Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Rick James on December 23, 2009, 03:16:55 pm
-
In the interests of a campaign I am (slowly) writing, I have a few questions regarding nonmilitary vessels and their armaments--before and after the Great War.
1. To what extent would civilian transport captains be able to modify their ships' guns?
Let's face it: the guns on vessels like the Elysium, Poseidon, and Faustus can't defend themselves for sh*t. Could a captain choose to modify the defenses on her vessel if she so chose? What restrictions would the GTA/PVE (or, later, the GTVA) impose on such alterations? Could fighter weaponry be used on a transport's turret hardpoints?
2. What military fighters are available to civilians in the Freespace universe?
It would be rather pointless to have an interstellar economy without having some means to protect it. Fighters like the Loki and Herc Mark II are perfectly reasonable for the duties of convoy escort in the hands of civillians--but what about other fighters? Could a private transport company or a merc outfit have a wing or two of decommissioned Apollos flying around? What about more advanced fighters, like the Valkyrie/Perseus and the Myrmidon?
3. Would decommissioned cruisers be available for appropriation by interested parties?
A cruiser spaceframe can only serve for so long before the day comes when it must retire from military service. What would happen to these vessels, before and after the Great War? Would their components be broken down, recycled, and then made into new vessels? Or would they be sold to private interests? Would Vasudan vessels be available for Terran use, and vice versa?
4. What restrictions would there be on civillian use of beam weaponry?
A photon beam cannon is hardly a pea-shooter. It is understandable, then that the GTVA would be a little leery of their use in the hands of civilians. But how restrictive would use of beam weapons be? The GTM Hippocrates is supposed to be a hospital ship, but even it has an anti-fighter turret and an LTerSlash (however dubious its effectiveness may be). Could the commander of a Triton or an Argo apply for a permit to upgrade her defenses to anti-fighter beams?
5. Which would fringe elements use more often--cruisers or armed transports?
It is known that dissidents show up in Terran and Vasudan space from time to time. What would these pirates and rebels use as their main vessels--cruisers, or armed transports? How likely is it that any one pirate group would be able to get its hands on a cruiser? How possible is it to modify a transport into something more tough and deadly than a giant shoebox with engines, before and after the advent of beam weaponry?
-
1. Probably not: even the Military versions have **** guns. Don't expect civilians to get any better. Possibly flak guns might be available, but I don't see anything better than standard blobs, subachs, and flak. Civilians don't go into battle-zones, so being unable to defend themselves for **** is a given. It'd be unrealistic otherwise, to be honest.
2. Lokis? Herc 2s? No. Maybe decomissioned Apollos, Valks, and Angels. Probably stripped down. Do you see civilians flying F-22's?
3. Maybe Fenris and Aten cruisers. Probably nothing more, and probably stripped down at that (no more anti-cap beams).
4. I'd say limited to AAAfs. I doubt Tritons or Argos have the power grid to fire these even. So...AAAfs on those retired Fenris cruisers. Remember, the Hippocrates in maintained by the GTVA, and probably had a wartime refit. Normally it probably wouldn't have its LTerSlash.
5. Probably armed transports (meaning, argos with Flak Guns at most). Pirates probably wouldn't get their hands on a cruiser very commonly - any cruisers they have would likely be from captain-turned-pirates (which somehow avoided getting hunting down), or something pulled from a scrapyard. Rebels, on the other hand, may have more cruisers due to well, defections. (The NTF even had destroyers, but I doubt you're talking about Rebels on that scale).
I'd think it is impossible to modify a transport into a beam cannon platform, but putting some flak guns in to make it a gunboat would be feasible. Do you see any oil tankers with battleship turrets?
-
ok to points 1 through 4 there is very little to go on, pirate fighters attack you in silent threat mission md-07.fsm but that is as far as it goes
on point 5 I would say transports are more likely I am guessing more readily available, cheaper to run and easier to hide my first choice in this line would be GVT Isis and GVFr Satis, though if you were determined to use a cruiser I would bet the vasudans would love to loose a few GVC Aten once the GVC Mentus came online
about modifications i would imagine that if you could get hold of any fighter cannon you could mount it if you were determined and i suspect the main civilian restrictions would be on missiles and high end cannons.
In FS1 most vasudan civilian type craft seem to be armed with either blob turrets or avengers with their Terran counterparts using ML-16 and avenger (as tabled) so for civilian ownership I would create new slightly less powerful versions of these weapons to use for the mainstream with badguys and "rich" civvies using military grade equipment
As for cruisers i think the GTA/GTVA tend to mothball ships and use them for target practice rather than sell them on but again this is a guess
-
5. Probably armed transports (meaning, argos with Flak Guns at most).
I'd think it is impossible to modify a transport into a beam cannon platform, but putting some flak guns in to make it a gunboat would be feasible. Do you see any oil tankers with battleship turrets?
I think that modifying an Argo would be possible by ducttaping a stolen Miojnir onto it.
Where they would get Miolnirs is another question, but something similar to it (maybe custom build), but mounting a lighter cannon would be more plausible.
At the time of FS2, the best fighters civilans will get would be an Apollo and Valkyrie, but ther would be more Angels and even older stuff.
They would be armed with some ML-16 equivalant, perhaps modified to pierce shields.
Also, Avenger cannon, which was standard issue for GTVA at the time of FS1, but it would be expensive.
-
1. To what extent would civilian transport captains be able to modify their ships' guns?
Too expensive to consider for common folks. I don't even believe that they should be armed.
2. What military fighters are available to civilians in the Freespace universe?
Unshielded FS1 fighters at best. The Silent Threat pirates having shields always irked me.
3. Would decommissioned cruisers be available for appropriation by interested parties?
No. Decommissioned cruisers belong to the museums.
4. What restrictions would there be on civilian use of beam weaponry?
I don't believe that they should even use beams. Even anti-fighter beams are too powerful for civilians.
5. Which would fringe elements use more often--cruisers or armed transports?
Transports. The number of people needed to operate a transport is probably significantly less than a cruiser.
My assumptions include the existence of a hypothetical local police force that's separated from GTVA, and the assumptions assume that the police force has to be greater than any civilian fleet else they be useless.
-
Post Great War, I always imagined a civilian police force armed with unshielded fighters and ML-16 Lasers. I never really could decide whether or not shields were part of fighters, or just kind of "standard issue" for the military.
It's like how not every police/coast guard (not sure which would be analogous) officer wears a bullet proof vest. Maybe a SWAT wing of police fighters may have Hercs with shields and Avengers.
-
1. To what extent would civilian transport captains be able to modify their ships' guns?
Expense dictates this is unlikely. Flaks require expendible ammunition stores and hence significant extra danger and modification. High-energy systems like AAA beams would need significant modification and upgrade to power systems which are not designed to handle them.
2. What military fighters are available to civilians in the Freespace universe?
Decommisioned models, most likely. The Apollo and/or Athena would be fairly serviceable escort designs. "Off the shelf" upgrades to drives and power systems would keep them competitive with low-grade military and still be cheap. The spaceframes are mature; their quirks and behaviors and needs are well-known and easily serviced. Energy-based primaries are more likely than Avengers because they do not rely on expendible ammunition. HL-7s are probably the order of the day. Secondaries like old Interceptors and Stilletos as well.
3. Would decommissioned cruisers be available for appropriation by interested parties?
Unlikely. I just don't see how you could convert a military hull to reasonable civilian use that way, not without great expense. Military compartmentalization standards and redundancy directly conflict with civilian concerns for cargo space or passenger accomodations. A cruiser would not be cost-effective for civilian operation.
Also the decommissioning process will see the ship stripped of any classified systems and equipment, which, when you get right down to it, is pretty much everything needed to fight the ship: weapons, engines, sensors, most other electronics. The complete refitting necessary to get the ship into service again is too expensive. It's already scrap, it might as well be treated that way.
