivotal role in skirmishes)/
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 22, 2008, 11:02:20 pm
Well, maybe if the SGreen didn't suck so much...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on April 22, 2008, 11:07:40 pm
The SGreen would be acceptable if its recharge time wasn't 45 seconds.
Cut it down to 25, and it becomes a useful beam.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Solatar on April 22, 2008, 11:09:11 pm
Hopefully two or three ships (in 'reality' not the game) would coordinate their fire so as the fire once every 15 seconds as a group (or if one salvo would do it, to do so).

But yes...the SGreen sucks...why did the Lilith get the huge awesome beam...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mad Bomber on April 22, 2008, 11:10:07 pm
The SGreen does suck, but what about the SVas? If the Vasudans came up with a cruiser that was actually worth fielding, that would definitely change the equation, I think.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 22, 2008, 11:11:28 pm
The SVas is decent, but the Hattie is the only ship that mounts it.  If they could mount a couple of those on the Mentu, and put some flak gunz on its underside, it would be a truly dangerous ship.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on April 22, 2008, 11:11:58 pm
The SVas is better than the SRed, but the only ship with an SVas is the Hatshepsut...
Oh...or did you mean actually putting an SVas on something, like the Mentu (as advertised)

Edit: blowfish beat me to it.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 22, 2008, 11:13:51 pm
Yes, that's what I was saying.  Two SVas and it could probably take any other cruiser (except maybe the Lilith) ...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on April 22, 2008, 11:15:42 pm
well, not really.
I have SVas on turret 08 and 09, and it's still pretty deficient at attacking things.
however, if you put a Svas into that little recessed area in the front...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 22, 2008, 11:20:41 pm
Hmm ... I put them in 6 and 7, since those have some frontal field of fire.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Fearless Leader on April 23, 2008, 12:36:52 am
The ships in the game were made so a story could be told around them. Some ships are better than other ones because they were built at different times, what you guys are saying is like saying that the Monitor could have beat Merrymack if it had armor piercing shells and 2 more cannons. When at the time the ship was built there was no need for armor piercing shells or 2 more cannons.
 
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 23, 2008, 11:23:07 am
I believe that the GTVA should and in theory would study close what happened during the second shivan war . There are a lot of huge gaps in the GTVA's fleet composition. Actualy not its composition but the way its ships are designed.

We see the GTVA giving emphasis on AAAF deences since fighters are considered the most powerfull threat to any cap ship out there.

Sure that can be the case to a certain degree. However it is not the most obvious threat to the GTVA fleet. The GTVA seems to have forgotten that the shivan main weapons from the warships pose a much greather threat to the GTVA warships then mere fighters and bommbers.
The guns and the shivan abilaty to jump with pin point accuracy is what is really dangerous.


The GTVA pretty much has its tactic well rehearsed and practiced. Deploy fighters and bommbers to take out the enmy capships. Agreed they do this with the help of 'vettes and/or cruisers. However they forgat that they are vulnerable to attacks from larger fleet elements .


With this in mind having poket sized carriers would be a very sound choice in order to project firepower from far away giving the GTVA ships a relative safety margin. Destroyers are obviously suited for this role however they are also huge ships that can not move out fast enough so as to avoid taking heavy fire in the procces if they came under attack. And more important given the fact that the loss of destroyer is a huge blow having poket sized vessles would be more convenient cheap and safer.

So i believe that having dedicated carriers from small to large is a good choice. On the other hand having poket sized weapons platforms such as the Deimos and the Aeolus is superb.

The only reason why the Aeolus was discontinued was because at the time of its original development it packet the most advanced (im assuming here since the Aeolus isnt a cruiser that was built in just 2 years prior to the NTF rebellion) weapons of the day. However the same con be said today when such weapons are standard. So i believe that an Aeolus would prove to be a bit cheaper at least then in the beginning.


The Deimos would be even better however the fact that its a multi-pourpuse ship makes it good but not excelent.

An ideal combo would be (i know what youre gooing to say) Iceni +Poket sized carriers of 50 or so spacecrafts. This way you would have both fighter/bommber cover and sheer raw firepower form the Iceni(please add at least 2 more flacks to the thing) .


Cruisers such as the Aeolus i believ would and should come back into service . Those things can dish out more dammage then any other cruiser in game (overall dammage) . It might not be the most heavely beam armed cruiser but the fact that it can chew up hordes of fighters and bommbers is superb.

For the SVas beams i would of envisioned a whole new line of cruisers bigger more powerfull and more fast. A joint effort between the terrans and the vasudans this way you could spread the expences more and would not be such a burden to wither races.


