Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: DIO on March 25, 2009, 07:05:38 am
-
Well, I've started playing FS2 again after few years (and btw I've got to say the SCP team has done a unbelievably great work), and it made me wonder how many ships did GTA/PVE and GTVA had. The impression I got was GTVA would have several dozen destroyers, several hundred corvettes and cruisers and several ten thousand fighters/bomber. Is there any canonical information to prove whether if I'm right or wrong?
-
Well that's a valid deduction. But canonically the GTVA has always used its fleets conservatively. Instead of deploying their fleets from other parts controlled space to reinforce their fighting force.
-
It's not clear. I've always assumed that the GTVA has some number of frontline fleets, each one centered on a destroyer, supported by cruisers and corvettes; possibly also a second destroyer. It would also have local forces, likely on the same model as fleet but one to a system, and war reserve ships in mothballs. For myself, I've always assumed fleet size to be 20 to 25 combatant ships. Vasudan frontline Battlegroups would be slightly smaller, 15 or so combatant ships, but their local and war reserve forces would be of similar size to Terran ones.
About the PVN we know very little. However, the GTA seemed to assign fleets to a "home system" so to speak (meaning probably larger), so they could be rotated off the line to rest, rebuild, and refit when needed, whereas GTVA fleets seem to be concieved of as more mobile entities (meaning probably smaller), likely because they are meant to move to meet a Shivan attack; the GTVA military, lest we forget, was almost certainly constructed and trained to meet a second Shivan invasion.
-
It's not clear. I've always assumed that the GTVA has some number of frontline fleets, each one centered on a destroyer, supported by cruisers and corvettes; possibly also a second destroyer. It would also have local forces, likely on the same model as fleet but one to a system, and war reserve ships in mothballs. For myself, I've always assumed fleet size to be 20 to 25 combatant ships. Vasudan frontline Battlegroups would be slightly smaller, 15 or so combatant ships, but their local and war reserve forces would be of similar size to Terran ones.
About the PVN we know very little. However, the GTA seemed to assign fleets to a "home system" so to speak, so they could be rotated off the line to rest, rebuild, and refit when needed, whereas GTVA fleets seem to be concieved of as more mobile entities, likely because they are meant to move to meet a Shivan attack; the GTVA military, lest we forget, was almost certainly constructed and trained to meet a second Shivan invasion.
Yeah, hmmm, GTVA fleets tend to have around 4 destroyers per fleet in my observation, assuming all the Terran destroyers seen in the retail campaign are 3rd/4th fleet
-
To add on to NGTM-1R's post, look at the Aquitaine. It's the flagship of the Capella-based 3rd Fleet, but warships from it have been sent to the neighbouring systems such as Deneb and Gramma Draconis to repel threats to the GTVA. Ultimately, the entire fleet was uprooted and moved to Vega at the end of the Second Shivan Incursion with no losses to 3rd Fleet Command. By that time, the Aquitaine was already in Vega.
The Vasudan arm of the GTVA sorts all their ships into "battle groups". What I can surmise is that they are probably even more mobile than the Terran fleets, albeit smaller.
From playing FSPort, I've always had this feeling that the PVN deploys everything from Vasuda Prime, as well as from the systems immediately surrounding it. They do not seem to have any footholds in any star system more than one away from Vasuda.
-
They might have lost many of their colonies to the GTA.
-
There also are Terran Battle Groups - read the GTB Boanerges' tech description. Back on topic, I'd like to say that:
1) Several hundred corvettes and cruisers is exxaggerated, IMO. The number of cruisers(including old designs, like the Aten and Fenris) could exceed 100, but the corvettes can't be that common.
You also have to consider that, according to the Aeolus' and Deimos' tech descriptions, Terrans will be focusing their efforts on building corvettes rather than cruisers. The Vasudans, however, will presumably keep building Mentu-class cruisers after Capella;
2) There's more than one destroyer in a fleet(battle groups might have only one, though), we know that from certain canon evidence - the NTF had something like 10 destroyers but they surely didn't have 10 or so fleets. Koth's flagship was the Repulse, but we also know of a second destroyer - the Normandy. There could have been a third destroyer that fell under the hands of the GTVA as soon as NTF forces in Epsilon Pegasi surrendered;
-
I don't think the GTVA would have the number of fighters or bombers specified (several hundred thousand?). Seeing as an Ursa reportedly costs as much as a small moon, I doubt the GTVA would have money to construct the equivalent of several hundred thousand small moons. ;)
I think they'd have quite a few thousand, but not in the quantities you're talking of...
-
Wrong. "Quite a few thousand" is not a good estimate at all.
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.
Please note that the Bakha is not supposed to be the most common GTVA spacecraft - it's not even supposed to be the most common Vasudan bomber.
Imagine how many Apollo, Anubis, Seth, Hercules, and so on fighters have been produced. That's more than only "a few thousand". :nod:
-
There wouldn't be that many Ursas though.
And fighters are probably much cheaper than bombers.
-
That many Ursae? Probably not, but their number would still be quite high.
I doubt fighters are "much cheaper" than bombers. They're smaller, but they may make use of advanced systems. I think the Perseus(not sure about this one), the Pegasus, the Ptah and the Ares might be more expensive than average bombers.
-
But an Anubis would be much cheaper.
Definitely. None of these 'advanced systems' which you speak of :P
Also, I don't think the Perseus would be more expensive than an Erinyes.
-
I doubt fighters are "much cheaper" than bombers. They're smaller, but they may make use of advanced systems. I think the Perseus(not sure about this one) might be more expensive than average bombers.
I highly doubt that one since after the Perseus is introduced into the FS2 campaign, it becomes quite a standard fighter.
-
I wonder how many Ares fighters there are. I don't think the number is anywhere near 300.
-
I'd think that they are a relatively new class of fighter introduced to the GTVA so they haven't been mass produced yet or they are simply too expensive to produce in massive numbers.
-
Rather than build more advanced fighters and bombers, why don't they build ten times as many Apollos and anubi
-
Rather than build more advanced fighters and bombers, why don't they build ten times as many Apollos and anubi
Pilots
are expensive to train, and too dear to lose in numbers that large.
