[karajorma]

So you're randomly inventing weapons to justify a ship class?

Of course he is. Even the 50 treb launchers thing is an invention. The GTVA have had 32 years to figure it out but no one has even managed to put a Pheonix V launcher on a capship.

[TrashMan]

Cause they aren't in FS2 which means I can invent counterweapons to cancel them out. This is exactly what I mean by you making up ****. None of that stuff either exists in FS2 or is even hinted at. Look at your long range lasers for instance. There are no lasers in FS2 that don't disappate by around 1km. Yet you're increasing their range threefold. Fine if you're pulling weapons out of your arse so will I. What the **** are any of those weapons going to do when I start having a Maxim Mark II with a range of 9km?

See! Anyone can invent crap to win the argument. Stick to what's in FS2 or you've already lost the battle.

I'm talking about possible weapons that follow FS2 tech and are completely logical and plausable.
We know Maxim exists and has ample range. Is it really that hard to belive that you can't invent a capship weapon (more room, more reactor power available) that can counter it's range? Or simply mount LOADS of maxim guns on a capship?
Don't forget we heard  many things in FS2 we didn't see...such as some older ship classes

1) Between FS1 and FS2 the Orion, Leviathan, Fenris and Typhon were all upgraded to use beam cannons instead of the blob turrets they used to have.

Difference in speed. - None.
Difference in fighter complement - None
Difference in hitpoints (and therefore armour) - None (Tell a lie. The Fenris improved

I don't hnik the fightercapacity of an Orion was mentioned in FS1. Maby it was downsized. However, you musn't forget that it's the game and realistic tech balance really wan't a priority for the devs.
Probably it does have something to do wqith reactor power the beam cannons MUST require a friggin lot of it.

2) The Colossus represents the best that the GTVA can do in making a super ship. Took them twenty years to build. Hardly bristling with turrets is it? The Colossus has 63 turrets and is 6km long. It was the pinnicle of GTVA design. Their flagship and yet it had a relatively tiny number. Why? Yet again it looks like the beam cannons are using up a huge amount of whatever resource it is that places a limit on the number of turrets you can have. But that can't be space. Or otherwise they could have covered the ship in blob turrets. Or missile turrets! The Colossus has a pitiful number of those for its size. Even the version mentioned in the cutscene has very few. What is all that space inside the Colossus being used for? Again maybe the limit isn't size. Maybe it's money. Maybe putting 50 extra missile launchers on the Colossus would have quite simply cost too much. Or maybe it's not the weapons themselves that are expensive but the reactors to power them.

Colossus was a laughning stock and it was not a battleship in any way. It was a upsacaled destroyer. Besides, who ever told you a battleship HAS to be 6km long?
Allso, don't forget that a destroyer would carry far more crew than an battleship. And it would have fighterbays...storage room...mess halls..pilots quaters...fligh crew quarters...food storage..etc, etc... And that takes up a lot of room.

So basicly in a battleship you do have a lto more free room for armor, weapons & reactors.

3) The Hecate is the GTVA's most recent, most advanced ship. Yet the Hecate is actually a poorer combatant than the Orion. If there is such a large gap in the amount of firepower between a BB and a destroyer why the hell didn't the GTVA build one instead of the Hecate? They'd already got the Deimos. You seriously think no one in the GTVA thought let's make a bigger version of the Deimos? Cause that's all a BB is after all.

Well, by that same logic you could claim (if you never played FS2) that a corvette class is impossible, since it wasn't in FS1 and can't do anything a destroyer or cruiser can't. Exactly why [V] decided on class X or Y I do not know. time constraints, ease of implementation...or maby it just favored the type of gameplay they wanted.
And let's not forget the Hecate's role is that of a rear command ship/carrier...
 

4) Look at the Iceni. It was built as the flagship for Admiral Bosch. No expense spared no doubt. What armament does it have? ****loads. The Iceni carries as many BGreens as the Orion does. (Yet another argument that space isn't the limiting factor). Why didn't the GTVA do that with the Deimos then? Again maybe it costs too damn much to put so much expensive weaponary into one ship.

