[CT27]

Other than the Vasudan logistics ship, IIRC we haven't seen any new Vasudan capital ships. 

Do you think they are moving in the same direction with their warships as the Terrans are in the GTVA?  I.e., are they primarily concentrating on forward beam firepower?

[Mars]

IIRC Battuta said that their fleet is on average more modern than the Terran half of the GTVA, with a focus on node denial. Considering that the GTA destroyer fleet only has six "modern" combatants by the end of BP2 Act IV, I think the GVA probably have fewer Hatshepsuts than the GTA has Orions and Hecates, and probably more advanced cruisers and corvettes. The Vasudan beam weapon tech entries suggest that the Vasudans have new beams as well.

AFAIK that is the extent of information we have.

[Gee1337]

That's quite interesting!

IIRC, Hapshepsuts were more effective than Hecates. This makes me wonder if the new line of GTA destroyers are actually better and more advanced than their modern Vasudan counterparts.

Please bear with me with my interpretation of your post Mars. But the way I read it is that the reason the Vasudan fleet is essentially more modern than the Terran fleet is because they have had to replace more destroyers than the Terrans, therefore they have done it with ships that are newer than Hecates and Hapshetsuts. Therefore they have a higher number of modern ships than the Terrans do, simply because they have had to replace those that have been lost.

I am intrigued at how the modern variants of Terran and Vasudan ships would stand up against one another. One thing I do find frustrating is that the Terrans tech always seems to be worse than the Vasudan tech. It seems that the last great Terran cap ship was actually the Orion, as various discussions have lead me to believe that an Orion would eat a Hecate for breakfast, and still have a hunger for elevenses!

[Rheavatarin]

I'm sure it all depends on circumstance. A Hecate has a larger fighter wing than an Orion, and also a quite respectable (for the time) forward armament. If they were both stripped of their fighters and it came down to a battle of maneuver between the two combatants, I think the Orion could take advantage of its more capable broadside and turret placement.

[mosshadow]

Doesnt the Hecate have a much better AA defense in vanilla FS2 compared to the Orion? Also the dual front beams are useful for a ship that launches fighters and stays back

[Mars]

The Hecates in BP have been relegated to rear line carriers that "never enter an engagement without their battle group." And have thus far reliably failed to make significant impacts with their immediate presence. That said, wings launched from Hecates have made up the bulk of enemy fighters in game.

The Vasudans in BP are more technologically advanced overall than their Terran counterparts, but have been said to have a very Byzantine political structure and lack an effective top-down organizational structure. Also, in my experience, they make their fighters out of rice-paper.

[Aesaar]

The Hecate is a significantly more dangerous ship than the Orion purely because its larger air wing gives it much better striking power, and lets it use that striking power without putting itself in the line of fire.  If a Hecate finds itself using its anti-capital beams, someone somewhere has screwed up.

The new line of Vasudan ships is not significantly more or less modern than Terran TEI ships.  However, their Capella-era fleet has received more upgrades than the Terran one.  The Terrans are slowly replacing their Capella-era fleet with new ships, while the Vasudans are upgrading theirs to more modern standards.  Overall, it's a more advanced fleet, but the top-end of that fleet isn't higher.  They just upgraded most of the stuff on the bottom end.

Remember that the biggest reasonwhy Terran beams were weaker than Vasudan ones in FS2 is because Terran beams were built for backwards compatibility, while Vasudan beams were not.  It's why the Terrans could put 3 BGreens and 3 TerSlash on an Orion while the Typhon had issues with 2 BVas.

Considering that the GTA destroyer fleet only has six "modern" combatants by the end of BP2 Act IV

Nine.  4 Erebus (Atreus, Orestes, Agamemnon, Menelaus, +1 nearing completion), 5 Titans (Imperieuse, Temeraire, Implacable, Conquerant, Pallas).

[Gee1337]

The Hecate is a significantly more dangerous ship than the Orion purely because its larger air wing gives it much better striking power, and lets it use that striking power without putting itself in the line of fire.  If a Hecate finds itself using its anti-capital beams, someone somewhere has screwed up.

The new line of Vasudan ships is not significantly more or less modern than Terran TEI ships.  However, their Capella-era fleet has received more upgrades than the Terran one.  The Terrans are slowly replacing their Capella-era fleet with new ships, while the Vasudans are upgrading theirs to more modern standards.  Overall, it's a more advanced fleet, but the top-end of that fleet isn't higher.  They just upgraded most of the stuff on the bottom end.

Remember that the biggest reasonwhy Terran beams were weaker than Vasudan ones in FS2 is because Terran beams were built for backwards compatibility, while Vasudan beams were not.  It's why the Terrans could put 3 BGreens and 3 TerSlash on an Orion while the Typhon had issues with 2 BVas.

Considering that the GTA destroyer fleet only has six "modern" combatants by the end of BP2 Act IV

Nine.  4 Erebus (Atreus, Orestes, Agamemnon, Menelaus, +1 nearing completion), 5 Titans (Imperieuse, Temeraire, Implacable, Conquerant, Pallas).