-
Rather than build more advanced fighters and bombers, why don't they build ten times as many Apollos and anubi
A good pilot is inevitably as or more expensive then a good fighter.
-
I thought a good pilot was priceless.
-
I always assumed fleets had about 4-5 destroyers, 4-5 corvettes and about 6-8 cruisers.
There are 10 destroyers named in the NTF fleet, and I assume there are way more.
3 systems + other defections from other systems + captured/newly commissioned ships = 20 destroyers?
There are 11 corvettes in the NTF listed.
I seriously doubt we saw every single ship the NTF has.
-
For GTA I'd think something like 6 fleets:
4 Destroyers
every destroyer has 2 corvettes, every corvette 2 cruisers
That gives us
24 Destroyers
48 corvettes
96 cruisers
and helluva fighters
Actually, we could multiply it by two
-
Uhm...
4-5 destroyers, 4-5 corvettes and about 6-8 cruisers is not a good estimate at all. Fleets probably have half the number of destroyers you wrote, about twice the number of corvettes and more than thrice the number of cruisers.
As you said, the NTF had at least 10 destroyers...but 20 is probably an exaggerate estimate.
-
Uhm...
4-5 destroyers, 4-5 corvettes and about 6-8 cruisers is not a good estimate at all. Fleets probably have half the number of destroyers you wrote, about twice the number of corvettes and more than thrice the number of cruisers.
As you said, the NTF had at least 10 destroyers...but 20 is probably an exaggerate estimate.
So we saw every single one?
In the entire 18 month span, destoyers either never were destroyed (oi!) or were replaced at exactly the same speed?
-
Hence he said 'AT LEAST' 10.
-
But 20 is way out there?
So... 14? 15 if we're gonna be wild?
There are probably 60 destroyers (GTVA and NTF) in known space.
I think the fact that it's so easy to blow them up almost requires there be more than a dozen in the NTF
-
We can't post a random number greater than 10 and pretend it to be a believable one. 11-12 may be too low, 14-15 may work, 20 is probably a bit exaggerate...but none of this estimations is 100% reliable.
-
We can't post a random number greater than 10 and pretend it to be a believable one.
Anything above 10 is unbelievable? Really?
11-12 may be too low, 14-15 may work, 20 is probably a bit exaggerate...but none of this estimations is 100% reliable.[/mobius]
Based on what reasoning? No one has said any numbers given are hard and fast.
How do you reach these number of corvettes and cruisers?
-
Anything above 10 is too generic. You wrote more specific numbers, like 14-15 and 20, which aren't believable. We don't know how many ships the NTF had because 1) the rebellion started 18 months before the beginning of FS2 and 2) we have no clue on the number of NTF destroyers that surrendered in Epsilon Pegasi(probably), Deneb(probably) and at the end of the rebellion(probably).
My question is: is it really necessary to discuss the number of ships with so poor canon info about the matter? We'll get to nowhere.
-
Anything above 10 is too generic. You wrote more specific numbers, like 14-15 and 20, which aren't believable. We don't know how many ships the NTF had because 1) the rebellion started 18 months before the beginning of FS2 and 2) we have no clue on the number of NTF destroyers that surrendered in Epsilon Pegasi(probably), Deneb(probably) and at the end of the rebellion(probably).
My question is: is it really necessary to discuss the number of ships with so poor canon info about the matter? We'll get to nowhere.
Yes, because general outlines help give general hints to other campaigns and concepts without nailing down pat 100% accurate numbers.
If people want to make campaigns or missions that are "believable" in the FS universe, it's a good idea.
If someone makes a campaign with 9000 destroyers, you'd call him a raving lunatic. There is nothing wrong with going "well what would be an appropriate number?"
Also, I find it kind of odd you've been discussing the numbers of ships "with so poor canon info" in this thread, so why stop now?
-
Quite frankly, I don't understand how discussing the number of destroyers, corvettes and cruisers present in T-V space would affect the creation of a well planned campaign. As far as I'm concerned, no campaigns are supposed to feature ALL the ships the NTF or GTVA(or any other faction) had.
Campaigns are usually centered around a single destroyer and its attending ships as they fight their enemy. The number of ships a campaign creator should place depends on balance and plausibility more than anything else.
-
Quite frankly, I don't understand how discussing the number of destroyers, corvettes and cruisers present in T-V space would affect the creation of a well planned campaign. As far as I'm concerned, no campaigns are supposed to feature ALL the ships the NTF or GTVA(or any other faction) had.
So if I make a campaign with 80 destroyers per fleet during the NTF rebellion... cool? Cause I'm not gonna show all of them?
Campaigns are usually centered around a single destroyer and its attending ships as they fight their enemy. The number of ships a campaign creator should place depends on balance and plausibility more than anything else.
Plausibility... as if.... what would be a normal number of ships per fleet. Can't see why we would want to know that.
-
Everyone knows that 80 destroyers are too much...your examples are becoming quite silly, IMO.
What I mean is that a well planned campaign that doesn't exaggerate in terms of number can be developed without discussing the exact number of ships per fleet or per faction.
-
Everyone knows that 80 destroyers are too much...your examples are becoming quite silly, IMO.
So we can dismiss silly claims because they're not plausible, but a discussion into what those plausible numbers would be is... a waste of time?
What I mean is that a well planned campaign that doesn't exaggerate in terms of number can be developed without discussing the exact number of ships per fleet or per faction.
How can you exaggerate something that you say doesn't need a definition?
-
All we need is to make things work as they should. We all know that fleets with 80 destroyers are impossible.
Missions can be created without any apparent connection to the numbers you're looking for. There's a destroyer, cruiser or corvette involved in some mission and encounters some resistance. That's it, unless you want to turn Briefings and/or Command Briefings into fleet lists.
In the main FreeSpace campaigns there are no lists nor specific references to the number of assets each battle group/fleet had. Yet still, the missions worked fine. They're the most important thing.
-
All we need is to make things work as they should.
What?
We all know that fleets with 80 destroyers are impossible.
Why? What part is impossible?
Do you have canon evidence that says how many destroyers are in a fleet? Or do you have numbers saying how many destroyers exist?
Or do you mean it's not plausible? Great, so let's talk about what IS plausible?