Maby to make Bosch look cool?

5) How much better armoured would a battleship be? Not much. Certainly not to the degree you're claiming. Firstly armour cost money. So yet again we're pushing up the cost of the battleship with every inch of armour you put on it. Armour costs you speed too so that counts against it but most importantly of all why is there an assumption that the destroyer has weak armour just cause it carrys ships? That's wet navy thinking. The destroyer is designed to go toe to toe with the enemy. At least in the case of the Hatshepsut it is. Same with the Orion.
Why is there an assumption that the extra mass of fighters on a destroyer means it must be lightly armoured but yet the extra mass of guns, reactors and heatsinks on a battleship is ignored? I don't think the difference is going to be anywhere near as large as your assumption. Especially considering that you rejected my theory that beam cannons are small last time. Maybe a battleship might have enough armour to get another salvo in but it's certainly not the monster that shrugs off enemy fire that we're hearing about.

Lots'. For reasons stated under 2 it would have far more room. And adding armor is a one-time expense. Once the ship is done it's done. Crewing and supplying a carrier, paying it's crew is a bigger money drain. While the Hatesphut and Orion are formidalbe ship, that CAN go toe-to-toe with an enemy, such action is allways used as a last resort. Launching and supporting fighters has allways been thier primary function, not a head-on-assault.
And you're telling me a ship designed with the sole purpose of going head-on at the enemy wouldn't do the job better?

So lets sum up. The BB isn't a viable class. Either it costs too damn much to put all those weapons on it. Or it would melt cause the heatsinks are too close together or there would be no way to power all those weapons and they'd have to take turns using them. Even if you reject that there's no real reason to think that it's any more heavily armoured than a standard destroyer. At best it's a little heavier.

I se the colossus is the base for all your assumption. Colossus pushed it's beam cannons OVER THE SPECS and let's not forget that plans for it were layed over 20 years ago. I would assume that a BB would be designed with more concetrated and heavier armament in mind, so htere would be no pushing.
Allso, it's clear that a small ship can pump out s***loads of power if designed well. Look at the Iceeni.. Or the Lucifer.

How more armored it would be is debatable. It's not like you can just give me a limit like that. I can cite you examples of battleships(actually warships of all classes) who despite similar size had a huge differennce in their armor. And it's not only how thick the armor is, but how it is devided, what kind of armor it is, and so on..

[TrashMan]

Fine, I'll play...

If something jumps in that is so powerful you don't have time to jump out before you're dead, it doesn't really matter where the guns are located anyway now does it? And with a big front weapon at least you managed to do some damage to other enemy ships first.f/quote]
I never said it's that powerfull. Even if it's just as powerfull (think of a Orion jumping beside an other Orion wo doesn't have any anti-cap weapons on that side), the abity to counter quick and decisive is the most important thing. It doesn't even have to destroy you - cripling or damaging you ie enough of an advantage allready.

[quoteg
Just how big is this imaginary battleship, anyway? It's got 50 treb launchers, long range AAA and flak, and can unleash more anti-capship firepower than any other ship. Are we talking 2, 3 times a Sathanas here? If so, then yes, I'll concede it'll be far better at blockade busting than 3 destroyers, but I think I'd rather have the 3 destroyers in 2 years from now than the battleship in 75-100 or however long it takes to build a ship with those specs. If you keep to the FS universe at least, as I am trying to. and if you don't, well, then it's all academic isn't it?

My esitimate? Around 3km.

It only takes a double helios to take out a main beam on a Sathanas. Anything can be disarmed. And keep in mind that the bigger and more powerful a ship is, the more hull area there is for your point defense to cover, so formidable point defense becomes harder to achieve.

Depends.. How many main guns does it have? How well armored are they? When if I gave you an example where a BB has 8 main guns, each having a armor worth 20% or it's total hit points? Whic come to 160% HP. You'll destroy it before you manage to sisable it, uness usiing specific subsystem-damaging weapons, but again, they are far weaker than Helios and by the time you disarm it you're fleet will be a debris field.