Look at the Sobek that things given at least 2 more aaaf turrets and a smaller package would of been a superb battlecruiser. Hell its a very good corvette and it was built what 10 or 15 years before the Deimos???
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 23, 2008, 11:26:22 am
Orly :doubt:
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BengalTiger on April 23, 2008, 12:57:03 pm
Cruisers such as the Aeolus i believ would and should come back into service . Those things can dish out more dammage then any other cruiser in game (overall dammage) . It might not be the most heavely beam armed cruiser but the fact that it can chew up hordes of fighters and bommbers is superb.

The Lilith makes some 300 HP/sec more hull damage than the Aeolus (less than what 2 Maxims do), but most of it's firepower is in a single turret that can't fire at the cruiser's worst nightmare: bombers.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Fearless Leader on April 23, 2008, 08:07:32 pm
Technology advanced so fast n FS1 and FS2 that fighters are now more devastating than some capitol ships were at the start, send one fighter armed with maxims and kaisers  back in tme to FS1 it could take out all the GTA, PVN, and Shivan fleets... maybe not all, but you get the idea.
What the GTVA needs is better everything, always, but it still uses the ships designed for the last war. Like computers, something that costs $10,000 today is worth $10 tomorrow
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 24, 2008, 03:31:55 am
Well your statement might be tue to some extent. We know that one of the reason why Aeolus was stopped beeing built was the fact that is was so damn expensive. However one has to wonder what they mean by expensive.

Expensive at the time of its construction or expensive by the start of the second shivan invasion.

Also many ppl. believe that because the Aeolus losses were so high with almost all of them beeing destroyed , they suck big time.
That is NOT correct. The Aeolus class cruisers are considered a fighter/bommbers worst nightmare even more so then a Deimos . And as you play the campaign the Aeolus is the most hunted down ship at some point , or you are ordered to stand clear of it if you value your life.

Such a powerfull ship i imagine would become primary target for any warship depending on the circumstances on the field .


something even more powerfull would be an Aeoli with 2 SVas and 50k hp. Of course it would have to be just bit bigger. :D That would be an awesome cruiser to have.

Also please note that the corvette class is suposed to replace the cruisers . However one has to wonder why they said such a thing correct? Well the most deployed ships in game are the cruisers an not the destroyers. Hell for now not even corvettes manage to outnumber the cruisers in number of missions they are used although i imagine this has more to do with the still small number of available corvettes rather then anything else.

Rebuilding the fleet from ground up is a drastic measure especialy considering the fact that most of the ships behaved fairly good. Sure they were no match for those LReds of those BFReds  but then again who knew they had them . In fact the only true dissapoinment i see in game is the Hecate with its "more firepower then a Orion" bulls*** . Oh yeah and the beams like the Sgreen and slasher type beams. Those suck big time. (among other things) But if everithing was perfect then the game would suck big time so......!


Small tweaks are needed here an there and some sort of medium beam  is a desperate need  for the GTVA since mounting BGreens on a cruiser or a corvette would be a bit too muh(not really though since the current beams take so much to fire that by the time they get around to fire a second time the GTVA ship is most definetly dead) .


Also i agree with the whole fighter/bommber firepower. They have become more and more powerfull. But then again they had to be especialy for the GTVA since well shivans seem to have a massive fleet.


Hell i bet the GTVA at its peak didnt have as many ships as the shivans (presumably) have. Well at least in one area thta is true and that is the sheer jugg numbers the shivans had.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Admiral_Stones on April 24, 2008, 05:47:28 am
Looking at how they can mobilize eighty juggernauts and throw wave after wave of fighters at you with impunity, it wouldn't surprise me they have superjugs and thousands of fighter/bomber squadrons at their disposal.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 24, 2008, 07:31:03 am
I don't really think that the Shivans organise by squadron. It seems too human. I'm suprised the Zods do it in all honesty.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 24, 2008, 10:12:54 am
Looking at how they can mobilize eighty juggernauts and throw wave after wave of fighters at you with impunity, it wouldn't surprise me they have superjugs and thousands of fighter/bomber squadrons at their disposal.


Well they do actualy have thousands of fighters and bombers at they disposal . See 80+ jugg's can carry an aproximate 80k  thats 20k fighters and bombers (ive put it at 250 fighters and bombers per jugg. However we do not know this for sure but we can safely asume it is a correct figure) .

Also i have a distinct feeling that the Jugg fleet was (IMO) the main force of the shivans. This is not to say they don't have a few dozen destroyer to boot . Or even 1 or 2 even larger more powerfull ships.

However assuming the shivans are all powerfull and have a capship inventory in the tens of thousands sounds pretty stupid to me.

And by all means do remember that the GTVA also in theory have thousands of fighters and bombers. However we never see them. Capella being a densly populated system should and could in theory hold a few thousand bombers and fighters. However i do not believe Capella was being used as a ship production equipment. We do know of other places that hold shipyards and have numerous (in theory) fighters and bombers .