Missions can be created without any apparent connection to the numbers you're looking for. There's a destroyer, cruiser or corvette involved in some mission and encounters some resistance. That's it, unless you want to turn Briefings and/or Command Briefings into fleet lists.
I'm making a campaign dealing with the NTF. To me, the number of ships in any fleet in systems is a fairly important idea. To me, the idea of how many ships would reasonably exist in a system's fleet is important to setting up reasonable numbers of battles, reinforcements, depots, things like that.
In the main FreeSpace campaigns there are no lists nor specific references to the number of assets each battle group/fleet had. Yet still, the missions worked fine. They're the most important thing.
So I can't put in large numbers of ships because it's impossible... but as long as I don't list where they come from it's cool cause that's what FS2 did?
If the only criteria is "the mission works" then I can put in any number I want, right?
-
Think about it this way:
At the start of the rebellion, the NTF had enough warships and fighters to slug it out with the GTVA. However, by The Sixth Wonder, the NTF has resorted to guerilla tactics because they lost many good ships. By Endgame, they only have the Grall, Alexandria and Iceni.
Blue Lion, try using common sense instead of attempting to figure out canon numbers. I assure you that the former will make you feel much more satisfied with your mod instead of trying to figure out canon and sticking to it (because I did that to the Lucifer in TSM-69). Use FS2 canon as a reference, but for the sake of Bosch, don't adhere rigidly to it. Since AG deals with the beginning of the NTF, you should give them enough warships to duel it out with the GTVA and either reach a stalemate or be victorious.
-
Think about it this way:
At the start of the rebellion, the NTF had enough warships and fighters to slug it out with the GTVA. However, by The Sixth Wonder, the NTF has resorted to guerilla tactics because they lost many good ships. By Endgame, they only have the Grall, Alexandria and Iceni.
Blue Lion, try using common sense instead of attempting to figure out canon numbers. I assure you that the former will make you feel much more satisfied with your mod instead of trying to figure out canon and sticking to it (because I did that to the Lucifer in TSM-69). Use FS2 canon as a reference, but for the sake of Bosch, don't adhere rigidly to it. Since AG deals with the beginning of the NTF, you should give them enough warships to duel it out with the GTVA and either reach a stalemate or be victorious.
Canon is the only thing we have. It is the framework that we use to build upon.
There is a FreeSpace universe with facts and lots of holes. I think, and maybe others do, that discussing and perhaps coming to some sort of vague idea about what would be most logical in that universe is not a bad idea.
Would it be canon? no. Would it be required for all campaigns to follow? no.
I think this is a fantastically normal subject to discuss.
-
Canon is the only thing we have. It is the framework that we use to build upon.
There is a FreeSpace universe with facts and lots of holes. I think, and maybe others do, that discussing and perhaps coming to some sort of vague idea about what would be most logical in that universe is not a bad idea.
Would it be canon? no. Would it be required for all campaigns to follow? no.
I think this is a fantastically normal subject to discuss.
The point is that the details of the initial beginning of the NTF is very much unclear so that one can only guess, accurate as it might be, about the actual numbers and events of the eventually confrontation between the NTF and GTVA forces sent to assist.
I agree with AE.
BTW, just adding to AE's post, in AG, there should be an equal number of GTVA and NTF warships since many GTVA battlegroups sent to reinforce the NTF controlled systems would defect outright making a GTVA victory unclear.
-
That's all we can ask for: educated guesses.
It's not amazingly hard.
-
There were 19 876 destroyers, for each destroyer there were an average of 39 corvettes and for each corvette there was an average of 128 cruisers. There were also 17 collosuses. Each destroyer had an average of 99 840 fighters and bombers.
17 colossus
19 876 destroyers
775 164 corvettes
99 220 992 cruisers
1 984 419 840 fighters and bombers.
It's true :nod: I hypothetically made a campaign about it :nod:.
-
That's all we can ask for: educated guesses.
It's not amazingly hard.
Well, since we don't have canon figures, we can only take the closest values, right?
-
There were 19 876 destroyers, for each destroyer there were an average of 39 corvettes and for each corvette there was an average of 128 cruisers. There were also 17 collosuses. Each destroyer had an average of 99 840 fighters and bombers.
17 colossus
19 876 destroyers
775 164 corvettes
99 220 992 cruisers
1 984 419 840 fighters and bombers.
It's true :nod: I hypothetically made a campaign about it :nod:.
You forgot the wings from the Colossi. :lol:
-
At the start of the rebellion, the NTF had enough warships and fighters to slug it out with the GTVA. However, by The Sixth Wonder, the NTF has resorted to guerilla tactics because they lost many good ships. By Endgame, they only have the Grall, Alexandria and Iceni.
Why wouldn't the NTF use guerrilla tactics from the very beginning?
-
At the start of the rebellion, the NTF had enough warships and fighters to slug it out with the GTVA. However, by The Sixth Wonder, the NTF has resorted to guerilla tactics because they lost many good ships. By Endgame, they only have the Grall, Alexandria and Iceni.
Why wouldn't the NTF use guerrilla tactics from the very beginning?
Defined battle lines, large number of supporters, difficulty in sneaking behind enemy lines?
-
Guerrilla tactics can be employed by a very limited number of wings of Lokis. That was doable.
-
I would think the better question would be why doesn't the GTVA employ guerrilla tactics?
-
Can you really employ guerrilla tactics if you don't know if there are friendlies mixed in with the rebels?
-
True...that's a good point. :)
-
Can you really employ guerrilla tactics if you don't know if there are friendlies mixed in with the rebels?
Obviously you wouldn't send friendlies into areas you're about to attack.. guerillaly.
-
Well, it's pretty easy to spot a friendly from a hostile when they have IFF, a big ship has lots of armour to take down (and a lot of talking can be done in the time it takes to blow it up) and can't really be killed accidentally like in ground warfare (eg. bombing large tracks of land)
-
What about fighters and bombers?
-
Well, it's pretty easy to spot a friendly from a hostile when they have IFF, a big ship has lots of armour to take down (and a lot of talking can be done in the time it takes to blow it up) and can't really be killed accidentally like in ground warfare (eg. bombing large tracks of land)
Sudden in-mission defections like Zeta wing in ST:R? :p
-
There's the other problem of traitors being singled out during the battle. Remember Rebels & Renegades? Because Admiral Ahmose attacked the Iceni, Alpha 1 and Snipes had no choice but to defend the Iceni and kill the Vasudan fighters working for the GTVA.
