Hard Light Productions Forums
Archived Boards => The Archive => Blackwater Operations => Topic started by: BlackDove on August 12, 2005, 08:02:26 pm
-
(http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/htl_goth02.jpg)
The shot was taken a year ago, way before edits were done. Correcting the spelling gets you edited. You have been warned.
Personally I still think it kicks ass so I felt like sharing.
Enjoy.
-
hey, not bad. you just rekindled my interest in BWO. :D
-
you, know all those screen shots have been made public already, they were releast around the time of the DS scare.
-
Are those Apollos I see?
-
of a sort
-
Ah. They're the Apollo-like things from Twilight, then...
-
no.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
The shot was taken a year ago, way before edits were done. Correcting the spelling gets you edited. You have been warned.
Err...Spelling? I can see nothing wrong with the spelling in that pic...
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Ah. They're the Apollo-like things from Twilight, then...
The Creon was Apollo-like? :wtf:
But there's no GTF Creons in BWO. The Laomedon Conclave has long been disbanded.
-
Not the Creon; maybe I'm thinking of the wrong campaign. Had funny grey-painted Apollos.
-
hey, that was that slightly modified ulyses, right?
do you still have that?
-
I still have Dark's SOC Ulyssess :)
-
Hey guys! I used to be the poster Grand_Admiral_Abaht. I'm glad to see that this project's still going strong.
Tell me Ace, are those Apollos from the same vintage batch that Commander Julia Talstavi ordered in Twilight? I always loved that command brief you wrote on how it was the Apollo, not the Hercules, that won the Great War.:nod:
The Creon did suck, but I actually liked the NPW canon. I recall it did decent damage, and the weapon had a neat backstory.
BTW, was the Laomedon Conclave disbanded in Twilight?
-
Ace must've been smoking some heavy sh!t when he wrote that.
Hercules won the Great War.
-
Well, that all depends on how you define "won".
THOSE are the Apollos I meant, the ones from Twilight. They were grey in ship-selection screen for some reason.
-
The Apollo, in any form, Twilight or FS1 vanilla, went out together with the ML-16.
The best it could have served for in time of war, was destroying Asteroids so that a convoy might pass. That's it.
-
The Apollo was actually fairly decent for its heyday (2326-2334) and served fairly well against both the PVN and the Shivans. Its strong hull and easily refittable chassis served it well during the chaotic years of the Reconstruction, too.
Plus, I also think the GTA used the Apollo in some form for assault and bombing missions prior to the Herc and Medusa. That's right, the Apollo chassis. Modified variants, yeah, but why come up with a new design when you can churn out lots of parts for the old one and adapt it to a lot of roles at once? :P
Granted an Apollo isn't going to do as well as a shiny new Myrmidon (which among other things is faster and more agile) but hey, it's not 2335 anymore, so what do you expect? :P
Plus the GTA was pretty cash-strapped in the Reconstruction, as evidenced by their inability to stay in one piece, and their massive industrial base in Sol. Thus it was unlikely that the development of the Myrmidon really crystallized until some time after the GTVA popped into existence around '45. Apollos were probably used in the boonies and myriad Terran Blocs and GTVA for a while (well into the Fifties is my guess) and even longer as training fighters.
So, in short, the Herc may have won the Great War, but the Apollo was the stalwart of both the T-V War and the Reconstruction.
*stands firmly behind Apollo* :nod:
-
You're both wrong.
The Ursa won the Great War. :p
Who took down the Lucifer? Hmmm?
Although, I like to think that the Ulysses won the war. It heralded the alliance of Terran and Vasudan in the war against the Shivans.
-
I did forget that Talstavi asked for a wing of Apollos to be yanked from mothballs.
As a ship (both Dark and I agreed on this) it's not bad. Decent manuverability, shields, and hull. Fitted with Prometheus cannons and Hornets it's very effective. (there seems to be some misconception that it can only fit ML-16s as primaries)
The NPW-2 did decent armor damage. The trick behind this gun was that it had splash damage and energy drain along with extra shield damage.
There will be a variant of the NPW-2 in BWO.
The Creon is slow, has a large profile, and has weak armor.
On the other hand, its shield systems were as strong as those on a Shivan bomber. Similarly it had a large energy pool for its six primaries and had a relatively large secondary bank.