About the whole squadron organization of the fleets and stuff it does seem a bit too human to boot. Perhaps something a bit different. However i would like to hear GTVA Command :"Were sending in a squadron of Aeolus cruisers to engage the enemy's 300 fighters and bombers. Rest asured pilot help is on its way we wont leave you to kill a kazilion fighters and bombers and few dozen warships on your own" Lol. thats never gonna happen . :)))
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 24, 2008, 10:19:13 am
80 x 250 only = 20k though............. :lol:
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 24, 2008, 10:39:17 am
damn now that is one hell of a typo ! hold up il correct it. Still how the hell did i end up writing 80 instead of 20???
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on April 24, 2008, 10:44:26 am
The recovery ship which picks you up after Into the Lion's Den, could that be a destroyer? Sounds a bit risky to me. It could be a smaller carrier as well. Problem is, we never actually see one being used.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 24, 2008, 10:50:01 am
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> < )  


I always had the feeling it was an Argo for some reason......

Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on April 24, 2008, 10:58:03 am
Then they'd have to leave those priceless Maras behind :blah: I don't know if that's a good idea.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 24, 2008, 11:01:11 am
I meant dock the fighters. Jury rigged or an SOC variant.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Admiral_Stones on April 24, 2008, 01:32:37 pm
Looking at how they can mobilize eighty juggernauts and throw wave after wave of fighters at you with impunity, it wouldn't surprise me they have superjugs and thousands of fighter/bomber squadrons at their disposal.


Well they do actualy have thousands of fighters and bombers at they disposal . See 80+ jugg's can carry an aproximate 80k  thats 20k fighters and bombers (ive put it at 250 fighters and bombers per jugg. However we do not know this for sure but we can safely asume it is a correct figure) .

Also i have a distinct feeling that the Jugg fleet was (IMO) the main force of the shivans. This is not to say they don't have a few dozen destroyer to boot . Or even 1 or 2 even larger more powerfull ships.

However assuming the shivans are all powerfull and have a capship inventory in the tens of thousands sounds pretty stupid to me.

And by all means do remember that the GTVA also in theory have thousands of fighters and bombers. However we never see them. Capella being a densly populated system should and could in theory hold a few thousand bombers and fighters. However i do not believe Capella was being used as a ship production equipment. We do know of other places that hold shipyards and have numerous (in theory) fighters and bombers .


About the whole squadron organization of the fleets and stuff it does seem a bit too human to boot. Perhaps something a bit different. However i would like to hear GTVA Command :"Were sending in a squadron of Aeolus cruisers to engage the enemy's 300 fighters and bombers. Rest asured pilot help is on its way we wont leave you to kill a kazilion fighters and bombers and few dozen warships on your own" Lol. thats never gonna happen . :)))

Remember I said squadrons, not wings. So they may have some thousands of 'squadron-equivalents'. The hightest squadron number I ever saw in FS2 was 242nd Suicide Kings or so, though that doesen't need to be relevant.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Thanatos45 on April 24, 2008, 02:28:33 pm
Then they'd have to leave those priceless Maras behind :blah: I don't know if that's a good idea.

They can simply dock the Maras to the Argo, after which the Argo jumps back to the Aquitaine (or wherever they were stationed at the time) with the fighters attached to it, then release them again. It's got a whole bunch of docking points and judging from it's size it shouldn't be too difficult to attach 4 fighters to it.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Titan on April 24, 2008, 02:38:45 pm
it's got 2, which means probably 2 transports, and maybe 2 wings of fighters and a cruiser, to ensure their survival. And awacs.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 24, 2008, 02:58:57 pm
Why having stationed a recov ship in the first place? Don't these fighters have jump drives?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on April 24, 2008, 03:33:30 pm
Why having stationed a recov ship in the first place? Don't these fighters have jump drives?

      Do you want to jump back into the middle of a friendly armada in an enemy fighter?

Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BlueFlames on April 24, 2008, 04:15:22 pm
Quote
Do you want to jump back into the middle of a friendly armada in an enemy fighter?

GTVA Command versus Alpha 1 in the most ludicrously powerful fighter in the game?  I'll take those odds.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on April 24, 2008, 04:21:19 pm
Quote
Do you want to jump back into the middle of a friendly armada in an enemy fighter?

GTVA Command versus Alpha 1 in the most ludicrously powerful fighter in the game?  I'll take those odds.

     If it weren't for the AAAf beams and zero chance of resupply I might agree.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 24, 2008, 05:57:57 pm
Anyway I'm sure they fitted the Maras with transponders etc.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: starlord on April 24, 2008, 06:40:09 pm
Besides, they've got comm.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on April 24, 2008, 07:00:05 pm
Besides, they've got comm.