Why would it have less crew? Given the armament you've mentioned so far, it is obviously a far bigger ship, and weapon systems need maintenance and crew just as fighters do. You're just carrying engineers and gunners instead of pilots.

Ye gods.. I don't belive I have to explain this...
Let's give you an example:
Iowa (276m, battleship) - 1500 crew
Nimizt (334m, carrier) - 3184+2800 air crew

I think you fail to realise just how many people are required for fighters.
for 150 spacecreaft you need twice as many pilots (double shifts) - 300 pilots
You need the air crew that repirs the planes, the hangar maintainance, the storage crew, the weapons mantainance, the MP to keep all those men in line, the cooks to preapre meals, etc...
 

A bit more on the size issue. Ok, maybe a destroyer doesn't make a good size comparison since it's also a carrier, but take a Deimos: They are pure warships, no fighters or anything, just guns and armor. They clock in at about 30% the size of a destroyer, with less than half the firepower and 80% the armor of an Orion. So, going by that, an Orion sized battleship with no fighterbay would have about 30% greater firepower and 2.5 times the armor. So assuming we're talking a ship in about the same size range, it is nowhere near what you're claiming it should be.

I'm thinking more something like double the firepower, double the armor.

Even at 2.5 times the armor of an Orion, a single bomber squadron can kill it in 5 minutes, and that's even without using Helios bombs since those are just unfair against anything but juggernaughts. And it certainly isn't that much bigger an offensive threat than an Orion, with only 30% more firepower not to mention it's point defense systems are likely crap just as on the Orion. Of course, you could improve them, but then you'd lose some offensive firepower in exchange since there's only a finite amount of space for powerplants, heatsinks etc. So really, a supership it is not.

BB's allways had the most formidable point-defense. The Iowa had 144 AA guns. Of course, becouse of FS limitation you wouldn' have that many, but still it would be a far to tough a nut to crack for a single squadron.
and power? Point-defense weapons use very little compared to big guns and we'r talking about a ship that's designed to wield the biggest guns. In an emergency you could allways route the power from some of the bigger guns into-point defense.

And yes - fleet actions. Hardly any ship would go alone. A group of specialized ships is far more effective if you ask me than a group of jack-of-all-trades.

[karajorma]

I'm talking about possible weapons that follow FS2 tech and are completely logical and plausable.
We know Maxim exists and has ample range. Is it really that hard to belive that you can't invent a capship weapon (more room, more reactor power available) that can counter it's range? Or simply mount LOADS of maxim guns on a capship?

So we're back to this argument are we? Fine. Put 50 maxim cannons on your battleship. It's still ****ed. The fighters are shooting at a slow moving, unmanouverable 2-3km long target from 3km away. The BB is shooting at a 20m long fast moving target. With a gun that does close to **** all against shields! I can take your battleship out with a very small number of fighters.
 Furthermore there's not a shred of evidence that fighter weapons can even be mounted on a battleship. They certainly never were mounted on any of the larger classes in the game. So you're inventing again.

Don't forget we heard  many things in FS2 we didn't see...such as some older ship classes

What in ****s name does that have to do with anything? None of the FS1 older ship classes were battleships either. I've included the FS1 ships in my theory so kindly explain what the **** they have to do with the fact that you were making up weapons in order to win AGAIN!

I don't hnik the fightercapacity of an Orion was mentioned in FS1.

It wasn't. But in FS2 the first CB shows exactly how many squadrons were stationed on the Galatea. Seeing as it blew up halfway through FS1 and was never converted to carrying beam cannons it's canon proof of how many fighters an Orion class destroyer carried in the FS1 era.

Maby it was downsized. However, you musn't forget that it's the game and realistic tech balance really wan't a priority for the devs.
Probably it does have something to do wqith reactor power the beam cannons MUST require a friggin lot of it.

I couldn't give a flying **** how you want to rewrite the game to suit your assumptions. You aren't allowed to say "I think what meant to do was...." when that flat out contradicts what is in the game.

Colossus was a laughning stock and it was not a battleship in any way. It was a upsacaled destroyer. Besides, who ever told you a battleship HAS to be 6km long?