It also had a large afterburner pool and high "overclocked" engine speed.
-
As a ship (both Dark and I agreed on this) it's not bad. Decent manuverability, shields, and hull.
You were both wrong. It went out with the Anubis, about the time the Ulysses project completed.
The Valkyre overshadowed it as soon as it went into production. It pretty much died there.
The moment the Hercules appeared, with the new construction of engines and the devastating power of its main guns, a new standard was set.
The Apollo died in the first third of FS1. It's junk.
However - a logical MK2 would be able to compete with the Erinyes (Erinyes being the best fighter GTVA has to offer at the end of FS2 - yes the Aries is second to the Erinyes).
-
Originally posted by BlackDove You were both wrong. It went out with the Anubis, about the time the Ulysses project completed.
There were still lots of Apollos in service after the Great War. You're saying that they'd just drop the Apollo altogether in favor of the Ulysses when they didn't have enough Ulysses to replace them at the time?
The Valkyrie overshadowed it as soon as it went into production. It pretty much died there.
While I do love the Valkyrie :cool:, I must remind you that it is about 50% weaker than the Apollo, and has smaller missile banks.
Also, surprisingly enough, both the Valk and the Myrmidon are *less* agile than the Apollo! :eek2:
Only the Ulys, Serapis, Thoth, Anubis, and Loki compare in agility terms. Of those, only the Serapis and Thoth have enough armament to compare. And the Serapis' hull is tinfoil. :P
Apollo and Thoth all the way! :nod:
The moment the Hercules appeared, with the new construction of engines and the devastating power of its main guns, a new standard was set.
The Apollo died in the first third of FS1. It's junk.
The Herc is slower, fatter, and much less agile than the Apollo.
Besides which, the Apollo isn't meant to be a specialized design the way the Herc or Valk is. It can do whatever you want, especially if you're not an elite unit and you don't always have the best equipment available.
*continues to stand foursquare behind the Apollo*
-
None of what you said is based on anything even resembling logic on any stretch of the imagination.
I can say "Apollo rules" too, it still doesn't make me right.
-
Originally posted by High Max
I see a Fenris or Leviathan cruiser in the background in that pic.
Don't think thats a Fenris or Leviathen, its the AWACS Charybydis Lucidity (w00t, she's back!) I think
-
Yeah, the close one is the Lucidity.
-
Most of the ships not blown up in FS2, Derelict, Warzone, and Twilight make an appearance in BWO.
Whether or not they survive BWO is anyone's guess... :devil:
-
What about the ones that *may* have survived?
I forget, was it both the Actium and Lysander, or just one, that was destroyed?
-
It's usually only the Lysander for me.
-
The Valkyrie is a different type of fighter for a different type of role. More to the point, it can't haul the kind of ordance the Apollo can, or survive the kind of punishment. The Ulysses can't assault a cruiser effectively; the Apollo can. The Hercules is simply hopeless as an interceptor; the Apollo has just enough speed to make it viable as one. Yes, each of these ships is superior in their designed role, but the Apollo can perform yeoman service in any of them, something endearing to commanders and quartermasters who have to do more with less after the Great War and the economic collapse that followed.
That said, I do believe that there was a relatively cheap yet clearly superior replacement to the Apollo available. The Athena.
-
I actually despise the Ulysees. Its shields and armour are weak. The Apollo is a superior figher IMO.
So since there's gonna be some old capships in BWO, does that mean we'll see the GTC Lonewolf and the GVD Luxor from Derelict?
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The Valkyrie is a different type of fighter for a different type of role. More to the point, it can't haul the kind of ordance the Apollo can, or survive the kind of punishment. The Ulysses can't assault a cruiser effectively; the Apollo can. The Hercules is simply hopeless as an interceptor; the Apollo has just enough speed to make it viable as one. Yes, each of these ships is superior in their designed role, but the Apollo can perform yeoman service in any of them, something endearing to commanders and quartermasters who have to do more with less after the Great War and the economic collapse that followed.
That said, I do believe that there was a relatively cheap yet clearly superior replacement to the Apollo available. The Athena.
1. The Valkyre can attack cruisers with ease. Because of the inherintly better maneouverability, and better gun placement, it can avoid enemy fire, and doesn't have to compensate for the hull benefits. Better than the Apollo.