Under the circumstances, we had little choice but to open fire or blow the entire operation.
-
but they were renegades...
-
but they were renegades...
Even so, they were flying the GTVA's flag. Whether they were renegades or not does not really matter, because if the Vasudans did not make an attempt to kill the player and Snipes, both pilots will be killed by the NTF, and if both pilots did not attack the GTVA, they will STILL be killed by the NTF. Hence, the only way that Alpha 1 and Snipes could remain undercover was to act like an NTF pilot at that time and kill the Vasudans attacking the Iceni. If the Vasudans weren't renegades, it'll be almost as bad as Silence All Voices in ST and ST:R, where you had no choice but to kill both the innocent and the guilty.
-
but they were renegades...
Even so, they were flying the GTVA's flag. Whether they were renegades or not does not really matter, because if the Vasudans did not make an attempt to kill the player and Snipes, both pilots will be killed by the NTF, and if both pilots did not attack the GTVA, they will STILL be killed by the NTF. Hence, the only way that Alpha 1 and Snipes could remain undercover was to act like an NTF pilot at that time and kill the Vasudans attacking the Iceni. If the Vasudans weren't renegades, it'll be almost as bad as Silence All Voices in ST and ST:R, where you had no choice but to kill both the innocent and the guilty.
If they weren't renegades they wouldn't have attacked.
-
If they weren't renegades they wouldn't have attacked.
Unless of course there was a massive intelligence sharing blunder.
-
It says in the debrief that Admiral Khamos (Or whatever the hell his name is) knew specifically what was going on.
-
It says in the debrief that Admiral Khamos (Or whatever the hell his name is) knew specifically what was going on.
Ahmose :)
-
It says in the debrief that Admiral Khamos (Or whatever the hell his name is) knew specifically what was going on.
I know, I was just posing a hypothetical situation.
-
Then why bring it up in response to that mission? :confused:
-
Then why bring it up in response to that mission? :confused:
It is a good response
"Have GTVA forces engage in hit and run guerrilla tactics"
"But what about deep cover ops who may get caught in the crossfire?"
It makes you ask if you destroy the deep cover. Would we have learned about ETAK?
-
That's the point. Any deep cover ops caught in the crossfire will typically have only two choices: kill their own, or abort the operation. At that point in time, ETAK was feared to be a weapon of mass destruction (WoMD) by the GTVA, and Snipes' operation may probably be the only good chance that the Alliance has to confirm this fear.
Assuming that ETAK really was a WoMD, and that Ahmose was not a renegade, what would the deep-cover ops do? Will they follow GTVA code and blow the operation, only to have ETAK turned against them later? Or will special ops cover up and kill the members of the Alliance to save everyone else in the GTVA?
-
I've found a interesting note in the command briefing. Petrarch said that 75% of the 6th fleet was destroyed in the surprise attack when the NTF attacked Epsilon Pegasi, and casualties exceeded 80000. If we follow that information, I think it's safe to say that a fleet composes somwhere around 100000~110000 personnel (although the 6th fleet could have been understrength when the attack happened, since a portion of the fleet went with Bosch when he formed the NTF).
I think we can make a reasonable deduction of the fleet size with this information, since we know Destroyers has 10000 crews, and corvettes about the half of that (I'm pretty sure cruisers would be about the half of a corvette considering their size). Below is my guesswork.
2 Destroyers:20000 crew
4 Corvettes: 20000 crew
8 Cruisers: 20000 crew
Around 300 fighters/bombers: Around 1000 pilots including reserve?
Logistical personnel: 40000
We can probably take away or add few corvettes or cruisers, but I think this is a fairly reasonable estimate of the fleet size.
We also know that GTVA has at least 13 fleets and 13 battle groups. If we assume a battle group is about equal size to a fleet, we can deduce that GTVA at the least has a total strength of around 30 destroyers, 100 corvettes, 200 cruisers and 8000 fighters/bombers (probably a lot more fighters and bombers for station defense and such, since Bakha alone had more than 6000 produced)
-
It's not a matter of sizes, only. Destroyers are have command, launch and control capabilities. Corvettes have (I guess) some command capabilities and cruisers are mere warships with very limited command capabilities.
You have to consider parameters like the presence of research teams, marines, pilots, mechanics, scientists,etc. etc. on board a ship.
-
We have some numbers to work with that are canon.
"Out of the 107,000 GTVA operatives based in Epsilon Pegasi, 80,357 are killed during the first phase of the assault. "
Also doesn't Koth mention how many people are on the Repulse?
This won't help us get exact roster numbers, but more plausible numbers of fleets and personnel.
-
I've found a interesting note in the command briefing. Petrarch said that 75% of the 6th fleet was destroyed in the surprise attack when the NTF attacked Epsilon Pegasi, and casualties exceeded 80000. If we follow that information, I think it's safe to say that a fleet composes somwhere around 100000~110000 personnel (although the 6th fleet could have been understrength when the attack happened, since a portion of the fleet went with Bosch when he formed the NTF).
I think we can make a reasonable deduction of the fleet size with this information, since we know Destroyers has 10000 crews, and corvettes about the half of that (I'm pretty sure cruisers would be about the half of a corvette considering their size). Below is my guesswork.
2 Destroyers:20000 crew
4 Corvettes: 20000 crew
8 Cruisers: 20000 crew
Around 300 fighters/bombers: Around 1000 pilots including reserve?
Logistical personnel: 40000
We can probably take away or add few corvettes or cruisers, but I think this is a fairly reasonable estimate of the fleet size.
We also know that GTVA has at least 13 fleets and 13 battle groups. If we assume a battle group is about equal size to a fleet, we can deduce that GTVA at the least has a total strength of around 30 destroyers, 100 corvettes, 200 cruisers and 8000 fighters/bombers (probably a lot more fighters and bombers for station defense and such, since Bakha alone had more than 6000 produced)
That's a pretty reasonable estimate
-
We have some numbers to work with that are canon.
"Out of the 107,000 GTVA operatives based in Epsilon Pegasi, 80,357 are killed during the first phase of the assault."