Where the **** did I say that a battleship has to be 6km long. Now you're rewriting my arguments as well as rewriting 's canon to suit the points you want to make?
 Besides if it was a laughing stock then it's quite probable that any BB designed by the same people would also be a laughing stock too.

Allso, don't forget that a destroyer would carry far more crew than an battleship. And it would have fighterbays...storage room...mess halls..pilots quaters...fligh crew quarters...food storage..etc, etc... And that takes up a lot of room.

Why? Why would it have less crew. The crew of a hecate. 10,000. Crew of an Orion. 10,000. Crew of a Deimos. 6,000. Seems to me that hanger bays don't use up anywhere near the kind of crew numbers you imagine. Seems like those 50 maxim turrets you're on about would actually boost the crew numbers higher than that of a destroyer. Obviously turrets require a lot of maintainence. Fighter bays aren't boosting the crew amounts by the huge amount you claim.

Besides as I've pointed out already space on the ship is not the limiting factor. If you want to rewrite FS2 canon to claim it is you'd better find some canon proof.


Anyway I have to go. I'll be back later to take down the rest of your arguments.

[Shade]

If you want to draw the real world ship comparison, you shuld compare displacement, not length. In which case, you will find that a Nimitz is at 97.000 tons and an Iowa at 45.000 tons. That helps put the crew difference into a realistic perspective, now doesn't it?

So, because a far smaller Iowa has far less crew than a far bigger Nimizt, your far bigger battleship will have less crew than the far smaller Orion? Please elaborate on the logic here. And keep in mind I never said the larger battleship would have a lot more crew, I just said it wouldn't have less. Same size, it would have less, but it won't be the same size as an Orion, not even close, if you stick by the technology available in the FS universe.

Basically, you can forget the 3km idea immediately, a ship that size could never mount 8 beam cannons of greater strength than those on the Sathanas. not even by foregoing all other offensive and defensive armament. And at 20% of the hull strength per cannon? You know, actually, I'm not even going to bother, it's just too obvious where the problem is here, the size issue should be obvious to anyone reading this.

Double the firepower and armor certainly might be possible if absolutely no expenses were spared, but then you've already dropped the other stuff you've been talking about this whole thread. That certainly would not be able to mount all those 8 beam cannons, the 50 trebuchet launchers, or the long range point defense systems. You seem to forget that all these things need space, power, heat dissipation and, for the flak and missiles, ammo. And you would end up with a ship costing 2-3 times what an Orion does, while still not being able to reasonably defend itself from a bomber strike.

Finally, the Iowa may have had 144 AA guns, but they all sucked big time. If they were actually worth a damn, do you think the Iowas would still have been mothballed because they were sitting ducks for any air strike? Modern ships generally mount 2, yes, 2 AA guns, known as a close-in weapons system or CIWS, and a missile system for medium to long range defense. That's it.

They don't mount any more because unlike the Iowa guns, these things are not just bolted to the hull taking up effectively no room, but are integrated with ammo feeds, tracking systems etc and actually need space. It may only look like a small gun on the surface, but there's something like a 10x10x10 metre block of machinery and storage below decks to support it. You can't cover a ship with them for that reason, not to mention they also cost a whole lot more than your average WW2 bolt-on 20mm AA gun. The same would be true for flak and AAA turrets, at the very least, and possibly also for the lasers.

[aldo_14]

Presumably I'm not the first person to point out there's a reason why battleships are obselete for any form of naval warfare?  And that they're only used in modern terms as either missile launch platforms (Russian Kirov class) or as sea-based artillery (Utah class), neither of which are particularly useful for space borne scenarios (latter can be performed by pretty much any vessel, former is an entirely different issue in space-planet ops)?   And that force-projection is invariably more effective than a large, powerful but ultimately operational range-restricted vessel? (particularly when there are highly effective fighter/bomber borne weapons against capships)

Plus, is it not worth pointing out that maybe there are restrictions beyond energy and crew anyways?  The Colossus almost melted it's hull firing beam cannons at the Sath - what would the impact be of a similar number of beams spread across a smaller hull?