2. Ulysses is out of the discussion because the Valkyre can already do the afformentioned. As far as intercepting the Apollo goes, this is not even a discussion, Ulysses > Apollo by FAR.
Also, a sidenote to all of you Ulysses haters, if you're in multiplayer, the Ulysses is the second choice for a ship you need to take in order to win. The first is the Thoth.
3. Hercules can RAM the Apollo to death, or simply, because of the Apollo's size, which isn't all that considerably smaller than the Hercules, it can bite ALL SIX gunbanks from the Hercules if the two were on an intercept course with eachother. Aside from that, it can also withstand anything the Apollo dishes out at it, considering its better hull, but even more to the point - because of the superior placement to the Hercules' engines, it turns exactly like, or even FASTER than the Apollo.
I'm not even going to mention how a Hercules can RAPE any cruiser, corvette, or potentially in FS1, the Eva Destroyer.
All > Apollo.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
All > Apollo, and Ulysses.
-
Yeah, I thought that too.
Then I tried it out when my skills were peaked.
1v4 = EASY.
I was fighting two people with.....Hercules2... an erinyes, and a perseus.
They all died, in a 4v1 skirmish. That means the Torn spam, Kayser Whoring and just annoyance with the Perseus.
BD ending kills 63
Opposing team = 2 (I needed to rearm)
Turns out, the Ulysses' turn is only shorted by the Thoth, and the fact that it's slim makes it pretty much like the Tauret - hard to hit at close range when it's facing you. It's also very small, so there's not much danger even if the enemy can see below you or above you.
It's a very very nifty design. I get why they kept it from FS1.
Naturally, the Apollo, Anubis, Valkyrie, never made the cut to FS2, because while the Valk was replaced by the Perseus, there was no need to put ANYTHING to replace the Anubis or the Apollo.
-
I find it vaguely amusing you're not actually trying to counter my examples.
I find it even more amusing that you are not even TRYING to counter my main point.
Originally posted by BlackDove
1. The Valkyre can attack cruisers with ease. Because of the inherintly better maneouverability, and better gun placement, it can avoid enemy fire, and doesn't have to compensate for the hull benefits. Better than the Apollo.
In theory. In practice...not so much, particularly when you start getting Shivan Cluster Bombs going off. And that's if you go for the stand-off approach. The Valkyrie simply cannot sustain close combat with a cruiser for ANY length of time. And you willfully ignore the ability of the Apollo to haul enough ordance to actually threaten a cruiser.
Originally posted by BlackDove
2. Ulysses is out of the discussion because the Valkyre can already do the afformentioned. As far as intercepting the Apollo goes, this is not even a discussion, Ulysses > Apollo by FAR.
Again, the Ulysses cannot haul enough ordance for the task to be truly effective, and lacks the shield/hull strength to sustain close combat with a capital ship.
Originally posted by BlackDove
Also, a sidenote to all of you Ulysses haters, if you're in multiplayer, the Ulysses is the second choice for a ship you need to take in order to win. The first is the Thoth.
A completely irrevelant sidenote, no less...
Originally posted by BlackDove
3. Hercules can RAM the Apollo to death, or simply, because of the Apollo's size, which isn't all that considerably smaller than the Hercules, it can bite ALL SIX gunbanks from the Hercules if the two were on an intercept course with eachother. Aside from that, it can also withstand anything the Apollo dishes out at it, considering its better hull,...
Please. And any competent pilot knows better then to go head-to-head with a Hercules. Also, to ram it, it has to be able to both A: catch it, and B: manuver into a posistion to do so. Which it cannot.
Hull and shield strength are limited, and the Hercules is incapable of evading the Apollo for long enough to regenerate its shields.
Originally posted by BlackDove
...but even more to the point - because of the superior placement to the Hercules' engines, it turns exactly like, or even FASTER than the Apollo.
You asked for it, you begged for it, you even made up crap that doesn't actually effect the performance ingame, so here it is, the actual Rotation Time table numbers.
Apollo: 3.2, 3.2, 6.0
Hercules: 4.0, 4.5, 4.0
-
Oh I can play the quote game too.