There is the possiblity that the GTVA maintains relatively well-conditioned craft as war reserves which one might steal, but such ships would be guarded and not maintained at truly "ready" status. At the least, engines and weapons would be missing small yet critical parts and the supplies of such would be tightly controlled. More likely general age would probably require at least a couple weeks of reconditioning work render to the ship battle-ready over and above the previous problem.
4. What restrictions would there be on civillian use of beam weaponry?
The expense of adding high-energy weaponry to ships not designed for it, and making said weapons both safe and reliable, is the main problem. The Typhon-class indicates this not a simple matter and has defeated on occasion even governmental agencies. Large corporations like RNI may be able to deploy a single beam-armed ship, but are more likely to rely on connections to the GTVA military to supply heavy firepower when needed for the defense of corporate assets.
Mind you that for companies which did or do manufacture beam-equipped craft for the GTVA military, the necessary knowledge will be there to operate said craft during builder's trials or an emergency.
5. Which would fringe elements use more often--cruisers or armed transports?
Armed transports.
-
HL-7's are supposedly rather expensive IIRC; I would imagine there might be non-military energy weapon designs available that would probably be more economical to use.
-
Unlikely. I just don't see how you could convert a military hull to reasonable civilian use that way, not without great expense. Military compartmentalization standards and redundancy directly conflict with civilian concerns for cargo space or passenger accomodations. A cruiser would not be cost-effective for civilian operation.
Well a cruiser would not be converted into a cargo ship, it has other purposes such as escort, high end transportation. All they need to do is strip it of things civilians aren't allowed to have. During the chaos in the Terran systems after the collapse of the GTA, it wouldn't be surprising if a few of these went "missing".
There is the possiblity that the GTVA maintains relatively well-conditioned craft as war reserves which one might steal, but such ships would be guarded and not maintained at truly "ready" status. At the least, engines and weapons would be missing small yet critical parts and the supplies of such would be tightly controlled.
A more likely source would be old NTF depots and storage areas.
-
Well a cruiser would not be converted into a cargo ship, it has other purposes such as escort, high end transportation. All they need to do is strip it of things civilians aren't allowed to have. During the chaos in the Terran systems after the collapse of the GTA, it wouldn't be surprising if a few of these went "missing".
Yeah, but you have to maintain them. Theft and long-term use is not practical as cruiser-sized craft have a large logistical "tail". Bigger ships are harder to maintain as more stuff can break down. Unless you have your own factory, your own mines, and your own fuel source, somebody will be able to track who owns it by the raw materials or finished parts needed to maintain it most likely. Particularly if it sees combat, and therefore gets damaged. If you have your own mines, factory, and fuel source, you might as will build your own ship anyways.
And I'm not kidding about stripping out anything considered classified. The ship will be just a hull. It may still have a power system but it won't have a power source. No drives, no reactors, no weapons, no sensors, almost no electronics if any. Even internal communications and life support might be stripped when a ship is decommisioned.
A more likely source would be old NTF depots and storage areas.
Where do you suppose the NTF got theirs, though?
-
Coming back to the primary weapons issue, I was thinking that the Avenger could still be more economical than the Subach HL-7, which is known to be expensive as I said:
Until the Shivans appeared with their shield technology, these weapons were considered an unnecessary and costly extravagance. But Great War dogfights against Shivan craft quickly taught the Allies that their ships didn't stand a chance unless they could punch through shields. The HL-7 works superbly against shields of all varieties and has become the standard issue Primary weapon for all Terran fighters and bombers.
Ammunition is generally pretty cheap to make and can be manufactured in massive quantities. If the Avenger is an electromagnetic weapon (which it might be as it uses energy), its ammunition would not have to be anything more than a big hunk of metal. Factories could churn out millions upon millions of Avenger rounds much more economically than they could build HL-7s. Considering the sheer size of larger GTVA freighters, holding them all wouldn't be an issue either.
-
I think one of the reasons why the military switched to the HL-7 was because they felt that too much space was taken up storing Avenger rounds; space that can probably be used to hold better stuff.
When it comes to a civilian Hippocrates, the most I expect myself to see coming out from it is an AAAf.
As for civilian ships, the Loki, Herc II, Erinyes, Ares, Perseus and Pegasus are definitely out. All bombers are also out, unless if some corporation got lucky and bagged a Zeus or a Medusa. Stripped down Apollos are fine, and maybe a few Hercs and Valkyries.
-
What if the base price of the Avengers are cheaper than the Subachs but more expensive as time goes on?
-
I think one of the reasons why the military switched to the HL-7 was because they felt that too much space was taken up storing Avenger rounds; space that can probably be used to hold better stuff.
Perhaps (maybe that would account for the Herc II's retardedly large missile capacity), but to a civilian owner, a reliable gun that is fairly cheap is more important. I think the HL-7 and Prom R's performance in-universe is supposed to be higher than written in the tables (I'd rather say the tables are wrong rather than the game's characters, anyway--Lieutenant Samsa certainly seemed to hold the Prom R in higher esteem than the table files, and he actually lives and serves in the GTVA rather than sitting in a chair playing a video game about it), and that the Avenger's shield damage is supposed to be a lot less than the tables make it out to be (look at the repeated declaration in the tech description about how it is only marginally effective against shields).
What if the base price of the Avengers are cheaper than the Subachs but more expensive as time goes on?
Unlikely. Bullets are cheap and civilian Avenger rounds don't have to be fully mil-spec anyway, as long as they do some damage and the Avenger fires them without messing up, that's all that is really necessary. The rocket engines and guidance systems are what make missiles rather expensive, the Avenger dispenses with both of those. Aside from the Avenger, there could also be many other weapons never used by the GTVA, perhaps even bastardized ML-16s modified for extra shield damage.
-
Unless you're dealing with mercs/PMCs (which probably wouldn't do too well in the actual FS universe... though they're quite cool in many of our beloved campaigns...), you probably wouldn't see too many decomissioned of anything. For practical purposes, you might consider the (a.) Athena and (b.) Angel, if only because of the enhanced aerospace capabilities we'll assume they have. Being able to land planetside is great from a civilian perspective.
You might consider converted vessels/make-shift fightercraft for private corporations dealing as... or dealing with a tough crowd. Think something like an armed Hermes... it's small, fairly maneuverable, multi-purpose, and quite modular. If you're just dealing with unarmed civilians (aka you're a pirate), something like that would be easy to manage. Heck, it even has a subspace drive... Another option might be the "I built this space ship in my barn!" thing where you get a fighter like the Kulas (as in MotA Kulas). Definately not military grade, but it's still dangerous.
As far as cruiser escorts go, I'd assume the GTVA would act in a similar fashion to the USN guarding convoys with a small warship. A Fenris may not be too frightening to a squadron of heavy fighters or bombers, but it will rip any would-be marauders in makeshift combat craft to ribbons. I suppose if you have a very large corporation you might actually be able to furnish your own cruiser-like vessel. Of course you'd have to be licenced by the GTVA...
As far as weapons go, it really depends. Combat craft go through A LOT of ammunition. Bullets will get expensive really friggin' fast. So, a laser gun like the ML-16 might be the way to go. It's not modern and you can't fight the military with it, but it (or something similar) is "military grade" enough for "entrepreneurs of a certain variety." Also, if you're not supposed to have it, it will leave a much smaller paper trail than having to buy several thousand rounds of ammo here and there.
-
I support the use of ML-16's on civillian craft.