That almost sounds as though the Terrans are run by Microsoft!

This does beg the question whether a Hecate should be reassigned to a carrier rather than a destroyer as, IMO, calling a Hecate a destroyer is not fit for purpose whereas an Orion would be! Also, I'm surprised that "backwards compatible" beams were put on a Hecate given that it was a new ship at the time and it was using a Vasudan power plant! I also find it strange that the GTVA as a whole did not share both sets of technology, as they would have probably been far more effective at fighting the Shivans and been able to sortie more destroyers, such as Typhons with backwards compatible beems that worked and Hecates with more up to date beam weaponary.

[The E]

This does beg the question whether a Hecate should be reassigned to a carrier rather than a destroyer as, IMO, calling a Hecate a destroyer is not fit for purpose whereas an Orion would be! Also, I'm surprised that "backwards compatible" beams were put on a Hecate given that it was a new ship at the time and it was using a Vasudan power plant! I also find it strange that the GTVA as a whole did not share both sets of technology, as they would have probably been far more effective at fighting the Shivans and been able to sortie more destroyers, such as Typhons with backwards compatible beems that worked and Hecates with more up to date beam weaponary.

And in BP, you are seeing the Hecate being relegated to a second-line asset.

As for the technology sharing thing, while we do not know the specifics of the GTVA's tech sharing agreements prior to FS2, we can infer that they were rather limited and more along the lines of agreeing on a set of shared equipment standards that would allow, for example, Vasudan Fighters to operate off of Terran Destroyers.

As for why the Hecate didn't use the more advanced Vasudan beams, consider this: FS2 shows both navys operating largely independent of each other. The default seems to be for fleets to be homogenous, and as such, the logistics requirements would reflect that. By fitting all capital ships with the same weapons systems, resupplying and repairing them as well as crew training is vastly simplified, and given that the Hecate was (arguably) never meant to be a frontline brawler, designing it with a slightly inferior weapons set that would allow for greater economy makes some mount of sense.

[Gee1337]

It sounds like the Vasudans got the better end of the deal!

I can't remember, but did the Hecates remain reasonably vanilla in BP or did they get upgraded weaponary as well? I'm thinking whether the a Hecate chassis could be retrofitted to use TEI weaponary since Terrans seem to be obsessed with backwards compatibility.

[-Norbert-]

As far as I gathered, blue beams are out of the question, since they would require the main reactor(s) and the power-net to be completely replaced (probably the heatsinks too), so any upgrade of their weapons could only affect the blobs, FLAK and missile launchers (if it has any).

[headdie]

Blue Beam tech requires a meson reactor to power them

[The E]

It sounds like the Vasudans got the better end of the deal!

I can't remember, but did the Hecates remain reasonably vanilla in BP or did they get upgraded weaponary as well? I'm thinking whether the a Hecate chassis could be retrofitted to use TEI weaponary since Terrans seem to be obsessed with backwards compatibility.

The Security Council has decided to not upgrade the Hecate class substantially, instead retiring and mothballing/dismantling them as TEI Destroyers are finished.

[Nyctaeus]

I'm curious... Do You have new models for Vasudan capitalships? I mean, the completly never-seen before models? The only ones that could be used as post-capella destroyers in good quality are Aphopis and Pharaoh. I'm wondering if You guys have something different.

[The E]

Esarai's Emperor and Phoenix Rising models look very good with Vasudanized textures.

[Phantom Hoover]

Any possibility of a GVD Horizon?

[crizza]

Esarai's Emperor and Phoenix Rising models look very good with Vasudanized textures.

I think I saw a phoenix rising in one of the vids used as logistic ship...

[Nyctaeus]

Esarai's Emperor and Phoenix Rising models look very good with Vasudanized textures.

I think I saw a phoenix rising in one of the vids used as logistic ship...

No, it was rescaled Tanen carrier.

As for new vasudan fleet from Esarai's ships, I was thinking about Emperor as vasudan destroyer/battleship as well. I hope that texture work is not just simply recolor of existing textures, as it would not be enough. Maybe some screenshots ?

[CT27]

It was said Vasudan current destroyers are built for "node denial".  In practice, how do they differ then from the Terran new shock jump philosophy of warship beams?  I.e., what does "node denial" mean; does it mean beams are spread more evenly?

[-Sara-]

I would assume cruisers with a single, consecutive beam, possibly able to swivel as to keep continuous beam fire on anything that comes through the node. As long as you can defend those cruisers, you can void most other weapons and system for a single, high-intensity beam cannon that can do nearly as much damage as a destroyer could, because:

Cheap 'glass-cannon' cruisers = able to build more cruisers = increased amount of consecutive beam fire at the node = impenetrable node defense.

Just make sure nothing can attack them from behind. Even shivan ships have to pinpoint their targets first so unless the have an AWACS in system doing that for them, they can be torn apart long before they get  shot off at the Vasudan cruisers. It's like having beefed-up Mjolnir, which can travel anywhere on their own, thus increasing their survivability.