I added that one to the FS Wiki. Those 107,000 operatives are never mentioned, but I used the power of Mathematics to do the following:
75,1% : 80,357 = 100% : 107,000
The number doesn't have a lot of significance, anyway, because we don't know how many ships the GTVA lost. We don't know how to "distribute" those deaths.
Also doesn't Koth mention how many people are on the Repulse?
This won't help us get exact roster numbers, but more plausible numbers of fleets and personnel.
Koth never said anything about the number of officers serving the NTF aboard the Repulse. It was the CO of the Colossus who said "[...] You're sacrificing ten thousand lives for nothing!".
Which leads us to believe that there are 10,000 crewmen aboard an Orion. Petrarch also mentioned the 10,000 crewmen serving aboard the Aquitaine. Finally, Samsa mentioned the presence of 10,000 crewmen aboard the Carthage.
But that's it, those are destroyers. I don't know if there are any straight references to the number of crewmen serving cruisers, corvettes and installation. We know from Samsa that there are 6,000 Vasudans in a Sobek, but that seems a bit exaggerated. The Vasudans are so much bigger than Terrans and the Sobek is not a large ship. Where are all thouse Vasudans? Not to mention the fact that the Sobek has no launch and such capabilities, so the presence of extre members of the crew is not required.
-
The number doesn't have a lot of significance, anyway, because we don't know how many ships the GTVA lost. We don't know how to "distribute" those deaths.[/mobius]
It tells us how many people would be there in an operation of that size roughly.
Which leads us to believe that there are 10,000 crewmen aboard an Orion. Petrarch also mentioned the 10,000 crewmen serving aboard the Aquitaine. Finally, Samsa mentioned the presence of 10,000 crewmen aboard the Carthage.
Then that helps narrow down the number of destroyers in a system with 100k in it, right? It's a estimation process.
But that's it, those are destroyers. I don't know if there are any straight references to the number of crewmen serving cruisers, corvettes and installation. We know from Samsa that there are 6,000 Vasudans in a Sobek, but that seems a bit exaggerated. The Vasudans are so much bigger than Terrans and the Sobek is not a large ship. Where are all thouse Vasudans? Not to mention the fact that the Sobek has no launch and such capabilities, so the presence of extre members of the crew is not required.
Do we discard canon info we just don't think fits? Unless there is contradictory evidence somewhere, aren't we kind of stuck with it?
Didn't you say we had no idea what resources are on these ships and can't discount things taking up large numbers of people? Or was that someone else.
-
1) Which operation? Already weakened GTVA forces in Epsilon Pegasi have been caught by surprise by the NTF. I don't really understand how they would represent an average GTVA fleet involved in some sort of operation;
2) What do you mean? There probably weren't more than 2 destroyers in Epsilon Pegasi when Koth attacked, and we don't even know if those destroyers have been taken down because no sources mention them.
In other words, that number doesn't help;
3) [Unbelievable/weird canon info is refered to as "inconsistency". I'm not the first one claiming that 6,000 Vasudans in a Sobek may be too much.
I mentioned "resources", but that principle can only be barely applied to corvettes and cruisers. They don't have launch capabilities and they're not supposed to be the center of their fleets - this means that the number of crewmen can't be that high.
I've always considered 800-1,200-1,500 the most probable number of crewmen aboard cruisers because 2,000 may be exaggerated for a ship that lacks the "special" capabilities I mentioned above;
-
1) Which operation? Already weakened GTVA forces in Epsilon Pegasi have been caught by surprise by the NTF. I don't really understand how they would represent an average GTVA fleet involved in some sort of operation;
2) What do you mean? There probably weren't more than 2 destroyers in Epsilon Pegasi when Koth attacked, and we don't even know if those destroyers have been taken down because no sources mention them.
So you're saying that 100k was super super low, they stayed in system and then proceeded to lose 75% of those forces?
3) [Unbelievable/weird canon info is refered to as "inconsistency". I'm not the first one claiming that 6,000 Vasudans in a Sobek may be too much.
I mentioned "resources", but that principle can only be barely applied to corvettes and cruisers. They don't have launch capabilities and they're not supposed to be the center of their fleets - this means that the number of crewmen can't be that high.
I've always considered 800-1,200-1,500 the most probable number of crewmen aboard cruisers because 2,000 may be exaggerated for a ship that lacks the "special" capabilities I mentioned above;
What is it inconsistent with? Other corvettes? Other ships? Are there other ships besides the destroyers with numbers attached to the ships?
-
To be honest, I don't really understand where and how you're going to lead this discussion to.
1) You're completely ignoring the fact that Epsilon Pegasi has been a constested system for 18 months before Koth's attack. This means that, although GTVA forces in the system received supplies at regular intervals, they surely weren't at full strength when Koth attack. That probably was the reason behind Koth's success. In any case, under these circumstances,
Tell me in the most reasonable way how you're supposed to distribute 107,000 souls if you don't even know how many ships and squadrons the GTVA had in the system. All we see is Enif station plus some freighters and transports escaping from it - all other assets are part of the reinforcements arrived later, including the Colossus and the
The Parapet might be part of the originary GTVA force, but the fact that it was guarding the Capella node leads me to believe the corvette wasn't there when Koth attacked - it could have been engaged and destroyed by the NTF. Proof: the Parapet's hull integrity is at 100% in Into the Maelstrom.
2) Vasudans are physically bigger than Terrans - how do you expect two Vasudan corvettes(supposed number = 12,000) to house more souls than a Terran destroyer (known number = 10,000)? Also, as I stated above, corvettes have no launch and such capabilities(things that increase the minimum number of crewmen necessary to keep a ship working).
-
To be honest, I don't really understand where and how you're going to lead this discussion to.
We've never left. Conjecture on numbers in GTVA fleets. Where do you think we went?