I mean, they're harmless against military targets, so let them hit each other with their little pointy sticks :D
-
1. To what extent would civilian transport captains be able to modify their ships' guns?
Depends... Amount of security needed, how simple it is to modify weapon banks etc. It is far more likelier for ships to modify their armaments than to do anything else. That is IMHO you are much more likely to see heavily armed freighters than to see a single civilian owned fighter.
2. What military fighters are available to civilians in the Freespace universe?
Normal civilians.. most likely none what so ever, with slim possibility for some demilitarized versions of obsolete low grade fighters.
As for equivalents of 'modern' private security companies.. Low numbers of current mainstream fighters. Nothing fancy though.
3. Would decommissioned cruisers be available for appropriation by interested parties?
Depends on the size of the military and their policy. Some militaries might choose to mothball even the most ancient ships just to have (perhaps not exactly) an ace in the hole or reserve fleets. In which case there would be no non-military cruisers. If that was not the case then on the other hand hulls stripped from weapons and electronics could be sold to civilians (assuming military needs any funds it can get to make new ships - wouldn't be happening in wartime though). Also they might be willing to subsidize them with 'military reserve' clause - wouldn't hurt to keep even the older ships in more or less fit condition, but again at least weaponry would be stripped.
4. What restrictions would there be on civilian use of beam weaponry?
Capship beams.. probably none, not even private security companies. Mining beams (assuming there would be such), sure. AAA beams, as these are mainly defensive they might be allowed but would probably be unavailable for most people, high tech, high energy weapon system probably needs lots of maintenance etc.
5. Which would fringe elements use more often--cruisers or armed transports?
Armed transports or stripped cruisers armed like armed transports.
The amount and visibility of piracy or instability would have an effect as well. That is on the border/frontier/unstable areas no one would give a second look at even the most heavily armed merchant as long as they keep their guns pointed away from the officials. However on the more peaceful areas just having a single offensive weapon in a ship might cause very much (most likely) unwanted attention towards the ship and its intentions. As for convoys - they are very useful in protecting the ships but they do slow down the traffic a lot and also cause the convoy start and goal 'ports' to be either unemployed for long periods with occasion work around the clock overtime fevers. Both which are very likely to be extremely unpopular with ship owners (as the ship and the cargo are likely to have been insured they have really got nothing to gain from convoys).
-
Ammunition is generally pretty cheap to make and can be manufactured in massive quantities. If the Avenger is an electromagnetic weapon (which it might be as it uses energy), its ammunition would not have to be anything more than a big hunk of metal. Factories could churn out millions upon millions of Avenger rounds much more economically than they could build HL-7s. Considering the sheer size of larger GTVA freighters, holding them all wouldn't be an issue either.
There won't be demand for millions of Avenger rounds. Let's be honest here: who's going to use them? Even a large company isn't going to maintain huge standing forces. A company like RNI might perhaps have twenty-five fighters and forty pilots on the rolls. They exist to provide a scare tactic more than engage in actual combat. Additionally, an electromagnetic weapon or a regular gun is still going to need more raw maintance than a laser or laser-derivative like an HL-7. Railgun rails degrade so rapidly even now, even with supercooling, they're not really practical, and the barrel itself can be used up in very few rounds. Regular guns require regular barrel replacement and inspection of the firing chamber due to stresses of firing.
An HL-7 needs none of these things.
-
I was of the opinion that pretty much everything we saw in freespace, bar a freighter or two, was military. Tritons, argos and hippocrates are employed by the military and not civilian vessels. Weaponry would be minimal, maybe a couple of guns to discourage an escape pod boarding and hijacking your vessel.
Some gazillionaires might have a cruiser but they'd be extremely expensive both to maintain and to get licensing for as well as having great war era weaponry. Beam weaponry would be a no go for civilians and class A contraband. Pirates would be unlikely to have cruisers and probably wouldn't even exist (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/FreeSpace_Pirates:_An_Essay)
Where do you suppose the NTF got theirs, though?
Defection
-
Perhaps there should be a Freespace: Privateer. :)
-
Defection
Only one fleet defected wholesale, but we know the NTF had a minimum of four Orions that we ourselves actually know were destroyed. There were almost certainly others as well. Mass defections on that scale is extremely improbable. The war didn't last long enough for them to be putting large numbers of brand-new ships into service. No, the NTF fleet was most likely born in somebody's boneyards.
-
I do believe there was at least one major shipyard in NTF space so capture and continuing production of anything in production would provide a source for ships.
as for supply depots i dont think that would be a good source for anything other than spare parts with the NTF mobilizing everything they had for the push into the nebula
-
I remember flying quite 'good' fighters in custom missions where I am a merc. And there was a demios class corvette escorting the convoy. Forgot the name.
-
I remember flying quite 'good' fighters in custom missions where I am a merc. And there was a demios class corvette escorting the convoy. Forgot the name.
sounds like the start of sync,
if so there is a pilot in your flight *****ing about some other mercs flying myrmidons escorting an arms dealer
-
I remember flying quite 'good' fighters in custom missions where I am a merc. And there was a demios class corvette escorting the convoy. Forgot the name.
sounds like the start of sync,
if so there is a pilot in your flight *****ing about some other mercs flying myrmidons escorting an arms dealer
That's Homesick actually.
Perhaps there should be a Freespace: Privateer. :)
God no.
-
Ammunition is generally pretty cheap to make and can be manufactured in massive quantities. If the Avenger is an electromagnetic weapon (which it might be as it uses energy), its ammunition would not have to be anything more than a big hunk of metal. Factories could churn out millions upon millions of Avenger rounds much more economically than they could build HL-7s. Considering the sheer size of larger GTVA freighters, holding them all wouldn't be an issue either.
There won't be demand for millions of Avenger rounds. Let's be honest here: who's going to use them? Even a large company isn't going to maintain huge standing forces. A company like RNI might perhaps have twenty-five fighters and forty pilots on the rolls. They exist to provide a scare tactic more than engage in actual combat. Additionally, an electromagnetic weapon or a regular gun is still going to need more raw maintance than a laser or laser-derivative like an HL-7. Railgun rails degrade so rapidly even now, even with supercooling, they're not really practical, and the barrel itself can be used up in very few rounds. Regular guns require regular barrel replacement and inspection of the firing chamber due to stresses of firing.
An HL-7 needs none of these things.
A laser does need maintenance, at least a military-grade one--the mirrors and lenses (made to an incredible degree of precision) will be eventually damaged by micrometerorites and debris (and they'll be very expensive to replace because there cannot be even the tiniest error in making them or the laser will be much less effective), electrical components (many of them likely computerized) will eventually fail. There will be heavy radiation shielding since the HL-7's operation involves creating huge amounts of lethal X-rays. The optics and other components will likely include exotic materails. The maintenance bills will start to mount rather quickly. The Subach HL-7 is not a laser pointer, it is a very complicated piece of equipment that probably has a lot of very delicate, very expensive parts that will be difficult to replace.
An Avenger is fed by pieces of metal. Anyone with some basic manufacturing equipment can produce lots of them. The Avenger is more likely to be a coilgun than a railgun, as such designs are more reliable. If it is neither but an old-fashioned firearm, then it gets even better--the barrel itself is basically a big piece of metal too, and can be easily replaced, and the propellant charge would also be easy to make--it doesn't have to be mil-spec; as long as it gets the bullet out of the barrel every time it's good enough. A large hunk of metal is much easier for a PMC to replace than a mirror made to micro/nanometer tolerances and coated with exotic materials. As for demand, who's going to use them? Anyone who might have Avengers; not just PMCs but pirates and other criminals as well. They could be made in secret facilities under much more primitive conditions than Subach HL-7 components, which is good for PMCs and criminals.