Originally posted by ngtm1r:
find it vaguely amusing you're not actually trying to counter my examples.
I find it even more amusing that you are not even TRYING to counter my main point.
Refuted all of your points with accurate and comprehensive data.
In theory. In practice...not so much, particularly when you start getting Shivan Cluster Bombs going off. And that's if you go for the stand-off approach. The Valkyrie simply cannot sustain close combat with a cruiser for ANY length of time. And you willfully ignore the ability of the Apollo to haul enough ordance to actually threaten a cruiser.
I rarely talk theory when it comes to FS (only storyline) - the rest is all 7 year old practice.
Shivan Cluster bombs pose no danger. Turrets pose NO danger. The only ordinance needed are Furies, carries 120 of them (IIRC). Very very sufficient with a Prom and an Avenger.
Again, the Ulysses cannot haul enough ordance for the task to be truly effective, and lacks the shield/hull strength to sustain close combat with a capital ship.
Again, doesn't need to. Valkyrie can do it, Ulysses wasn't designed for it. Unless you're planning to tell me how it's better to take the Apollo out for a Cruiser nuking instead of the Valkyrie or Hercules, in which case we need not argue anymore, I can declare you officially insane and move on.
Please. And any competent pilot knows better then to go head-to-head with a Hercules. Also, to ram it, it has to be able to both A: catch it, and B: manuver into a posistion to do so. Which it cannot.
Both possible, thank you very much. Apollo has to attack sometimes. That's its weakness.
Hull and shield strength are limited, and the Hercules is incapable of evading the Apollo for long enough to regenerate its shields.
Yes it is. You just need to know how.
You asked for it, you begged for it, you even made up crap that doesn't actually effect the performance ingame, so here it is, the actual Rotation Time table numbers.
Apollo: 3.2, 3.2, 6.0
Hercules: 4.0, 4.5, 4.0
Numbers are great, experience is even better. I know how they handle ingame, I also know how the engines work.
Theory doesn't stand up to actual experience.
You lose.
-
Turn times mean nothing when you have both MOI and damp affecting it as well.
-
I'm not even going to discuss what other weapons do to turning, especially stuff like the Flail, all of which are detrimental to gameplay and turning itself.
I am however, most assuredly NOT going to get a lecture on turning, seeing how I was involved in discovering the error display in the turning itself regarding FS2.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The Valkyrie is a different type of fighter for a different type of role. More to the point, it can't haul the kind of ordance the Apollo can, or survive the kind of punishment. The Ulysses can't assault a cruiser effectively; the Apollo can. The Hercules is simply hopeless as an interceptor; the Apollo has just enough speed to make it viable as one. Yes, each of these ships is superior in their designed role, but the Apollo can perform yeoman service in any of them, something endearing to commanders and quartermasters who have to do more with less after the Great War and the economic collapse that followed.
THANK you. That was the other thing I was trying to say.
That said, I do believe that there was a relatively cheap yet clearly superior replacement to the Apollo available. The Athena.
Perhaps. But the Athena was supposed to be a design brought out of mothballs for FS1, I thought. The tech fluff seems to imply it, I thought. :nervous:
Turn times mean nothing when you have both MOI and damp affecting it as well.
Oh, fun. Now we've gotta calculate the moment of inertia. :P
But I'll stick behind my Apollo anyhow.
-
*continues to stand foursquare behind the Apollo*
*Shoots Mad Bomber in kneecaps*
The Apollo, when fights were determined by armor strength, was an excellent design. However, with the advent of shields it became, somewhat, disadvantaged.
Why?
A: It doesn't have the maneuverability to keep away from most fighters long enough to recharge shields unless you crank the shield energy all the way up while using the Afterburner.
B: They're incredibly easy targets. only the Herc or Ursa beats it in that department.
C: Weapons compatibility: While the Apollo was supposed to be space superiority, it doesn't have as flexible a load as many boast. The only decent missile for its primary role, SS, is the Interceptor, because Hornets just don't do well against maneuverable fighters, bombers ok, but fighters? no. And as we all know, the Hornet didn't help with Capships because it has practically no Subsystem damage. Only with a load of Furies was it all that great in the assault role.
Here's why the Ulysses owned:
A: Fast, maneuverable. Could rival the Valk in speed.