1) You're completely ignoring the fact that Epsilon Pegasi has been a constested system for 18 months before Koth's attack. This means that, although GTVA forces in the system received supplies at regular intervals, they surely weren't at full strength when Koth attack. That probably was the reason behind Koth's success. In any case, under these circumstances,
Tell me in the most reasonable way how you're supposed to distribute 107,000 souls if you don't even know how many ships and squadrons the GTVA had in the system. All we see is Enif station plus some freighters and transports escaping from it - all other assets are part of the reinforcements arrived later, including the Colossus and the
The Parapet might be part of the originary GTVA force, but the fact that it was guarding the Capella node leads me to believe the corvette wasn't there when Koth attacked - it could have been engaged and destroyed by the NTF. Proof: the Parapet's hull integrity is at 100% in Into the Maelstrom.
Ignoring what fact? Epsilon Pegasi had to be at least defensible in the slightest or they wouldn't have left 107k people there to defend it. We can probably assume that 107k people is on the very low end of system wide fleet operational numbers. Or are you implying they left a skeleton crew there to get slaughtered?
Don't we have vague ideas on how many people are in an Arcadia due to evacuation missions?
2) Vasudans are physically bigger than Terrans - how do you expect two Vasudan corvettes(supposed number = 12,000) to house more souls than a Terran destroyer (known number = 10,000)? Also, as I stated above, corvettes have no launch and such capabilities(things that increase the minimum number of crewmen necessary to keep a ship working).
How do I expect them to fit? Less room? Less bunks, maybe they sleep standing up. Maybe they sleep at their work stations. Maybe corvettes have more jobs in the Vasudan fleet.
Why is the terran number a known number but the corvette is supposed considering them come from the same source?
-
1) A discussion that might lead to nothing because we lack vital info. That's why your points can't be validated.
2) No and no.
First of all, had Epsilon Pegasi's GTVA forces been at full strength, I hard believe the NTF would have attacked en masse in the first place.
I have no clue on the average number of people serving the Alliance in Arcadia-class installations.
3) You're actually making several assumptions regarding the Vasudans which can't be proved correct or wrong, but shouldn't be mentioned at all in a discussion based on canon sources.
Please note that I don't remember anything about the number of Terran operatives in GTCv Deimos corvettes so my point on the GVCv Sobek is based on other canon sources(namely, the number of operatives in destroyers).
-
1) A discussion that might lead to nothing because we lack vital info. That's why your points can't be validated.
2) No and no.
First of all, had Epsilon Pegasi's GTVA forces been at full strength, I hard believe the NTF would have attacked en masse in the first place.
That's why I said bare minimum for operations. This then implies that a full strength system is way more than that. Those people have to go somewhere.
Why are you having trouble getting this? They're estimates. No one is asking for validation.
I have no clue on the average number of people serving the Alliance in Arcadia-class installations.
Didn't we watch one being evacuated? Wouldn't that give at least somewhat of an idea?
3) You're actually making several assumptions regarding the Vasudans which can't be proved correct or wrong, but shouldn't be mentioned at all in a discussion based on canon sources.
You're dismissing canon sources. You asked me to make guesses on why it could be that way, and then disregard them because they're guesses.
"How do you expect two Vasudan corvettes(supposed number = 12,000) to house more souls than a Terran destroyer (known number = 10,000)?"
Here is the part where you asked by the way. I answered.
Please note that I don't remember anything about the number of Terran operatives in GTCv Deimos corvettes so my point on the GVCv Sobek is based on other canon sources(namely, the number of operatives in destroyers).
Exactly, you have no clue what goes on in a Vasudan Corvette, or even a Diemos. Yet you have no trouble dismissing canon numbers because it doesn't feel right.
We were discussing one thing in this thread: potential numbers of ships in fleets. How on earth you've been in this thread dismissing all other guesses as wrong and at the same time arguing there is no way to know is beyond me.
Either you're willing to make semi educated guesses based on canon information or you're not.
If you want to argue numbers and plausibility, then saddle up. If you can't seem to grasp what point it serves, stop jumping in and telling everyone they're wrong.
-
It should be noted that a Nimitz Supercarrier carries about 3500 people. And that thing is about the size of a TC-TRI container. Having a Sobek be crewed by 6,000 doesn't seem that outlandish.
-
1) The point, Blue Lion, is that we don't have the minimum info necessary to come out with good estimates. Feel free to conduct a research, but you'll get to nothing.
2) Wrong example, wrong example. We have extremely poor info regarding the evacuation of an Arcadia. We see a Triton and an Elysium during The Sixth Wonder, and we've been told during the briefing that "most civilian convoys jumped safely to the Capella jump node".
I'm curious - what kind of estimate are you going to come out with this time? We have absolutely no clue on the number of freighters/transports that escaped from Enif Station. Also, we don't even know how many crewmen do these vessels require as well as the number of passengers they can transfer.
3) Have you ever heard of inconsistencies and plotholes? As I said before, I'm not the first community member to be skeptic about the Sobek's crew. If you're going to accept canon as the word of God even if certain aspects of it don't have sense, it's another matter.
And that's the Sobek, only. I'm waiting for your thoughts on the Deimos, as well as your thoughts on all GTVA cruisers.
4) You're missing the point here. The difference between me and you is the fact that you want to come out with estimates even if we don't have the rights(=read "info") to do so. If we don't have the bare minimum to discuss the subject, how do you pretend to discuss it in the first place?
It should be noted that a Nimitz Supercarrier carries about 3500 people. And that thing is about the size of a TC-TRI container. Having a Sobek be crewed by 6,000 doesn't seem that outlandish.
Please, let's don't get to this. A modern Nimitz and a Sobek from the FS universe? Sorry, but that comparison doesn't work.
Also, did you forget that Vasudans are bigger than Terrans?
-
I'm just saying, let's keep scale in mind here. And it's not like Vasudans are THAT much bigger than Terrans. Is the number a bit high? Maybe, but nowhere near enough to warrant this much concern.
-
You're also forgetting to consider the different technological level, plus the fact that a destroyer has "only" 10,000 crewmembers compared to a corvette's supposed 6,000.
-
1) The point, Blue Lion, is that we don't have the minimum info necessary to come out with good estimates. Feel free to conduct a research, but you'll get to nothing.
What do you consider bare minimum information?
We have lists of ships, we have numbers of crew given to some of those ships. We have numbers of people listed in a system. We've seen large parts of the rebellion. What exactly do you need for "minimum" information that ISN'T a duty roster?