The most advanced energy weapon a PMC might have access to is a modified ML-16 or, if they're very lucky, a Prometheus R. Kinetic weapons are just a much more viable option for them. It's about more than just how much maintenance they need, it's also important how difficult the maintenance is and how difficult spare parts are to make. If you break a Subach HL-7, it will be extremely difficult and expensive to fix if you're not the GTVA navy. There's also the significant possibility that, as a GTVA service weapon, the Subach HL-7's supply, and that of its parts might be entirely controlled by the GTVA and/or Subach-Innes. This is why poor countries tend to buy old, low-tech aircraft and equipment--old airframes tend to be temperamental and prone to going wrong, but the technology is mature, the designs are well-understood, there are alternative sources of repairs and spare parts, and it's a far better deal for them than a Eurofighter or Su-35 that might break less often than a beat-up junker of a MiG-23 or F-5E, but God help you if the Eurofighter or Flanker breaks--you're going to be writing a big check to Eurofighter or Sukhoi OKB.
-
Defection
Only one fleet defected wholesale, but we know the NTF had a minimum of four Orions that we ourselves actually know were destroyed. There were almost certainly others as well. Mass defections on that scale is extremely improbable. The war didn't last long enough for them to be putting large numbers of brand-new ships into service. No, the NTF fleet was most likely born in somebody's boneyards.
There were ~10 confirmed NTF destroyers. Each has a crew of 10,000*10 = 100,000
So not that many...
-
Every Aeolus ever made was destroyed by the end of FS2 :P
-
Every Aeolus ever made was destroyed by the end of FS2 :P
That would be incorrect. There are two that are never named :P
-
1. To what extent would civilian transport captains be able to modify their ships' guns?
Probably not by much without major rework... there is little reason to assume these craft come with powerplants that could support heavy weaponry.
2. What military fighters are available to civilians in the Freespace universe?
I'd assume to see many Apollos (canonically easy to fly) and Anubis (canonically cheap). Most civilian businesses would want dependable workhorses rather than cutting edge technology anyway. Valkyries would be a rare and prized commodity... the GTVA probably kept a tight lid on them since pirates getting access to something vastly faster than any active Terran fighter would not be good.
I wouldn't expect any of the craft new to Freespace 2 to have trickled down into the (legitimate) civilian market. Open criminals with excellent connections might be a different matter.
3. Would decommissioned cruisers be available for appropriation by interested parties?
Probably only in a gutted form if at all, leading to non-standard (and probably mostly inferior) versions. I expect ships from one species could be adapted to another but usually wouldn't because it results in additional costs.
4. What restrictions would there be on civillian use of beam weaponry?
I don't think the GTVA would tolerate this at all.
5. Which would fringe elements use more often--cruisers or armed transports?
Mostly armed transports. These are built to be merchant ships, useful for most civilian operations. For shadier elements, looking like a harmless merchant would be a major advantage. I'd also expect armament to be very different than for military vessels: Blob turrets aren't very useful if you don't need to intercept bombs (I think those would be more of a military thing. Pirates and the like would be more likely to spam Hornets/Tempests; good eough for targets their size and Hornets are canonically overproduced which would make them cheap).
For those who want to be well-armed but don't fight as a matter of course (smugglers, traders in lawless systems), I expect little in the way of primaries (expensive to buy) but an impressive arsenal of missiles. Maybe also a few Avenger cannons...
-
As has been said earlier, PMCs might have access to old fighters, unless you're dealing with a monster corporation like the one in Derelict. Sync illustrated this well in a way, where the best you got were Hercs.
If pirates have military-grade fighters, they're probably trickle-downs from the PMCs, so if those fighters were last decade's news, then these are...
Otherwise, pirates/shady civilians will rely on civilian designs which are modified to suit their means. And now that I think about it, an Elysium transport would be a viable civilian/military design without too much debate on the matter. A civil variant of the Elysium would probably not need the Subach turret, but in wartime there exists the possibility that your vessel could be impressed into service... I don't know...
Thus, pirates/unlicenced PMCs/mercs would have access to very out-of-date fighters or derivatives of civilian craft; unlicenced manufacture of combat craft also is a possibility, for which matter I mention the PF Kulas once more.
The ML-16 is archaic. If it's that old, we might as well assume there were weapons before it that were much more primitive during the Great War. Most Great War campaigns use this as a useful storytelling/technological element as well. The only reason the Avenger would be more widespread in service would be that it's a more modern design - you'd assume many of the old weapons would just end up getting recycled. However, decent ammunition for the Avenger would require a specialty manufacturer - remember that Avenger rounds could pierce shields. Even sub-par ammo would be pricey as you're shooting a very big piece of metal into space, and a lot of it, too.
That said, the savvy pirate/"entrepreneur" might still use ballistic weapons, as they never go out of style, but they'll probably be civilian designed weapons or complete retrofits. However, the smarter weapon would be a laser/Subach sortof weapon. That too might be civilian designed. Missiles and ordnance would be very simple, I'd expect to see dumbfire rockets/bombs or heat-seeking weapons. Of course, it's really up to the writer to make a good story out of what he deems reasonable to assume.
In this case, what about post-NTF fugatives? Those are aways fun...
-
Definitely ML-16 lasers for most armaments. Not only was it not terribly powerful by the Great War, it's utterly ineffective against shielded fighters making it pose no real threat to the military. Furthermore, since it was the standard issue weapon back then, there must have been a huge stockpile of them.
Argon laser weapon - uses transparent ceramic technology in order to create an optical system that is extremely durable and stable under battle conditions
From this, we know that it's extremely rugged and can endure both time and use with poor maintenance since ceramics are stable as is the noble gas argon.
Which makes me think of something. They must have had a lot of ML-16 lasers sitting around after the Great War. Surely they could have recovered the argon gas from them for use in the Prometheus? Perhaps it wasn't possible because of the design or the amount in the ML-16 is minuscule in comparison. Rather hilarious really considering how argon is the third most common gas in our atmosphere.
As for fighters, I'd argue that even having fighters at all is out of reach for most civilian organizations. Arming people with guns is one thing. Supporting the appropriate infrastructure to maintain, repair, fuel, etc. even a single wing of fighters is a huge deal.
-
The whole argon thing is pretty silly to begin with. If they needed argon they could have just flown to a gas giant and mined it. The stuff isn't exactly rare.
-
Why would they give civilians ML-16s at all if they have no effectiveness against shielding? They might as well be unarmed or at least have the older Avenger.
-
I just like to point out that possible Maintenance of high tech weaponry doesn't necessarily need to be incredible difficult or expensive. Its several years in the future, who knows what kind of tools they have for calibration of lenses and mirrors.
Just think of PC's a few years back. It was a complete ***** to install stuff in your pc case back then and Ram was expensive. Take a look at it now. I can just slide in my harddrive in a slot and put in the plug, no screws required. Ram is dirty cheap these days. etc.
Subachs could be modular, easy to assemble and disassemble weaponry for all we know.
-
I'd foray a guess that civilian spacecraft would be less well armed than modern civilian wet-ships.
-
Isn't that like...not armed at all?
-
Many civilian ships traveling into dangerous waters might have assault rifles for the crew, perhaps even a light machine gun.
The thing is that while a few AR-15s or an LMG might deter modern pirates in a speedboat, it will do nothing to a spacecraft. The analogy between maritime ships and starships doesn't hold.
-
A laser does need maintenance, at least a military-grade one--the mirrors and lenses (made to an incredible degree of precision) will be eventually damaged by micrometerorites and debris (and they'll be very expensive to replace because there cannot be even the tiniest error in making them or the laser will be much less effective), electrical components (many of them likely computerized) will eventually fail. There will be heavy radiation shielding since the HL-7's operation involves creating huge amounts of lethal X-rays. The optics and other components will likely include exotic materails. The maintenance bills will start to mount rather quickly. The Subach HL-7 is not a laser pointer, it is a very complicated piece of equipment that probably has a lot of very delicate, very expensive parts that will be difficult to replace.