B: Small target profile.
C: Anti-Cap: While most people say the Ulysses is useless in this role, they obviously never used the D-Missile. A coupl'a D-Missiles and a disruptor, or even a bloody prometheus made short work of subsystems and cruisers.
It's not so much the turning speed that makes a ship, its how good that ship is at fulfilling its purpose. The Apollo was hard pressed to enforce Space Superiority against anything bigger than an Anubis with the exception of the Aten.
*Remains ready to defend the Ulysses honor*
-
I still stick with the assumption that the myriad Terran Blocs had to use Apollos for quite a while before they had enough Ulysses and Hercs to replace them.
I mean, the Antarans and Luytenese and GTA could maybe have gotten their own Ulysses fairly quickly, depending on how you interpret their post-FS1 situation (cash-strapped and minus 75-90% of their military production capacity), but the Adharans in particular had to build up their systems from scratch since they were in Shivan hands (er... claws) from just about day one. Probably were the last systems retaken, too.
That, along with the large number of Apollos and their requisite parts left over from the T-V War, means that they would have been used at least by mercenaries and opportunistic pirates, probably[/u] by the Terran Blocs prior to 2345, and possibly by the emasculated GTA (as training fighters perhaps).
I mean, they still ran, didn't they? With the massive depletion of forces post-Hades, one would think the GTA would be desperate to keep as much out there as they could, even if it was kinda obsolete, just to keep the HOL from going crazy. (They did get the HLD Prophecy as far as Delta Serpentis, after all.)
So, IMO, the Apollo was still in use after the Great War. Exactly how long and in what capacity is up to various campaign peoples' imaginations.
-
The Ulysses is harder to fly because you have to be able to take advantage of it's really low profile and high manuverability.
I think that's why so many people hate flying it is because they can't take advantage of it.
It is an incredibly annoying fighter to fly AGAINST because of it's high manuverability and low profile. Especially in a Horus because of its very wide gunpoints.
But the Myrmidon pwns both the Apollo and the Ulysses.
And by the way, what was "Twilight"?
-
By the way, Ulysses > Myrmidon.
Myrmidon was (and this is solely my take on it), a balanced experiment with three secondary banks, and primary banks to match the Hercules.
Where it loses is the hull but the offset is its maneouveribility.
Apollo was most assuredly used sometime after the Great War, but I'd assume they were all later either
a) Scrapped. As in, GTVA decided that your life was in danger if you flew one.
b) They were all destroyed or damaged, and it wasn't profitable to repair them, considering their uselessness.
-
Or they were used for second-line purposes, like trainers, or sold off to mercenaries, particularly once the newer fighters were deployed in sufficient numbers to replace them.
And they aren't that bad. I'll admit, they're not the greatest fighters, but come on, they're not that bad, either.
-
Sorry, there is no median here. Once better got constructed, the old was trash. If I were the GTA or PVN, I'd use the Anubis/Apollo strictly for crap routine missions, such as the afformentioned, "banging of the asteroids" out of the way..... and that's basically it.
We can all see the WW2 airplanes in the museums today, but did you ever wonder why the regular navy today doesn't fly it anymore?
Same thing, just that I'm talking in slightly larger extremes.
-
By the way, Ulysses > Myrmidon.
Myrmidon was (and this is solely my take on it), a balanced experiment with three secondary banks, and primary banks to match the Hercules.
I think you're dyslexic or something and meant Myrmidon>Ulysses. :p
While the Myrmidon isn't quite as manueverable, it still has better armor/shields, better secondaries, better primaries, and it is also much better suited for knocking off capitalships because it (for some wierd reason) can carry Helios bombs.
-
BlackDove, no offense or anything, but have you ever played all the way through FS1? I think your memory of the Apollo from the first few missions is clouding your judgment of it when it's loaded out with shields and proper weapons. In the FS1 mission The Big Bang, where you had to protect the Faustus-class GTS Asimov that was working on Project Tsunami, had you forced into flying an Apollo rigged out, I believe, with Avengers and MX-50s. The first time I flew this mission, with the memory of how crappy the Apollo was without shields in the first few missions still fresh in my mind, I was amazed by how good it felt to fly. It could take quite a pounding, far more than either the Valkyrie or the Ulysses, and its maneuverability is pretty good. I can't see how you can even compare it with the Anubis; that damn thing doesn't even have an afterburner. :p I couldn't stand flying it in Shrouding the Light for that very reason, coupled with its incredibly weak hull. In contrast, the Apollo looks more like a Herc.