"Don't shoot us! We're not Shivans! See, friendly IFF!"
"OMIGAWD, the shivan is talking! KILL IT NAO!"
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 24, 2008, 07:11:48 pm
:lol:
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 25, 2008, 09:16:11 am
actualy a more correct asumption would be that GTVA Command would asume shivans have some sort of cloning plan in progress where they wanna replace everyone in the GTVA with a shivan controlled clone. So they will disect poor alpha one and his companions atempting to find out what makes them work.

After a while when they realized they made a mistake they will just brush it all aside and blame theyr deaths on a freak trafik accident stating that your fighter and that of your wingmen were smashed today by a runaway destroyer.

"The driver of the Orion destroyer was found to be intoxicated with a dangerous new tipe of lolipops that actuali taste good" "His shugar levels were 2,8 "

So there you have it the explanation why YOU get Alpha1 and noone else wants the job :P


Even if i can resuply il still take on a GTVA fleet in a Mara hell il take 2 shivan fleets for that matter in Mara . Just give me a full load of trebs Maxim and Kaiser as a loadout and il be sure to make a super fireworks dispay. :D
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on April 25, 2008, 11:25:58 am
Even if i can resuply il still take on a GTVA fleet in a Mara hell il take 2 shivan fleets for that matter in Mara . Just give me a full load of trebs Maxim and Kaiser as a loadout and il be sure to make a super fireworks dispay. :D

Problem - SF Mara (terrans) can't mount Maxims.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Snail on April 25, 2008, 12:33:29 pm
Even if i can resuply il still take on a GTVA fleet in a Mara hell il take 2 shivan fleets for that matter in Mara . Just give me a full load of trebs Maxim and Kaiser as a loadout and il be sure to make a super fireworks dispay. :D
I'll be there in a Perseus to **** you down.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 25, 2008, 01:27:26 pm
you can try but you wont get anywhere near me for long enough to do any substantial dammage to me :P

Remember the excelent dog fighting capabilaties of the Mara?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Snail on April 25, 2008, 03:40:02 pm
you can try but you wont get anywhere near me for long enough to do any substantial dammage to me :P

Remember the excelent dog fighting capabilaties of the Mara?
Doesn't matter, eventually you will make a mistake and you'll get double Harpoons in the face, followed up by a volley of Kayser fire, then a few Tempests just to round things off.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 25, 2008, 05:31:21 pm
Well, against the AI, you could kill anything with enough Trebuchets (especially on lower difficulties).
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Flipside on April 25, 2008, 10:35:20 pm
True, but on the easiest level, you could ram anything fighter-sized to death ;)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 26, 2008, 04:06:34 am
Hey i was just wondering if the Ultra AAF's i hear about are that deadly. I dont know i might have been toasted a couple of times by such beams but i dont remeber.

If they are that deadly then i presume the difference in mounting them would be something like the difference between mounting BG and BFG??
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 26, 2008, 04:10:09 am
You seriously didn't just ask that did you ?  :wtf: 



Play that mission where it says "that rebel cruisers anti fighter beams have a two kilometre rang" on hard and try to attack it...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 26, 2008, 05:08:13 am
The one with the Levi and the Fenris? Oh man...i hate that mission. Come on its been a while since i replayed the main FS2 campaign.

Edit1: Also i thought of something . I mean its all god and fine to spread out your forces meaning dedicated carriers and stuff so as not to loose all of the eggs when the basket brakes but then again using the smaller basket thing too much can also prove to be a fatal weakness as you can find yoursels dangerously low on heavy firepower and carrier ability. So in the same topic i would like to ask everyone wat they believe would be a better solution or an ideal solution for this. Basicly how many light ships are too many and how many heavy ships are too many.


Also i would like to elborate in here about various oportunies on the battlefield presented by smaller carrier vessels and/or dedicated warships. Sure they can do one job better then the other but then again what should be a definitive factor in each area.

For example I consider the Iceni a super hunter-killer/run-blocades capship-killer. Its very fast has loeads of beam firepower hell it has more beam firepower then the Hecate . Yet it is weak in terms of aaf defences(for those of you who dont know this already) .

So the Iceni would be good at capship head on engagements. However the Same can be said about the Orion no? Even if they are different classes of warships an Orion can still go agains many capships and with a bit of luck even win. We know it could in theory win agains a Demon and Ravana. Sepera not at once you guis.


So whats your take on this?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 26, 2008, 07:56:57 am
4 small carriers to a taskforce instead of a destroyer... And don't spread them out :D
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 26, 2008, 09:58:11 am
I dont get it why not spread them out ove r the course of a sistem or 2 . This coupled with other capships such as corvettes friggates(if any are built) and cruisers could do the job of 2 or more destroyers. Then agin if something horrible wre to happen they would most definetly need the firepower of a destroyer close at hand.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 26, 2008, 10:47:01 am
I wouldn't spread anything out too far... If you do they're operating alone effectively. Within sympathetic fighter cover range should be adequate..
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 26, 2008, 11:38:32 am
Well agreed but how far is too far in this case ? We know fighters can jump in and out really fast much faster then any transport or capship.