I assume you can prove any of this, because I know you haven't thought about it. There are very simple, easy ways to protect the optics; ports that only open when firing over the end. People have already considered good ways to eliminate such damage and we don't even have working laser weapons yet. Electrical components that...oh wait, how long does your average electronics bit last again? Particularly military-grade? Years. Radiation shielding is no more heavy than a firing chamber or railgun rails, and the actual barrel is almost superfluous on a laser so that's a weight savings. Your assertions are not supported by evidence or logic.
An Avenger is fed by pieces of metal. Anyone with some basic manufacturing equipment can produce lots of them. The Avenger is more likely to be a coilgun than a railgun, as such designs are more reliable. If it is neither but an old-fashioned firearm, then it gets even better--the barrel itself is basically a big piece of metal too, and can be easily replaced, and the propellant charge would also be easy to make--it doesn't have to be mil-spec; as long as it gets the bullet out of the barrel every time it's good enough. A large hunk of metal is much easier for a PMC to replace than a mirror made to micro/nanometer tolerances and coated with exotic materials. As for demand, who's going to use them? Anyone who might have Avengers; not just PMCs but pirates and other criminals as well. They could be made in secret facilities under much more primitive conditions than Subach HL-7 components, which is good for PMCs and criminals.
You're assuming the Avenger is something it's very probably not. Even the most cursory glance at the design in the the tech room shows that it has some kind of radiators built into it. This implies high temperatures. That eliminates the coilgun from consideration; also considering the (lack of) efficency of the coilgun design, it grows further unlikely. Barrels are not as simple to replace as any old chunk of metal. It requires high-grade components, liners, chromium lined bore, god knows what else. You can't just use any old steel you feel like or the gun blows up. You can't just use any old propellent either. Low-quality propellent can result in it not all burning off, at best increasing maintaince on the weapon substantionally, but in a rapid-fire weapon like the Avenger provoking a destructive misfire. Low-quality propellent will also substantially reduce muzzle velocity (hence damage) and accuracy because it will burn poorly and unevenly.
You're basically presenting a situation where they'd be better off in every possible way with ML-16s.
The most advanced energy weapon a PMC might have access to is a modified ML-16 or, if they're very lucky, a Prometheus R. Kinetic weapons are just a much more viable option for them. It's about more than just how much maintenance they need, it's also important how difficult the maintenance is and how difficult spare parts are to make. If you break a Subach HL-7, it will be extremely difficult and expensive to fix if you're not the GTVA navy. There's also the significant possibility that, as a GTVA service weapon, the Subach HL-7's supply, and that of its parts might be entirely controlled by the GTVA and/or Subach-Innes. This is why poor countries tend to buy old, low-tech aircraft and equipment--old airframes tend to be temperamental and prone to going wrong, but the technology is mature, the designs are well-understood, there are alternative sources of repairs and spare parts, and it's a far better deal for them than a Eurofighter or Su-35 that might break less often than a beat-up junker of a MiG-23 or F-5E, but God help you if the Eurofighter or Flanker breaks--you're going to be writing a big check to Eurofighter or Sukhoi OKB.
Shielding systems are ubiquitous on FS fightercraft, and canonically even the pirates encountered in Silent Threat had them. A weapon that is a viable means to damage shields is therefore required for any application against fightercraft. The HL-7 is cheap by economy of scale, easy to service for the same reason (this is the GTVA's standard weapon, there are thousands if not millions of them in service) and not terribly powerful in comparison to the weapons the GTVA can field by the end of FS2 like the Circe, Maxim, or Kayser. There is no particular reason for the GTVA to control them very tightly.
-
A laser does need maintenance, at least a military-grade one--the mirrors and lenses (made to an incredible degree of precision) will be eventually damaged by micrometerorites and debris (and they'll be very expensive to replace because there cannot be even the tiniest error in making them or the laser will be much less effective), electrical components (many of them likely computerized) will eventually fail. There will be heavy radiation shielding since the HL-7's operation involves creating huge amounts of lethal X-rays. The optics and other components will likely include exotic materails. The maintenance bills will start to mount rather quickly. The Subach HL-7 is not a laser pointer, it is a very complicated piece of equipment that probably has a lot of very delicate, very expensive parts that will be difficult to replace.
I assume you can prove any of this, because I know you haven't thought about it. There are very simple, easy ways to protect the optics; ports that only open when firing over the end. People have already considered good ways to eliminate such damage and we don't even have working laser weapons yet. Electrical components that...oh wait, how long does your average electronics bit last again? Particularly military-grade? Years. Radiation shielding is no more heavy than a firing chamber or railgun rails, and the actual barrel is almost superfluous on a laser so that's a weight savings. Your assertions are not supported by evidence or logic.
Because their "good ways" failed and resulted in the destruction of such projects during test fire, the Neutral Particle Beam is a good example of this.
-
I assume you can prove any of this, because I know you haven't thought about it. There are very simple, easy ways to protect the optics; ports that only open when firing over the end. People have already considered good ways to eliminate such damage and we don't even have working laser weapons yet. Electrical components that...oh wait, how long does your average electronics bit last again? Particularly military-grade? Years. Radiation shielding is no more heavy than a firing chamber or railgun rails, and the actual barrel is almost superfluous on a laser so that's a weight savings. Your assertions are not supported by evidence or logic.
How often do electronics fail? Often. It's one of the reasons the F-22 Raptor is such a hangar queen compared to older USAF fighters (the radar-absorbent materials being the other reason). Anything controlled by computers or transistors is bound to fail sooner or later. An exposure to the shockwave of a bomb or EMP missile will probably greatly increase the chances of electronic components failing. Even if the radar control feature on the Avenger (a feature that seems completely superfluous considering that FreeSpace fighters have their own built-in sensor packages that will probably be vastly superior to anything crammed into a gun) goes out, it could still likely be slaved to the main sensors or aimed manually. An electronics failure on an energy weapon will likely brick the whole thing.
You're assuming the Avenger is something it's very probably not. Even the most cursory glance at the design in the the tech room shows that it has some kind of radiators built into it. This implies high temperatures. That eliminates the coilgun from consideration; also considering the (lack of) efficency of the coilgun design, it grows further unlikely. Barrels are not as simple to replace as any old chunk of metal. It requires high-grade components, liners, chromium lined bore, god knows what else. You can't just use any old steel you feel like or the gun blows up. You can't just use any old propellent either. Low-quality propellent can result in it not all burning off, at best increasing maintaince on the weapon substantionally, but in a rapid-fire weapon like the Avenger provoking a destructive misfire. Low-quality propellent will also substantially reduce muzzle velocity (hence damage) and accuracy because it will burn poorly and unevenly.
Coilguns certainly do get hot; the magnetic coils produce a great deal of heat when the weapon si fired. Furthermore, every single component you listed is far more primitive and uses simpler technology than the sort of technology that would go into an X-ray laser gun--no bizarre exotic materials required. These things would be comparatively even more primitive in 2335. The Avenger by FS standards is almost certainly old tech, and if you're on a budget, old tech is good.
You're basically presenting a situation where they'd be better off in every possible way with ML-16s.
I think a civilian force is far more likely to have ML-16s than they are to have HL-7s. HL-7s are cutting-edge, unconventional, and expensive. They're also in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is likely controlled by them. Those are things that will make them uneconomical for civilians to procure and operate. Most civilians will probably have Great-War era ships and equipment at best; most of them will probably have even older stuff from the Terran-Vasudan War or even earlier. In fact, civilian fighters are more likely to have surplus ML-16s (possibly with modifications to improve shield damage) or ML-16 derivatives, in my opinion, than they are to have any other weapons, including Avengers. While the ML-16 is an energy weapon, it is an old and proven technology, while the HL-7 is relatively new, and ML-16s were produced in enormous numbers.