Wasn't it the attitude of "bigger, heavier, more guns!" that saw the battleship being superceded and made obselete by carriers and fighter aircraft in the first place?

[karajorma]

If you want to draw the real world ship comparison, you shuld compare displacement, not length. In which case, you will find that a Nimitz is at 97.000 tons and an Iowa at 45.000 tons. That helps put the crew difference into a realistic perspective, now doesn't it?

Funnily enough if you compare the Iowa with the British Ark Royal you get this.

Displacement : 56,500 tons (mean war service) vs 53,060
Crew : 2,800 vs 2740

[TrashMan]

If you want to draw the real world ship comparison, you shuld compare displacement, not length. In which case, you will find that a Nimitz is at 97.000 tons and an Iowa at 45.000 tons. That helps put the crew difference into a realistic perspective, now doesn't it?

Wrong. that's 97000 tons at ful displacement (with all the fighters loaded).
And the Iow is allsmot as big as a carrier. Did you ever see it up close, parked NEXT to a carrier? I have.

[TrashMan]

So we're back to this argument are we? Fine. Put 50 maxim cannons on your battleship. It's still ****ed. The fighters are shooting at a slow moving, unmanouverable 2-3km long target from 3km away. The BB is shooting at a 20m long fast moving target. With a gun that does close to **** all against shields! I can take your battleship out with a very small number of fighters.
 Furthermore there's not a shred of evidence that fighter weapons can even be mounted on a battleship. They certainly never were mounted on any of the larger classes in the game. So you're inventing again.

Evidence? Logic is the evidence! I can make any logical assumption I can as long as it doesn't contradict the FS universe, and this one doesn't.

Or do you honsestly belive that we today can't make a 20mm vulcan cannon version to mount on a ship? Hell, we allready have them.

The GTVA has knowledge of the workings of those fighter weapons. It has the facilities and resources to produce them. Large ships have more reactor power to feed those weapons. you honestly belive they CAN'T do it?

Why the GTVA didn't make them? I don't know.
Maby sometimes or somewhere they are used. I recall the Faustus using Subach lasers. That's cannon for you!

The question of this debate is CAN a BB work in FS universe.. and since there is no BB in ther I have to invent it. So yes, I am inventing..jsut as other people are inventing missile frigates with ling-range anti-cap missiles (which we NEVER saw in Fs universe). How come you're not assaulting their ideas and designs as "broken"?

Where the **** did I say that a battleship has to be 6km long. Now you're rewriting my arguments as well as rewriting 's canon to suit the points you want to make?
 Besides if it was a laughing stock then it's quite probable that any BB designed by the same people would also be a laughing stock too.

Actually you did assume it was 2-3 times hte size of a Sath.
Before accusing me of twisting your words, you should double chekc what you posted in the first place.

[TrashMan]

Finally, the Iowa may have had 144 AA guns, but they all sucked big time. If they were actually worth a damn, do you think the Iowas would still have been mothballed because they were sitting ducks for any air strike? Modern ships generally mount 2, yes, 2 AA guns, known as a close-in weapons system or CIWS, and a missile system for medium to long range defense. That's it.

No actually, during the end of the war in the pacific they proved very effective. The Iowa was the best battleship in the world with the best AF defense and suring the times when Jap's sent kamikazi's en masse, ships of this class didn't get a scratch dispite being involved in heavy combat.

And Iowa today mounts 4 CIWS + some missile launchers. the only reason they pulled the BB's back is that there's no way for a BB to close the distance to a carrier. In FS there's subspace.

[StratComm]

(Irrational argument)

Ok, stop right now.  Not only have we been down this path far too often for anyone's good, but we've actually had this exact same argument before to no good end.  And it really doesn't help when both sides completely distort what the other is saying to prove a point.  Ultimately I'm with kara on this one; battleships have served no meaningful purpose since the end of the second world war, and there is no great leveling force seen in Freespace canon to reverse this trend.  Subspace pushes the trend more towards fighters and bombers than toward massive capital ships, so that argument doesn't help at all.  Make up whatever counterarguments you like, but imposing wet-naval parallels from a half century ago onto a science fiction game is pretty much universally bad.  I wouldn't say anything, but wading through the same tired arguments of the last time we had this discussion is trying my patience.