2) Wrong example, wrong example. We have extremely poor info regarding the evacuation of an Arcadia. We see a Triton and an Elysium during The Sixth Wonder, and we've been told during the briefing that "most civilian convoys jumped safely to the Capella jump node".
I'm curious - what kind of estimate are you going to come out with this time? We have absolutely no clue on the number of freighters/transports that escaped from Enif Station. Also, we don't even know how many crewmen do these vessels require as well as the number of passengers they can transfer.
Actually, I wasn't talking about The Sixth Wonder.
3) Have you ever heard of inconsistencies and plotholes? As I said before, I'm not the first community member to be skeptic about the Sobek's crew. If you're going to accept canon as the word of God even if certain aspects of it don't have sense, it's another matter.
And that's the Sobek, only. I'm waiting for your thoughts on the Deimos, as well as your thoughts on all GTVA cruisers.
Actually, you haven't asked my opinions on any ship numbers.
But what I really like is how you try to chew me out for not having bare minimum information about it, but that same bare minimum gives you the option to be a skeptic about the Sobek.
Where are you getting your information that tells you it's not plausible?
4) You're missing the point here. The difference between me and you is the fact that you want to come out with estimates even if we don't have the rights(=read "info") to do so. If we don't have the bare minimum to discuss the subject, how do you pretend to discuss it in the first place?
I do have info. I know how many are on a Sobek and destroyer. I know those are the biggest ships (normally) in the fleet. It isn't TOO big a stretch to consider that a ship so many times smaller than another ship probably has roughly the same decrease in crew.
The best part is when someone comes up with a number, you shoot it down. You just said you have no idea what they are, how do you know they aren't right?
-
Please, let's don't get to this. A modern Nimitz and a Sobek from the FS universe? Sorry, but that comparison doesn't work.
Also, did you forget that Vasudans are bigger than Terrans?
Actually, the comparison works completely. Of course they're in different universes, but a ship of any sort in any semi-plausible universe is going to share the same basic concerns. You need room for the physical engines and drive systems. You need room for weaponry and ammunition. You need room for all of the logistical and operational stations and structures. You need crew quarters. You need crew support structures. And yet with all of that in place, a Nimitz-class carrier manages to contain 3,500 crew members. Is it any stretch to say that something like a Sobek or Deimos, which encompass substantially more volume, couldn't in turn hold substantially larger crews?
And a Vasudan is all of, what, a few feet taller than a Terran? That's essentially inconsequential.
-
Also, when you look into the exponential increase in power between a Corvette and a Destroyer, it stands to reason that many of the systems take up much, much more space inside the hull, leaving less room for crew. Also, maybe Destroyers have certain high-end automation technology which is too expensive to put in the more numerous Corvettes. This is only speculation, but I figure what the hell, since your entire argument is based on nothing but, it can't hurt.
Above all, keep in mind that, on the Sci-Fi Scale of Hardness, FS is exceedingly "soft." Yeah, it's a damn good setting and story, but with all the liberties it takes you should take plausibility (especially regarding technology) with a grain of salt, so long as suspension of disbelief isn't compromised.
-
What do you consider bare minimum information?
We have lists of ships, we have numbers of crew given to some of those ships. We have numbers of people listed in a system. We've seen large parts of the rebellion. What exactly do you need for "minimum" information that ISN'T a duty roster?
That's not enough.
I really want to know what your "lists of ships" look like. Only a very limited portion of the total roster is known to the player, and that portion isn't even part of a single faction. I fail to understand how it could be useful.
Find a canon list of ships and spacecraft serving one of the GTVA fleets and I may reconsider my opinion.
Actually, you haven't asked my opinions on any ship numbers.
But what I really like is how you try to chew me out for not having bare minimum information about it, but that same bare minimum gives you the option to be a skeptic about the Sobek.
Where are you getting your information that tells you it's not plausible?
Because I don't understand how two Sobek corvettes are supposed to have more crewmembers than an Orion or Hecate destroyer. That just doesn't make sense.
I remember people agreeing on this a while ago - why did everything change, all of a sudden? :wtf:
I do have info. I know how many are on a Sobek and destroyer. I know those are the biggest ships (normally) in the fleet. It isn't TOO big a stretch to consider that a ship so many times smaller than another ship probably has roughly the same decrease in crew.
That's what you know...now, here's what you don't know:
1) The number of crewmen aboard the Hatshepsut/Typhon and the Deimos. All you have is the crewnumber of two different kinds of warships of two different species. In other words, you have nothing to base valid estimates on.
2) We don't have any fleet shiplists. Not even one. We don't know the destroyer:corvette:cruiser ratio in FreeSpace, just to give an example. We don't even know how many GTVA spacecraft are in circulation...
The best part is when someone comes up with a number, you shoot it down. You just said you have no idea what they are, how do you know they aren't right?
It's a coherent option, because you can't give out numbers so easily. Had not been for the Bakha's description the estimated number of GTVA spacraft would be 10 to 100 times smaller - this clearly points out how poor and shattered canon sources on the matter are.
You can't give out numbers other than the crewnumber of destroyers(acceptable) and the crewnumber of Sobek corvettes(debatable).
Actually, the comparison works completely. Of course they're in different universes, but a ship of any sort in any semi-plausible universe is going to share the same basic concerns. You need room for the physical engines and drive systems. You need room for weaponry and ammunition. You need room for all of the logistical and operational stations and structures. You need crew quarters. You need crew support structures. And yet with all of that in place, a Nimitz-class carrier manages to contain 3,500 crew members. Is it any stretch to say that something like a Sobek or Deimos, which encompass substantially more volume, couldn't in turn hold substantially larger crews?
You should then explain my why the crewnumber of destroyers is "so low", then. If corvettes have 6,000 sould and even lack some of the capabilities destroyers have, why woud destroyers have 10,000 souls, only? And why would the Colossus have 30,000 souls, only?
Speaking of destroyers, I recall four canon sources in canon:
1) Souls on the Aquitaine: 10,000 - from Admiral Petrarch and Commander Habu;
2) Souls on the Carthage: 10,000 - from Lt. Samsa;
3) Souls on the Repulse: 10,000 - from the Colossus' CO;
We have only one source about corvettes:
1) Souls on the Dahshor: 6,000 - from Lt. Samsa
We have only one source regarding corvettes, which may be a canon inconsistency. Discussing that instead of mentioning the Nimitz is more thread-wise.