You're also ignoring the fact that the Valkyrie, Herc, and Ulysses were designed for very specific roles: the Valkyrie is a rocket with guns on the front and next to no armor, the Ulysses has a paper-thin hull and turns like a Ferarri, and the Herc moves like a brick but can dish out massive amounts of firepower. All of those ships are great in their own roles, but the Apollo is the only all-purpose fighter in FS1. I can't see how you can say that cruiser turrets pose no threat to a Valkyrie; I know I've been roughed up by them on numerous occasions when trying to take one down. Give me the choice, and I'd go for the Apollo any day for cruiser assault, provided that the Herc is not an option. In the same way, I'd choose the Apollo over the Herc every time for flying intercept if I didn't have a Valkyrie available.
I can easily see how the Terran blocs could continue using the Apollo far into the Reconstruction era, and I also think that most of the GTA probably still used it during the Great War; why else would there be a wing lying around on the Galatea for you to fly during The Big Bang? Remember, the only reason you got to fly all of the shiny new fighters like the Ulysses and Valkyries was because you were supposed to be a top pilot; I'm sure most GTA pilots were still flying Apollos on occasion when the Lucifer was destroyed. Hell, I know I'd even take it over a few of the FS2 fighters (Serapis, I'm looking at you :p).
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I think you're dyslexic or something and meant Myrmidon>Ulysses. :p
While the Myrmidon isn't quite as manueverable, it still has better armor/shields, better secondaries, better primaries, and it is also much better suited for knocking off capitalships because it (for some wierd reason) can carry Helios bombs.
I was talking in terms of Ulysses vs. Myrmidon.
Ulysses is always the winner.
The Myrmidon itself as a Helios carrier is useless if you're talking normal difficulties, such as hard or insane. Frankly, I'd rather be flying the Ursa for that one.
Mongoose, the fact that the Apollo is a "jack of all trades - master of none" does not always mean that it is flyable material. It just means that it's a piece of crap compared to the other fighters that do the job correctly.
It's an old design, with an old perspective, and it was culled for a reason. It doesn't work.
Also, I'll mention that the Hercules is more or less "all purpose" if we're going to follow that train of thought.
-
Mongoose, the fact that the Apollo is a "jack of all trades - master of none" does not always mean that it is flyable material. It just means that it's a piece of crap compared to the other fighters that do the job correctly.
Whoa, I'm not an Apollo fanatic, but I'll have to jump in on that one. The Apollo isn't really a fighter with a single purpose, I can see now that I've taken the time to fly it. It's, well, it's the vanilla fighter. That's the best way I can say it. It's the only fighter that I've ever flown that flows with the player. In the Apollo, one isn't kicking ass thanks to technology, one is kicking ass because the pilot knows how to kick ass. The role of the Apollo is determined by who flies it and their personal style. One person can use the Apollo as an interceptor, while another might use it for assault.
I don't use it because there are other fighters that more fit my style, but lacking anything else, the Apollo is a great design.
In fact, I don't have a problem with the design at all in fact. My problem lies in the Statistics and Weapons.
-
Originally posted by Boomer One person can use the Apollo as an interceptor, while another might use it for assault. [/B]
And both of those people will lose to anyone else flying anything else.
End of discussion to be honest.
-
No idea how this started.
The Apollo I see as an average fighter that has quite a bit of flexibility. The draws for the Apollo after shields become available is its flexible armament loadout. With 4 guns, and 2 large banks of missiles, its fairly adaptable to be a cruiser killer or a fighter. Its not great...but its pretty good considering its the oldest of the GTA fighters you fly in FS1.
The Ulysses is quite a bit different. Its more of a straight fighter with speed and manuerverability as its key attributes. Great ship but not really a cruiser killer.
The Myrmidon is more in the Apollo vein but I think much better and more adaptable. The three banks of missiles and 6 guns means its good at killing cruisers and it can carry three different types of secondary armament. This is the sort of ship you send in when you aren't sure of what you really need.