[TrashMan]

Presumably I'm not the first person to point out there's a reason why battleships are obselete for any form of naval warfare?  And that they're only used in modern terms as either missile launch platforms (Russian Kirov class) or as sea-based artillery (Utah class), neither of which are particularly useful for space borne scenarios (latter can be performed by pretty much any vessel, former is an entirely different issue in space-planet ops)?   And that force-projection is invariably more effective than a large, powerful but ultimately operational range-restricted vessel? (particularly when there are highly effective fighter/bomber borne weapons against capships)

Plus, is it not worth pointing out that maybe there are restrictions beyond energy and crew anyways?  The Colossus almost melted it's hull firing beam cannons at the Sath - what would the impact be of a similar number of beams spread across a smaller hull?

Wasn't it the attitude of "bigger, heavier, more guns!" that saw the battleship being superceded and made obselete by carriers and fighter aircraft in the first place?

AS I said before, BB's are pulled becosue they can't close to effective range fast, or escape fast. In FS2 they can do both.

And The Colossus was not designed to fight anything as big as a Sath. It didn't have beam cannons designed for that, so to do more damage it had to overload them.
A BB would have beam cannons designed for that specific purpose (and would have reactors and heat sinks where the Collie has it's fighterbays)

@Kajorama - the crew of the Iowa is 1516. I don't know wher eyou pulled that number from.

[Shade]

I'm sure an Iowa is also a lot lighter if you take away it's primary armaments. Fighters are as integral a part of a carrier as 16 inch guns are for a battleship. If you are going to make a comparison, you have to compare on fairly equal terms. also, on further research it seems your crew number for the Iowa was on the low side, too, the numbers i've found all run in the 2500-2800 range.

As for your other point, almost as long does not equate to almost as big. This is not a 1d world, it is a 3d world, where width and height count too. A carrier is far wider over a far greater part of the hull than a battleship.

Finally, I've never actually seen a battleship up close, no, but I have been onboard the Ark Royal once it visited Copenhagen. Quite an impressive ship, I especially liked the massive lifts and, being a boy at the time, of course also loved the nifty missle launcher that I had a picture taken of me next to Not that it really matters what I've seen or not, though.

[Edit]

And Iowa today mounts 4 CIWS + some missile launchers. the only reason they pulled the BB's back is that there's no way for a BB to close the distance to a carrier. In FS there's subspace.

No, the reason they pulled them is that they could mount the same weapons on a smaller and cheaper ship, getting the same firepower with less cost. Todays frigates and destroyers can't close the distance either, yet they are in use. And there is a problem with using subspace to close the distance: It only works for stationary, pre-scouted targets. It's useless against a destroyer, for instance.

[Ghostavo]

Where the **** did I say that a battleship has to be 6km long. Now you're rewriting my arguments as well as rewriting 's canon to suit the points you want to make?
 Besides if it was a laughing stock then it's quite probable that any BB designed by the same people would also be a laughing stock too.

Actually you did assume it was 2-3 times hte size of a Sath.
Before accusing me of twisting your words, you should double chekc what you posted in the first place.

You do know he was refering to the size a ship based on the weaponry you described your BB had, right?

[Shade]

Indeed, plus I was the one who made that estimate and no Karajorma. Sometimes it pays off to check who posts what, especially if you're going to tell someone else to double check what was posted

[TrashMan]

Ok, stop right now.  Not only have we been down this path far too often for anyone's good, but we've actually had this exact same argument before to no good end.  And it really doesn't help when both sides completely distort what the other is saying to prove a point.  Ultimately I'm with kara on this one; battleships have served no meaningful purpose since the end of the second world war, and there is no great leveling force seen in Freespace canon to reverse this trend.  Subspace pushes the trend more towards fighters and bombers than toward massive capital ships, so that argument doesn't help at all.  Make up whatever counterarguments you like, but imposing wet-naval parallels from a half century ago onto a science fiction game is pretty much universally bad.  I wouldn't say anything, but wading through the same tired arguments of the last time we had this discussion is trying my patience.