Shielding systems are ubiquitous on FS fightercraft, and canonically even the pirates encountered in Silent Threat had them. A weapon that is a viable means to damage shields is therefore required for any application against fightercraft. The HL-7 is cheap by economy of scale, easy to service for the same reason (this is the GTVA's standard weapon, there are thousands if not millions of them in service) and not terribly powerful in comparison to the weapons the GTVA can field by the end of FS2 like the Circe, Maxim, or Kayser. There is no particular reason for the GTVA to control them very tightly.
Just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean they are cheap, it could just as easily mean that the GTVA spends vast amounts of money on military equipment (like a certain modern-day country in the Western Hemisphere that I happen to live in whose two new fighter jets cost around three times more than equivalents from other countries), something governments can do (especially with the backing of a resurgent Vasudan economy) and civilians cannot. As for "millions", I would highly doubt that. I estimate a maximum of 50,000 fighters and bombers in the entire GTA, perhaps as few as 10,000 (only a few thousand would be needed to stock all of the GTVA's destroyers, then add several thousand more for ground bases and installations and you would get around 10,000). Also, active service weapons are generally not sold on the open market; their distribution is controlled by exclusive government contracts. You could approach Lockheed Martin with $100 million and they probably won't sell you a single F-35 or even an F-16 without asking the government...and if you're not a military from a nation the US likes, the answer will almost certainly be no). The Avenger and ML-16 are not in service and not under contract; they were probably dumped by the thousands onto markets as military surplus to infuse cash into the newborn GTVA and/or regional Terran blocs, much like Russia has sold huge amounts of military surplus during economic crises. They're old, the GTVA no longer needs them, the technology is mature and well-understood. They're going to be the weapons of choice for civilians, not HL-7s. In this regard, they would fulfill a similar role to old Eastern Bloc war surplus and "monkey models" that have been sold in vast quantities to militaries/paramilitaries, public and private, all over the globe.
Come to think of it, I wonder any civilians will try jury-rigging light plasma turrets from freighters or Watchdogs onto a fighter. There are probably a lot of those lying around as well.
-
How often do electronics fail? Often. It's one of the reasons the F-22 Raptor is such a hangar queen compared to older USAF fighters (the radar-absorbent materials being the other reason). Anything controlled by computers or transistors is bound to fail sooner or later. An exposure to the shockwave of a bomb or EMP missile will probably greatly increase the chances of electronic components failing. Even if the radar control feature on the Avenger (a feature that seems completely superfluous considering that FreeSpace fighters have their own built-in sensor packages that will probably be vastly superior to anything crammed into a gun) goes out, it could still likely be slaved to the main sensors or aimed manually. An electronics failure on an energy weapon will likely brick the whole thing.
Of course, we know already that the HL-7 and considerably more advanced weapons like the Prometheus (fully-out-of-phase bolts!?) and Kayser laugh this kind of crap off, thus invalidating your argument. You also seem to be confusing your desktop computer with something built to military standards of shock resistance.
Coilguns certainly do get hot; the magnetic coils produce a great deal of heat when the weapon si fired. Furthermore, every single component you listed is far more primitive and uses simpler technology than the sort of technology that would go into an X-ray laser gun--no bizarre exotic materials required. These things would be comparatively even more primitive in 2335. The Avenger by FS standards is almost certainly old tech, and if you're on a budget, old tech is good.
Citation needed. Technology does not sit still; the Avenger could quite easily be constructed out of very exotic materials and be an utter ***** to maintain even be the standards of the 2100s. It is, after all, a 45mm single barrel weapon firing 1600 rounds a minute (from plotholespace) for periods that are apparently indefinite. The materials science in designing such a thing is a step beyond modern technology easily, whereas we have the knowhow to build an HL-7 right now, we simply lack a power source.
I think a civilian force is far more likely to have ML-16s than they are to have HL-7s. HL-7s are cutting-edge, unconventional, and expensive. They're also in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is likely controlled by them. Those are things that will make them uneconomical for civilians to procure and operate. Most civilians will probably have Great-War era ships and equipment at best; most of them will probably have even older stuff from the Terran-Vasudan War or even earlier. In fact, civilian fighters are more likely to have surplus ML-16s (possibly with modifications to improve shield damage) or ML-16 derivatives, in my opinion, than they are to have any other weapons, including Avengers. While the ML-16 is an energy weapon, it is an old and proven technology, while the HL-7 is relatively new, and ML-16s were produced in enormous numbers.
The HL-7 is over a decade old, they were in use in Operation Templar, and is no longer expensive, as it's been in active production for that decade. Economy of scale and the need for anti-shielding firepower long ago killed that argument. That they are in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is (possibly) controlled proves absolutely nothing about how uneconomical it is for civilians to use them. There are a lot of HL-7s about and they can be found wherever the GTVA is operating, thus it's relatively easy to locate a source of supply.
The ML-16 by contrast has been out of active production for whole units or parts for over two decades. This is not an assault rifle; it's a fighter gun. There are not tens of millions of them (and as already noted they used argon gas, apparently in short supply). Existing stocks of weapons and spare parts have long since been used up.
You also fail to address the point that the HL-7 is not even remotely the GTVA's top weapon anymore. In comparison to things like the Kayser it's more or less obselete.
-snip-
Comparing modern social and law structures to FreeSpace is the height of lunacy. I really don't know how else to put it. We can talk science, just a little, because that's not anything like as mutable.
I also suggest you look up the term "economy of scale" and find out what it means.
-
Of course, we know already that the HL-7 and considerably more advanced weapons like the Prometheus (fully-out-of-phase bolts!?) and Kayser laugh this kind of crap off, thus invalidating your argument. You also seem to be confusing your desktop computer with something built to military standards of shock resistance.
The FS1 tech description seems to indicate that, aside from the "fully out of phase" thing (whatever the hell that means, and it might not even be present on the R), the Prometheus works in pretty much the same way as the ML-16--it's just an argon laser with more power. Also, the Kayser does not factor into this discussion at all. The Subach is an expensive weapon. The Kayser is an incredibly expensive, limited-production "superweapon" that's in a class all its own (and a civilian would have a higher chance of owning a unicorn than a UD-8 Kayser). Also, shock is not the only thing that can damage electronics--EMPs (and with nuclear missiles and antimatter bombs flying around, there will be EMPs in the combat zone), short circuits, and simple software gremlins can all turn your advanced weapon into a piece of junk. It's like saying an F-35 is cheap and easy to acquire because it's less than a tenth the cost of a B-2.
Citation needed. Technology does not sit still; the Avenger could quite easily be constructed out of very exotic materials and be an utter ***** to maintain even be the standards of the 2100s. It is, after all, a 45mm single barrel weapon firing 1600 rounds a minute (from plotholespace) for periods that are apparently indefinite. The materials science in designing such a thing is a step beyond modern technology easily, whereas we have the knowhow to build an HL-7 right now, we simply lack a power source.
Assuming, if we did get the power source, the HL-7 would not destroy itself (and everything within a kilometer or so) because we don't have anything like the sort of materials required for a terawatt-grade energy weapon. The Avenger is beyond modern technology, but the HL-7 is even further beyond modern technology, to the point where we could not build anything of that power that could survive being fired once.