I mean what you say is more then reasonable but then again leaving a carrier without heavy beam cannon coverage is just plain stupid so i would imagine they would be escorted by at least some sort of cruisers or corvette . But that would mean increasing the size of the taskforce to at least 2 or 3 corvettes/frigates per carrier and even more cruisers or whatever you wanna use smaller then a corvette. This would be a bit expensive dont you think? Or are you thinking about carriers that actualy would be able to fend off cruisers and fire back enough beam dammage to otrher capships in order to make theyr escape a bit more easy?

Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Admiral_Stones on April 26, 2008, 11:40:02 am
The one with the Levi and the Fenris? Oh man...i hate that mission. Come on its been a while since i replayed the main FS2 campaign.

Edit1: Also i thought of something . I mean its all god and fine to spread out your forces meaning dedicated carriers and stuff so as not to loose all of the eggs when the basket brakes but then again using the smaller basket thing too much can also prove to be a fatal weakness as you can find yoursels dangerously low on heavy firepower and carrier ability. So in the same topic i would like to ask everyone wat they believe would be a better solution or an ideal solution for this. Basicly how many light ships are too many and how many heavy ships are too many.


Also i would like to elborate in here about various oportunies on the battlefield presented by smaller carrier vessels and/or dedicated warships. Sure they can do one job better then the other but then again what should be a definitive factor in each area.

For example I consider the Iceni a super hunter-killer/run-blocades capship-killer. Its very fast has loeads of beam firepower hell it has more beam firepower then the Hecate . Yet it is weak in terms of aaf defences(for those of you who dont know this already) .

So the Iceni would be good at capship head on engagements. However the Same can be said about the Orion no? Even if they are different classes of warships an Orion can still go agains many capships and with a bit of luck even win. We know it could in theory win agains a Demon and Ravana. Sepera not at once you guis.


So whats your take on this?

IIRC the ULTRA AAA beam is only used in the TAG-A testing mission to compensate for the ****iness of the circumstances. Oh yeah, also used by the Colossus in High Noon.
Four kilometers range, 413 damage over 2.5 seconds, 2.2 seconds recharge - this is far deadlier than the SGreen!
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 26, 2008, 11:52:38 am
doh i rmember now. Man that beam is good. boy do i feel stupid. I remembered which beam i was asking about . Lol noob lil ol' me.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mawhrin on April 27, 2008, 01:50:58 am
Up thread someone expressed concern about a small carrier being too easy for a Shivan warship to kill if it jumps in close.

How about a carrier armed with multiple EMP launchers? A Ravana jumps in, spam it with EMPs, run away. Heat seeking and longer range versions would help enormously. The AI doesn't even need to target individual turrets.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 27, 2008, 03:08:19 am
Takes time. A Ravana can annihilate a Deimos with one salvo. There really isn't a good way from stopping somebody from jumping in and getting off at least one salvo before you can stop him, particularly somebody who's Shivan because their caps jump so precisely.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mawhrin on April 27, 2008, 05:19:27 am
Takes time. A Ravana can annihilate a Deimos with one salvo. There really isn't a good way from stopping somebody from jumping in and getting off at least one salvo before you can stop him, particularly somebody who's Shivan because their caps jump so precisely.
LRed has a 3-second warmup and a range of 4000m, so a projectile would need to travel 1333m/s to reach in time, assuming it was dumb-fired instantly. The fastest secondary in FS2 is the TAG-A at 400m/s.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Snail on April 27, 2008, 05:30:51 am
LRed has a 3-second warmup and a range of 4000m, so a projectile would need to travel 1333m/s to reach in time, assuming it was dumb-fired instantly. The fastest secondary in FS2 is the TAG-A at 400m/s.
You're assuming the Ravana jumps in at just the right range. I doubt even the Shivans can make their capships jump to a meter of precision (when you take into account the slowing down bit)
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mobius on April 27, 2008, 05:45:48 am
Are you sure of that? They probably know better than any other how to make precision jumps.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Snail on April 27, 2008, 05:49:11 am
Are you sure of that? They probably know better than any other how to make precision jumps.
So you're saying they can jump just enough so that they stop exactly 4000 meters away? :p
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mobius on April 27, 2008, 05:53:09 am
Well they know both subspace and their ships. Maybe not 4,000 meters away but surely not 3,500/4,500 if they don't want to.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mawhrin on April 27, 2008, 11:19:08 pm
Takes time. A Ravana can annihilate a Deimos with one salvo. There really isn't a good way from stopping somebody from jumping in and getting off at least one salvo before you can stop him, particularly somebody who's Shivan because their caps jump so precisely.
LRed has a 3-second warmup and a range of 4000m, so a projectile would need to travel 1333m/s to reach in time, assuming it was dumb-fired instantly. The fastest secondary in FS2 is the TAG-A at 400m/s.
Actually I don't think it's quite that bad. A ship can be fired upon by the AI as soon as it starts to enter normal space. However I think it has to fully leave subspace before it can begin to fire itself.