I'm not going to dictated by you what argument are plausable or not, as *I* am the one who makes that judgment.
Wet navy comparisons are completely plausalbe in some cases, in some they are not. But granted, these were more some historical discussions...

Some of you think BB's have no use in FS. Fine, you have your arguments.
I think they do. I have my arguments.

In any case, no matter what I or you think makes any difference at all. Peopel will make what models they want and what campaigns they want.


Why a battleship? Blockade runner, heavy-fire support, ambusher.

When a destroyer jumps tough the node most of it's firepower is unavailable, as it has to luanch all ti's fighters fist. A BB can unleash 100% of it's firepower the second it jumps in. And can take more punishment. Thus it can deal more damage to the blockading ships than a destroyer.

Ambusher? Destroyer relies largely on it's fighter and bombers and they rely on bombs. Bombs can be intercepted. Beams can't.
Assuming you ambush someone you'd want to deal as much damage in the first 10 seconds as possible, before tehy can get their bearings.

A destroyer with fighters wil do a good job, especially during a longer fight, where his fighter will chip away enemy defenses (turrets, escorts) making the enmy more vulnerable over time. But in the very begining stages the enemy is still very much capable of hurting back and escaping.
A BB would jump in, relase 1-2 salvos (which sould be enough to to destroy any smaller ship or severely damage bigger ones) and get out before the fighter cover reaches it.

Why make a BB when you can have smaller ship fill the role JUST AS GOOD? Can you?
Try pitting 3 Deimoses again a Orion. Orion pawns them in seconds.

[TrashMan]

On further research it seems your crew number for the Iowa was on the low side, too, the numbers i've found all run in the 2500-2800 range.

Ahh...now I get what the confusion is all about. During WW2 it had 2800 crew. I have this book on naval warship of hte world, but ti's recent and describes the refitted Iowa. With the computers, targeting and removal of some weapons, it's crew count realyl dropped to 1500. and the crew count of carrier increased from W2

And there is a problem with using subspace to close the distance: It only works for stationary, pre-scouted targets. It's useless against a destroyer, for instance.

Ah? Destroyer move at 15m/s and intra-system jumps are very short - on the order of seconds..less than a minute for sure.
How does that prevent it from working?

Or have you meant destroyer that are constantly jumping all over the place, spending practicyl no time in realspace?

[Shade]

It goes without saying that if you have a use for a battleship for a campaign of yours, go for it. That is your decision entirely and you don't need anyone's blessing or consent for it.

The reason you have an argument on your hands is that instead of simply making the campaign and the ship you need for it, you are trying to justify it and get everyone to agree that it's a good idea. I can't and won't speak for everyone, but personally I don't agree with it.

And it isn't even the idea of a battleship as such that I am opposed to, I've already conceded they have a use even if I didn't think that one use justified their cost. It is your unrealistic expectations of them. You are going well beyond the technology available in FS to reach the specs you want for it, and that is my real issue.

If the ship seemed technologically feasible, I would have no problem with it even if I thought it would be easily countered, as military equipment aquisition has never really been guided by such as common sense and it could therefore well happen. But what you have been proposing so far simply is not technologically feasible within the FS universe, and that is why I'm arguing against you on this.

[Edit] You still have to know where the destroyer is at that exact time to be able to jump in right next to it. And you can't know that without being in visual range already, which means the destroyer can see you too, and start launching bombers before you even initiate the jump to get close. You forget that while a destroyer may move slowly, the simple fact that it moves at all means you can't count on it being anywhere until you've already checked.

[NGTM-1R]

Recon flights. The Pegasus loves you.

[wgemini]

Try pitting 3 Deimoses again a Orion. Orion pawns them in seconds.

Actually, I pit 5 Leviathans against an Orion. Orion couldn't even destroy one of them before exploding. 2 Deimoses, however, tore the Leviathans into pieces(with 30% and 60% health left).

In the end, a battle is won by carefully balancing the fleet and knowing when and where to strike. A spy craft or even a fleet of  argo transports can shift the tide of war just as easily as any humongous battleship.