The HL-7 is over a decade old, they were in use in Operation Templar, and is no longer expensive, as it's been in active production for that decade. Economy of scale and the need for anti-shielding firepower long ago killed that argument. That they are in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is (possibly) controlled proves absolutely nothing about how uneconomical it is for civilians to use them. There are a lot of HL-7s about and they can be found wherever the GTVA is operating, thus it's relatively easy to locate a source of supply
A decade is new in terms of military designs. 40-50 years is old. The F-22A is 12 years old (the YF-22 is 18). Also, do you think civilians can just walk up to a GTVA armory and steal large spacecraft-mounted weapons from it? Are you crazy? They won't even clap eyes upon them before being arrested or killed. Civilians will only have HL-7s if the GTVA lets them have them. Considering that it is a currently active service weapon using modern technology which may be partially classified, it won't. Try taking your pickup truck to an American air force base and making off with an M61 Vulcan. It will make for a very interesting obituary to say the least.
The ML-16 by contrast has been out of active production for whole units or parts for over two decades. This is not an assault rifle; it's a fighter gun. There are not tens of millions of them (and as already noted they used argon gas, apparently in short supply). Existing stocks of weapons and spare parts have long since been used up.
Assuming other suppliers are not building spare parts for them or the original manufacturers supplying parts for weapons not controlled by military contracts. Many Third World nations keep retired equipment like F-4s, F-5s, MiG-23s, Su-25s, and T-72s flying long after other nations abandon them. The technology is old and well understood.
You also fail to address the point that the HL-7 is not even remotely the GTVA's top weapon anymore. In comparison to things like the Kayser it's more or less obselete.
Irrelevant. The Kayser is not a mainstream service weapon and never will be. It's a toy for elite units and special ops. It will eventually be replaced by a similar, upgraded toy like the Banshee was. Just because it's not better than every other weapon doesn't mean the GTVA will sell them to anyone who wants them or, worse, let people take them. Ask Boeing if you can buy one of their F-15s (outclassed by the F-22 but still in service). I don't think they'll say yes. Hell, you can't even borrow F-15s for a movie without the DoD's approval, which is why a lot of movies without the budget for lots of CG planes use F-5s and other craft the USAF no longer uses.
Comparing modern social and law structures to FreeSpace is the height of lunacy. I really don't know how else to put it. We can talk science, just a little, because that's not anything like as mutable.
What else are we to compare them to? Something you pulled out of your ass? Utopian Marxism? Objectivism? Anarcho-syndicalism? How about the fact that the GTVA's government is pretty much a copy of the United Nations, a modern-day international legal institution? And if the rather disturbing hints of militarism of the GTA in FS1 is any indication (the GTA seems synonymous with its own military, military officers can summarily revoke your citizenship, etc.), the FreeSpace factions are, like all militarist, authoritarian states, even more concerned about preventing military-grade weapons so as to preserve their military's supremacy over any potential uprisings.
I also suggest you look up the term "economy of scale" and find out what it means.
I also suggest you look up the term "government contract" and find out what it means. Military contractors don't just sell military equipment, the people they can legally sell to is strictly limited and the distribution of military products is controlled very tightly. There is no reason why this should change in the future, not if governments have any sense.
-
The FS1 tech description seems to indicate that, aside from the "fully out of phase" thing (whatever the hell that means, and it might not even be present on the R), the Prometheus works in pretty much the same way as the ML-16--it's just an argon laser with more power.
The tech description specifically states what that means. It generates its pulses at the exact opposite frequencies of the materials it's targeting will show on a spectrograph, ensuring maximum destructive power. It's not just an argon laser; it's an incredibly ridiculously advanced weapons system that scans the target, identifies the most destructive particular frequency it can fire, and fires at that frequency in less than .1 of second. It puts any comparison to any other weapon in the game except the total sillytech zero-point energy bursts Kayser to shame. The amount of fine control, lensing, and computer support required to do this dictates that even in FS terms this gun is big damn deal.
Also, the Kayser does not factor into this discussion at all. The Subach is an expensive weapon. The Kayser is an incredibly expensive, limited-production "superweapon" that's in a class all its own (and a civilian would have a higher chance of owning a unicorn than a UD-8 Kayser).
Citation needed. The only things we actually know about the Kayser is its method of operation, it's so powerful most doctrine would confine it to bombers, and the fact it's still considered OpEval which is why deployment is restricted. We have every reason to believe it has passed OpEval with flying colors all things considered. The Kayser is now most likely in full production. Since it's based on Shivan primary technologies, mass production of similar designs certainly didn't pose them any problems.
I agree you're not going to see them in civilian hands, but because they're new, and because they're ridiculously powerful.
Also, shock is not the only thing that can damage electronics--EMPs (and with nuclear missiles and antimatter bombs flying around, there will be EMPs in the combat zone), short circuits, and simple software gremlins can all turn your advanced weapon into a piece of junk. It's like saying an F-35 is cheap and easy to acquire because it's less than a tenth the cost of a B-2.
EMP is greatly reduced without atmosphere. However, that misses the point. How do you shield against EMP?
Tinfoil. A simple double-layer foamed-aluminium sheet of tinfoil bought at the grocery store will cut EMP exposure drastically. A second sheet will pretty much eliminate it. Modern military equipment with TEMPEST hardening and military-spec tinfoil can handle EMP easily. We already have the technology to make a mockery of your argument.
Assuming, if we did get the power source, the HL-7 would not destroy itself (and everything within a kilometer or so) because we don't have anything like the sort of materials required for a terawatt-grade energy weapon. The Avenger is beyond modern technology, but the HL-7 is even further beyond modern technology, to the point where we could not build anything of that power that could survive being fired once.
And you know the power level of the HL-7 how exactly? We already know what power the Banshee operated at, and it was a lot lower than your assigned power to the HL-7. You also failed to address my point.
A decade is new in terms of military designs. 40-50 years is old. The F-22A is 12 years old (the YF-22 is 18). Also, do you think civilians can just walk up to a GTVA armory and steal large spacecraft-mounted weapons from it? Are you crazy? They won't even clap eyes upon them before being arrested or killed. Civilians will only have HL-7s if the GTVA lets them have them. Considering that it is a currently active service weapon using modern technology which may be partially classified, it won't. Try taking your pickup truck to an American air force base and making off with an M61 Vulcan. It will make for a very interesting obituary to say the least.
You're confusing the weapons platform and the weapon itself. Aircraft designs last longer than the weapons they carry, by a lot, so your comparison is useless.
I'd also like to note that's a nice straw man. Of course civilians will only have HL-7s if the military allows them to, but seeing as the only people who would have a reason to purchase HL-7s from the military are likely major contractors for the military, there's not much reason to deny them. My point is that if you need to find somebody who would sell you the bits you need, you probably can, and you're probably already on very good terms with them.
As for pirates, god knows what they'd use. Most likely juryrigged stuff of their own design.
Assuming other suppliers are not building spare parts for them or the original manufacturers supplying parts for weapons not controlled by military contracts.
But where's the market in building spare parts? This isn't a universe with lots of PMCs or pirates. We encounter PMCs not at all and pirates only once. The private market is, of necessity, going to be an adjunct to the military market, because there's not enough private market to sustain itself.
Irrelevant. The Kayser is not a mainstream service weapon and never will be. It's a toy for elite units and special ops.
Bull****. It's a standard weapon undergoing standard OpEval. There isn't a single shred of evidence otherwise.
What else are we to compare them to?
We're not going to bring them into the discussion at all, if we're smart, because it's something about which nothing can be justified.
-
...As for "millions", I would highly doubt that. I estimate a maximum of 50,000 fighters and bombers in the entire GTA, perhaps as few as 10,000 (only a few thousand would be needed to stock all of the GTVA's destroyers, then add several thousand more for ground bases and installations and you would get around 10,000)...
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.
6 000 Bakhas alone, plus all the other fighter and bombers the GTVA has probably on average at similar if not higher numbers adds up to a lot more than 50 000
-
what about the subach? i thought that was around since before the great war and it was effective against shields? or am i wrong?