So... how long does a Ravana take to fully jump in?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Thanatos45 on April 28, 2008, 10:14:45 am
Destroyers typically jump in at around 300 m/s. A Ravana is slightly longer than 2 km, so I'd say it's about 7 seconds.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 28, 2008, 02:43:41 pm
Wasnt there a scene in a FS cinematic or something that swhowed a half exited shivan warship opening fire with its beams?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Ghostavo on April 28, 2008, 03:11:47 pm
The GTC Monitor being destroyed when it discovered the Knossos?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mura on April 28, 2008, 03:31:25 pm
i think the carriers would make a deadly force or at least a very annoying one if used correctly...

I'm thinking of flash attacks, carriers jumps in, flak guns blazing dispatching every fighter and bomber to unleash hell on an unwarned force and jumps out to a randezvous spot leaving the fighters behind to finish the job. Could be good use for a clean up operation or for rebel/pirate raids on light guarded depots.

That's just my opinion and i know it might be better to deploy different forces for that kind of jobs, but i think it would be cheaper, more annoying and guerrilla tactics tend to beat huge military organizations, and GTVA command isn't the brightest one out there  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: blowfish on April 28, 2008, 04:00:57 pm
The GTC Monitor being destroyed when it discovered the Knossos?

There was no GTC Monitor.  There was the NTC Trinity, which activated and entered the Knossos, and there was the GTC Vigilant, which was destroyed by Shivan forces coming through the Gamma Draconis node into Capella (it was destroyed in Capella).  There was also the GTCv Monitor in endgame, but that was never destroyed, and the Knossos was already discovered.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: TrashMan on April 28, 2008, 04:15:34 pm
i think the carriers would make a deadly force or at least a very annoying one if used correctly...

I'm thinking of flash attacks, carriers jumps in, flak guns blazing dispatching every fighter and bomber to unleash hell on an unwarned force and jumps out to a randezvous spot leaving the fighters behind to finish the job. Could be good use for a clean up operation or for rebel/pirate raids on light guarded depots.

That's just my opinion and i know it might be better to deploy different forces for that kind of jobs, but i think it would be cheaper, more annoying and guerrilla tactics tend to beat huge military organizations, and GTVA command isn't the brightest one out there  :rolleyes:


Just why would a carrier jump in close in the first place?
It launches most of it's fighters while hiding on the other side of the system, fighters jump to attack enemy, carrier jumps to another randezvous location to meet with fighters after their attack run, then they jump back to the previous hiding spot.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Ghostavo on April 28, 2008, 06:39:33 pm
The GTC Monitor being destroyed when it discovered the Knossos?

There was no GTC Monitor.  There was the NTC Trinity, which activated and entered the Knossos, and there was the GTC Vigilant, which was destroyed by Shivan forces coming through the Gamma Draconis node into Capella (it was destroyed in Capella).  There was also the GTCv Monitor in endgame, but that was never destroyed, and the Knossos was already discovered.

Confused the whole situation then.  :) But I still remember an animation involving a cruiser and some Shivan ship attacking it with beams during the Command Brief when the Vigilant was destroyed. What I don't remember was if the Shivan ship was jumping or not.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 29, 2008, 01:54:55 am
The Rakasha appeared to open fire or at least be chargin' his beamzors before he fully exited subspace, IIRC.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on April 29, 2008, 04:24:28 pm
So, Shivan ships are designated as male? I though ships were always "she's".
Meh. Yea, the Rakshasa also appears to use slash-sytle beams, and they're not where they are on the model actually in the game. In the cbani, it looks like the beams are on the three fins beneath the main hull rather than the frontal spikes. In the model, two of these fins are decorative, while the third mounts the SAAA.

But yes, the Rakshasa appears to be roasting the Vigilant partially emerged from subspace.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 30, 2008, 02:15:36 am
Also smaller carrier vesseles are not designed to be used as front line action warships. Hell thats probably the worst way to use them. The Aquitane example is the best one there is. as soon as the aquitane is engaged even by a cruiser (altough it was a Lilith i think) it had to bail out fast and you have to go save its big fat arse. However the Aquitane shines when it comes to fighter projection force and C&C duties.

A carrier should in a worst case scenario be used as a decoy or bait for other warships then as soon as the enemy takes the bait jump in fast with a crovettes or a frigatte and toastes its arse before it can do any real damage to your poket sized carrier.

Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: NGTM-1R on April 30, 2008, 09:19:11 am
So, Shivan ships are designated as male? I though ships were always "she's".