Perseus is the evolution of the Valkyrie as interceptors...and the Hercules is just a really darned cool heavy fighter (and the Mark II is just as cool).
As far as the ships from Earth go in BWO....there are lots of Apollos, Athenas, and Valkyries around because of many years of political strife and the continuing use of these ships.
Also keep in mind that while the GTVA had to innovate to try and match the Shivan threat (or percieved threat) and also to integrate with the Vasudans, the Sol system was cutoff and the Shivan threat was sort of a sideshow in comparison.
Need drives innovation.
-
I don't think that the EC can stand a chance against the GTVA because not only does the GTVA out number and out class them, but they have Golgathas and the EC has nothing like that.
Thats what you think :D
-
Keep in mind that Sol *was* the economic and cultural hub of the GTA.
Despite all of the factionalization, they were in much better shape than the Terran Blocs.
Sol technology has taken a different path than GTVA tech. ...and for the most part we're avoiding the sillytech and uberships seen in Machina Terra or Inferno.
-
I dunno. Delta Ser and Beta Aquilae were pretty much the only Terran colonies not heavily ravaged, and even they had a sizable number of Shivans and/or HOL in them at various points in time. (I am of course excluding Luyten, since my account of events there are likely to be different from other campaign writers'.)
I'd put more money on even an emasculated GTA than I would with any of the Blocs save perhaps the Antarans.
I mean, the Luytenese had crap systems (3 red dwarfs -- four, technically, since Luyten's a binary), the Adharans were in the middle of nowhere and had no infrastructure at all, and the Regulans were a syndicate (infer corruption and an economic focus rather than military).
But yeah, I agree with you Ace, Sol would probably have done far better than the various Terran colonies would have on their own prior to the GTVA's formation.
[tangent]
The reason I say this is, it's really the Vasudans who have been the economic driving force of the GTVA IMO. Even with the destruction of Vas Prime, those who evacuated (presumably those who could afford to get out fast) brought their cash with them. The result was a lot of Vasudan money to invest, a lot of which ended up in the Capellan and Adharan sectors which had to build everything from scratch.
And of course investment in the traditional Vasudan sector wasn't as safe a bet with the HOL rampaging around -- besides, there was lots of cheap Terran labor and open land.
Whereas, by contrast, the vast majority of Terran cash was in banks in Sol, especially after the decimation of most of the outer colonies, thus likely impoverishing large numbers of Terrans and creating an endemic crime problem.
[/tangent]
Okay, I'm done. Proceed to massage your temples for relief. :p
-
The Regulus Syndicate could refer to Anarcho-Syndicism (ala Chomsky).
So it's either a failed anarchist state, or a failed "mob" state considering that they joined the NTF due to resentment thanks to their poor economy.
Also on Vasudan colonization, (unfortunately forgot his name) who started the FSURP (the original, real one, not this new-fangled one with this revisionist TVWP campaign stuff) mentioned that Vasudans colonizing very conservatively seems to match their behavior.
They'd find a node, scout the system thoroughly, and then systematically colonize resources en masse. Having fewer, but more densely populated systems with specialized colonies. (based off of the limited resources of Vasuda Prime forcing a similar mindset)
The end result would be their being less centralized than the Terrans, who had the main hub of Earth and a sprawl of dozens of other, small population, systems.
-
IIRC, the Vasudans only colonized are Altair, Aldebarran, Alpha Centauri, Deneb, Vasuda, and Vega. All those systems are pretty strategically placed. Altair, Vasuda, and Vega all have big shipyards (military and likely civilian as well) too, so they would be moneymaking industrial centres for the Vasudans.
The Terrans had nearly 30 systems colonized, and the majority of those where nothing but backwaters. Places like Tau Sigma, Ross 128, and Betelgeuse would become economic pits without the support of Earth.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Also on Vasudan colonization, (unfortunately forgot his name) who started the FSURP (the original, real one, not this new-fangled one with this revisionist TVWP campaign stuff) mentioned that Vasudans colonizing very conservatively seems to match their behavior.
TVWP isn't revisionist because there's nothing to revise. :p
Rest assured we're keeping all the canon facts in mind when planning our campaigns. This includes the differences between Terran and Vasudan colonization behavior.