-
I would like to point out right now that 6,000 produced does not equate to 6,000 in service. Due to combat losses, retirement, accidents, and possibly just plain age (we have no figures for how long they have been in service, nor how reliable they are, correct?), I would wager there are less than 4,000 in service. Add to that some of them should be stationed at garrisons and ground bases, and I would say that MAYBE 3,000 are in active service.
Wild-Ass Guess Incoming!
I think that 50,000 is a decent figure for total ACTIVE figher and bomber resources available to the GTVA. Any more than that, added to capital ships, and manpower starts to look rather strained, and logistics begin to look like a nightmare. Caps for emphasis, because not every fighter that has been produced, or is even combat ready, has a pilot. How else would the player be able to choose from ~30 different craft before every mission?
-
Just want to jump in and point out, as NGTM-1R did, that nukes and antimatter will not generate a significant EMP in space.
-
don't mind me im just a blabering idiot in the corner
heres a proper thought out question along the lines of the topic
what did cap ships use before beams? just wondering havent played the first game
-
Fusion Mortar. It's still better than a SGreen, to boot.
-
Fusion Mortar. It's still better than a SGreen, to boot.
And blobs. Don't forget about blob turrets. They were actually kinda dangerous before shields were developed. Hell, even an Aten could pose a threat to fighters back then (a small one, but still).
-
just wondering havent played the first game
In case you haven't heard, go play FSPort (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=58357.0)! :)
-
Every Aeolus ever made was destroyed by the end of FS2 :P
That would be incorrect. There are two that are never named :P
I figured out the list once... 2 were from multi missions. All +1 if you count the GTC Adamant from the demo.
-
Every Aeolus ever made was destroyed by the end of FS2 :P
That would be incorrect. There are two that are never named :P
I figured out the list once... 2 were from multi missions. All +1 if you count the GTC Adamant from the demo.
I never like the 2 dozen number given and how FS2 played out i mean 24 works out an average of 2 to four ships per terran fleet (depending on how many fleets their are) which given the number just seen in NTF hands is unreasonable (it would mean about 1/3rd of the aeolus fleet defected)
-
I never like the 2 dozen number given and how FS2 played out i mean 24 works out an average of 2 to four ships per terran fleet (depending on how many fleets their are) which given the number just seen in NTF hands is unreasonable (it would mean about 1/3rd of the aeolus fleet defected)
Actually, it makes sense if you look at how new things are released in the FS universe. Boanerges was available only to the 3rd, 4th and 5th Terran battlegroups, Perseus was first assigned only to the 3rd battlegroup for trail and all the Artemis are said to have been deployed only in the 2nd and 3rd battlegroups.
Now, let's look at the Aeolus. It could have been sent first to the battlegroups that would later defect, but after Command decided they were too expensive/not effective enough in their not-so-humble opinion, they never bothered introducing them in the rest of the fleet. And thanks to the Murphy laws, half of the best anti-fighter cruisers ended up in the hands of the enemy when Bosch rebelled.
-
There's probably the possibility that pirates would actually be able to pick up some pretty decent weaponry if they're super lucky. They probably get engaged by the GTVA once in a while, and although it'd be expected that the pirates would either run or get horribly owned, there's a small chance that they might win the engagement. That means they have a small window to pick up ship debris and book it before reinforcements arrive. Such debris might include decent weaponry like Prom R, Subach, or even a Prom S.
Naturally, if this happened at all, it would be some sort of trophy item that the top pirate pilot gets to have one of for however long the gun lasts.
Also, pirates can steal stuff, or they wouldn't exist (Logic says that they wouldn't, because it's so hard to get the necessary force, but that's no fun). So, it's possible that pirates could on occasion steal a nice load of Herc IIs, Myrms, or guns to keep their operations going.
I guess both shaky justifications could be used to make buff pirates in a campaign, if that's what's required. However, normal civilians in general would probably be limited to ML16s, Avengers, and other junk.
-
especially with steeling fighters a depot raid or orbital/deepspace factory raid wold be feasible throw in a few jumps in rapid succession and government forces would probably loose subspace tracking, it's risky but then piracy is anyway
-
In the aftermath of major military engangements would be a potentially great time for space raiders to pick up some hardware. Hulks orbiting planets, disabled craft which couldn't be recovered safely in the heat of an operation, etc. If you're writing a campaign which has pirates/mercs, using this as an explanation of where your military-grade hardware came from also promotes the use of the "ugly" fighters. "Kitbash" craft and other modded vehicles are quite viable for civilians and other dissidants. A great real-life example of this phenomenon would be the 1948 wars between Israel and the Arab states. The Isreali AF used everything from smuggled Bf-109 derivatives to the Beech Bonaza (as a bomber)!
-
Actually, flying a moderate speed/handling fighter with horrible primaries and no secondaries but a billion countermeasures to scoop up debris in the midst of a BoE battle while trying to avoid death might be pretty fun. It might require some special FREDing to prevent hostiles from targeting you as a priority, but hot scrap scrounging does seem exciting, while offering an acceptable way to create a gratuitous BoE.
So yes, there does seem to be ways in which pirates can arm themselves to a level that would make them fun to dogfight.
-
They probably get engaged by the GTVA once in a while, and although it'd be expected that the pirates would either run or get horribly owned, there's a small chance that they might win the engagement.
Subspace comms says the GTVA drops a destroyer instead. Unless you delibrately pick a fight for this purpose (and then you're pretty crazy)...
-
What if the GTVA is busy fending off other pirate attacks?
-
Rule Number 1: The GTVA has more guns and more ships, and always will. That's their job.
-
And they always seem of have each and every ship occupied in some way.
-
And they always seem of have each and every ship occupied in some way.
And we've only seen them engaged in wartime operations which will naturally draw more heavily on their resources.
-
Rule Number 1: The GTVA has more guns and more ships, and always will. That's their job.
In general that's true, but what about after the horrific losses in Capella combined with a huge spike in piracy following the economic distress that would likely follow?
-
What horrific losses? It was one fleet, that managed to evac Capella mostly intact. The only big loss here was the Colossus.
-
What horrific losses? It was one fleet, that managed to evac Capella mostly intact. The only big loss here was the Colossus.
Hold on now. We know there was at least some Vasudan unit involved as well.
And Petrarch's statements can be taken both ways.
-
True. Canonically, nothing pretends it was only the Capella fleet + 13th (is that the correct number ?) Vasudan battlegroup, nor was it the whole GTVA fleet. Both versions can be defended, and I'm not affected about either of them.
-
What horrific losses? It was one fleet, that managed to evac Capella mostly intact. The only big loss here was the Colossus.
They had also just finished a massive war and crushed an uprising with massive losses, even if you only take into account the ships which broke away from the GTVA and were then eliminated.
-
True. On those grounds, you might even make a sensible story about yet another insurrection/rebellion after the second Shivan incursion on those grounds... :shaking:
-
You could call it the Procyon Confederal Autonomy, too.
-
*Facepalm
PI. Of course. I've yet to play that, actually.
...This is off-topic, but does the mod work acceptably with 3.6.10 Final? I've been hesitant to install and play it due to the fact that it perscribes a specific build of 3.6.9...
-
It should, but even if it doesn't, I think the build is still available. Probably wouldn't kill to switch over to it for one campaign.
It's definitely worth a playthrough. Some extraordinarily tight mission design.
-
And some extraordinarily Nintendo Hard bonus objectives. :p
-
You could call it the Procyon Confederal Autonomy, too.
PVN Rebellion.
-
Neo-Vasudan Front. :nervous:
-
Spitefull Rebellion of Rebellia
Because we can!
-
Spitefull Rebellion of Rebellia
Because we can!
Heheheh, nice.