Call it a quirk. Ships tend to be referred to as female out of affection, but nobody loves the Shivans.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on April 30, 2008, 10:33:51 am
I'm refering to my PC as a female that doesnt mean im in love with it. :P :P

However a Ferrari is something else.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on April 30, 2008, 10:39:03 am
Dodgy mental image abound!


So how's the ship progress coming? Is it textured yet or is there more geometry work going on?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 01, 2008, 04:16:37 pm
To get the thread a bit more alive:

Here's a few of my thoughts:

1. The NTC Trinity was in the Nebula undetected for a long time. The Shivans also probably didn't know that there was a Cv sent to hunt down the Ravana untill it warped out and unleashed hell (they would have probably launched bombers to counter it). That means that Shivan sensors can't see things smaller than Destroyers really good, and one could try to hide a C or Cv size carrier deep in a nebula or asteroid field and not worry about the Ravana that could kill it. The Ravana simply wouldn't see our carrier.

2. The Carrier could use a Cv as it's escort, and maybe some 2 cruisers. The escorting corvette should be a custom built unit with AWACS capability. The cruisers should be Aeolus class, because endless waves of bombers is something natural once the fleet gets detected and before it changes position. Even with 20-30 strike craft, the fleet can disarm and disable Sath after Sath (ok, SD after SD) before being found and forced to run. And thanks to the AWACS the Shivans would always be 1 step behind the firendly fleet.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on May 01, 2008, 04:26:52 pm
That is actualy not that bad. However there are 2 inconsistencies .

1-shivans sensors do appear to be a bit more accurate then GTVA standard sensors. However once an AWACS cruiser is present the shivans loose their. Advantage. However this suposed superiority of the shivans could just be related to campaign story since later on we see the shivans having just as much trouble with the nebula environment as the GTVA .

2-Making use of such a small task force has its advantages since it would be very fast and versatile however should the need come for heavy firepower there will not be any ship present to dish out enough damage. That is why i advocated for the use of at least 1 ship such as the Iceni.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 01, 2008, 05:10:49 pm
I personally think the Iceni might be a bit big for a pocket sized fleet...
What about arming the Aeoluses with Maxims instead of their crappy beams, and in addition to the custom AWACS corvette, add another type of fleet- the line of battle group, which would consist of 2 Cv's, both armed with the largest weapon that would fit in the hull (even if it's a single, fixed and slightly detuned Mjolnir), and 2 Aeoluses, Maxim modded as the heavy hitters.
Two such elements (carrier+AWACS and heavy hitters) would make a task force, multiple task forces would operate assisted by Hecates (Command, control and strike craft assistance) and standard fleet members.

The new fleet system probably wouldn't kill 80 juggs in a single short battle, but if the groups would make hit&run strikes against shivan capships' turrets, engines and support units, they'd actually make the Sathanases glowing red blocks of junk.
Also- knowing the Shivan's inferior tactics dept, they'd have a hard time stopping the GTVA, since they don't have many ships designed to fight groups of small but tough (hard hitting, not heavily armored) and fast ships.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Hellstryker on May 01, 2008, 05:37:45 pm
I beg to differ... Lilith, anyone?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on May 01, 2008, 11:58:48 pm
The Lilith is rare. They have at least 10 Cains for every Lilith. Heck, in FS2 we encountered 80 Saths but we only get to see 1 Lilith (yes, I know there must have been more, but it can't have been that much).
I'm more worried about the Ravana (according to the Tech Room, it seems to be tasked with clearing out smaller foes), but with an AWACS you can detect them and get away in time, I think.

I love the idea of a pocket-sized fleet. I was thinking about it yesterday when I saw The Alamo. They could have done better with hit-and-run strikes IMHO.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on May 02, 2008, 12:53:11 am
Let's NOT have another 13-page Lilith argument please :P

Actually, with a AWACs, you can tell its jumping in (very soon - like...now), but that's too late. If it comes in behind, it still has enough time to roast a cruiser or two's rear end before they jump out. Shivans almost always jump into beam range, and basically open fire right as they emerge from subspace. Its what their ships are best at doing. Ever wonder why everything points forward (except for the SD Demon, that one's a weirdo)

That would actually be a good strategy for a pocket-sized fleet to copy. Jump in, roast something, scram! The fighter carriers would be made for this too - the fighters (a wing or two) would simply detatch after coming out of a node and get right into the action. They can just inter-system jump out. It would probably be cheaper than mounting inter-system jump drives as the carrier can pick up the fighters and service them later, away from the battle. The strike carrier would be like a Moloch - a few beams, decent armor, but not that strong. Good for jumping in, deploying fighters, providing fire support, then jumping out. Then, you would not need to commit an expensive destroyer deep into enemy territory to be able to service fightercraft.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on May 02, 2008, 01:31:28 am
It would make a nice SOC fleet to operate behind Shivan lines, break their supply chains etc. (Campaign idea)
Any comments or suggestions?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on May 02, 2008, 02:21:48 am
Heres a sugestion. Tell us when its done in lets say 2 months tops from now . This is also a sugestion for the amoun of time you are alowed to keep us waiting :D :P

The Moloch sucks as a corvette and as a carrier. That thing has like what 3 or 4 fighters or bommbers on board?? Useless. No you would need a carrier that can actualy do what its name sugest and that is carry a small amoun of fighters and bommbers fast and safe to any point on the battlefield or whatever.

50 spacecrafts 2 or 3 beams medium one at best. Loads of aaaf defences. It has to be fast agile and must be able to jump out in an instant. (Dula jumdrive sistem or something) .

Escorts...well the Iceni is only what 100 m larger the a Deimos? So its not that big compared in fact the diference is neglijable. Have aelous and/or Deimos for aditional fighter andticap ship support and you have a very fast agile taskforce adept at taking out bot juggs and shivan fleet elements. In fact if used properly such a fleet could take out a couple of Ravana before they even know what hit them.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 02, 2008, 12:47:00 pm
How do we know the Moloch carries only 3-4 wings?
For all we know it could have even 30 fighters and bombers on board...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on May 02, 2008, 05:45:39 pm
The Moloch sucks as a corvette and as a carrier. That thing has like what 3 or 4 fighters or bommbers on board?? Useless. No you would need a carrier that can actualy do what its name sugest and that is carry a small amoun of fighters and bommbers fast and safe to any point on the battlefield or whatever.

50 spacecrafts 2 or 3 beams medium one at best. Loads of aaaf defences. It has to be fast agile and must be able to jump out in an instant. (Dula jumdrive sistem or something) .

The carrying capacity of a Moloch is unknown. The whole rear portion is likely hangar bay space, though. It should be able to house a full squadron of Maras, and even more Dragons. When paired, that's two to three squadrons of fighters. Enough to make a Destroyer nervous. It is decently armed for its role - to carry small detachments of fighters into enemy territory, and be able stand a fighting chance against a cruiser or two. Its not meant to take on a Corvette or Destroyer. That's for the other ships, like the SC Lilith or SC Rakshasa, which demonstrate excellent anti-warship power for their size.

If the same strategy were to be adopted for the SOC, then the pocket carriers would serve the same purpose. Leave the heavy duty work to the Sobeks/Icenis. Leave the anti-fighter role to the Aeolus. The mini carrier is there to add fighters and a few extra guns in the fray, which is often what tips tables.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on May 02, 2008, 11:56:34 pm
 :yes:
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on May 03, 2008, 05:47:12 pm
The SCv Moloch is ridiculously small for a housing of some 30 spacecrafts. I mean come on an Erynies is what bigger then the middle section of the ship. Unless they can magicly fit 30 of them things in there ...especialy bommbers like the big ass one thats the size of a cruiser almost. And just as manouverable. You know..the ones that are a pain to kill because of the huge armor and shields.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on May 03, 2008, 05:58:17 pm
Two squadrons worth of Dragons (24) would fit no problem if you stack them up right. You have to realize SF Dragons and SF Maras are really thin and small, and that Erinyes are much bigger.
I agree that it should only be able to hold a wing of Seraphims at most, though.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Solatar on May 03, 2008, 11:14:26 pm
Don't forget...even if it can fit fighters in the back (along with engines and armor) a ship like the Seraphim would not physically fit out of the fighter bay door.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on May 03, 2008, 11:58:40 pm
But there is the Taurvi. Flat, so easily stacked, and a decent bomber.
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Droid803 on May 04, 2008, 01:17:37 am
Don't forget...even if it can fit fighters in the back (along with engines and armor) a ship like the Seraphim would not physically fit out of the fighter bay door.

Negative. I've had Seraphims launch from a Moloch before. Came out fine, one-at-a-time.

But there is the Taurvi. Flat, so easily stacked, and a decent bomber.

Ah yes, those. they're neither fast nor well armored, but they're compact, meaning you can cram more of them into small spaces. :P
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: AlphaOne on May 04, 2008, 02:15:37 am
Well either way having a ship like the SCv Moloch is not my favorite thing in the world . I kinda hate it. It's kinda ugly. I prefer something either GTVA or GT or GV . Also is 40m/s an exagerated speed for a large sip larger then a corvette?
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Mobius on May 04, 2008, 03:26:14 am
I don't see how you can claim that the Moloch is able to carry so many spacecraft. By looking at the design you can easily notice that the fighterbay itself is very small. There are turrets(including a beam cannon) and engines near it, keep this in mind...I don't think there can be so many spacecraft...
Title: Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on May 04, 2008, 04:59:55 am
Yep i agree with that :) cannon and the like aren't just surface deep. You need power couplings and control conduits, access hallways <inserts more references>