And a Vasudan is all of, what, a few feet taller than a Terran? That's essentially inconsequential.
That has some importance in a 3D environment, because the Vasudans might need about 10-15% more space than Terrans. Being taller can make the difference if there several dozen "floors"(probably not the most appropriate term, but it gives an impression of what I mean) in the warship's structure.
Also, when you look into the exponential increase in power between a Corvette and a Destroyer, it stands to reason that many of the systems take up much, much more space inside the hull, leaving less room for crew.
That's absolutely wrong - look at the Deimos, the space occupied by engines considerable compared to the whole ship. The same principle is also applied, to some extent, to the Sobek. That's something you should really consider.
Also, maybe Destroyers have certain high-end automation technology which is too expensive to put in the more numerous Corvettes. This is only speculation, but I figure what the hell, since your entire argument is based on nothing but, it can't hurt.
Speculation? Yeah...but canon sources can prove it wrong:
"Admiral Petrarch reports that his gunners destroyed the Urobach and all but one of the fighter wings."
Please note that the Aquitaine was a Hecate, new state of the art destroyer. If a Hecate has no automation technologies like turrets, then no other ship in the GTVA arsenal should.
-
If one cow is named "Bessie," then it stands to reason that all cows are named "Bessie." This is an example of the logic you are employing. Just because one system isn't automated is no reason to assume none of the others are. Take a logic and reasoning course, it's good for you.
Of course the weapons targeting isn'tt automated. No machine will ever have the discretion and prioritizing ability of a human being, and I doubt gunners will ever be robots. What is probably automated, however, is all the mechanical shenanigans which occur between when the gunner presses the big red button and when the shot is actually fired. When I said "automation" I mean auto-repair systems and maintenance subsystems to give the engineers an easier time of things. With a ship that huge, they'd practically be a necessity, what with the sheer number of components and microsystems involved. While all ships definitely have these, it's not absurd to propose that maybe Destroyers make much heavier use of them for the aforementioned reasons.
In addition to all this, the Sobek in reality has rather small engines. And the Deimos, engines taken out of the picture, is still a hell of a lot bigger than a Sobek anyway, and we have basically no information regarding the size of a Deimos's crew. I actually have no clue what point you were trying to make with that example.
And I reiterate my comment about FS2's relative SciFi Softness which you oh-so-conveniently ignored.
-
That's not enough.
I really want to know what your "lists of ships" look like. Only a very limited portion of the total roster is known to the player, and that portion isn't even part of a single faction. I fail to understand how it could be useful.
Find a canon list of ships and spacecraft serving one of the GTVA fleets and I may reconsider my opinion.
You want a canon list of how many ships are in a fleet.... so we can speculate on how many ships are in a fleet? Are you just being obtuse on purpose?
You still haven't told me what you consider bare minimum to begin speculation on ship numbers and crew sizes.
Because I don't understand how two Sobek corvettes are supposed to have more crewmembers than an Orion or Hecate destroyer. That just doesn't make sense.
I remember people agreeing on this a while ago - why did everything change, all of a sudden? :wtf:
Waaaaaait a minute. You say there was consensus.... on a non canon idea. In fact, an idea that directly contradicts canon?
What evidence led to this consensus? I would like to see it.
You can't come up with reasons why these ships would have this level of crew, but if someone comes up with potential reasons, you dismiss them as non-canon?
Why can a consensus be reached that a Sobek should have less than 6000 crew but speculation can't be done on the crew of say... an Aeolus?
The only difference is one has a specific crew number listed, which you disregard as "supposed".
That's what you know...now, here's what you don't know:
1) The number of crewmen aboard the Hatshepsut/Typhon and the Deimos. All you have is the crewnumber of two different kinds of warships of two different species. In other words, you have nothing to base valid estimates on.
That's why we're guessing. You can't see how a person could reasonable guess on the crew of a Vasudan destroyer based on the crew of a Sobek AND Orion? Really? Those would be the two ships I would consider most important in coming up with a guess.
2) We don't have any fleet shiplists. Not even one. We don't know the destroyer:corvette:cruiser ratio in FreeSpace, just to give an example. We don't even know how many GTVA spacecraft are in circulation...
What is the purpose of this thread? Educated guessing on supposed numbers of ships in fleets.
You're telling us we don't have canon info on topics we're speculating on? Duh! It's why we're talking about it!
It's a coherent option, because you can't give out numbers so easily. Had not been for the Bakha's description the estimated number of GTVA spacraft would be 10 to 100 times smaller - this clearly points out how poor and shattered canon sources on the matter are.
You can't give out numbers other than the crewnumber of destroyers(acceptable) and the crewnumber of Sobek corvettes(debatable).
Why? Why are we not allowed to guess?
Am I going to get in trouble if I say I think a Deimos probably has about 6500 crewmembers?
You seem to say we can't speculate, but you yourself speculate (and even say we reached a consensus) about the canon inconstancy of a Sobek based on nothing but speculation. You have no evidence that says 6000 is too many. That's complete guesswork on your part.
-
Speculation? Yeah...but canon sources can prove it wrong:
"Admiral Petrarch reports that his gunners destroyed the Urobach and all but one of the fighter wings."
Please note that the Aquitaine was a Hecate, new state of the art destroyer. If a Hecate has no automation technologies like turrets, then no other ship in the GTVA arsenal should.
That could be 3 guys with joysticks. You have no idea what those gunners do.
-
We have only one source regarding corvettes, which may be a canon inconsistency.
If there is only one source, how can there be an inconsistency? :nervous:
Find a canon list of ships and spacecraft serving one of the GTVA fleets and I may reconsider my opinion
Or you could just go away and let us have fun arguing. :D
That's absolutely wrong - look at the Deimos, the space occupied by engines considerable compared to the whole ship. The same principle is also applied, to some extent, to the Sobek. That's something you should really consider.
We only see external components of the engines. There is NO WAY to figure how far they go into, or at all.
Had not been for the Bakha's description the estimated number of GTVA spacraft would be 10 to 100 times smaller - this clearly points out how poor and shattered canon sources on the matter are.
Or we could *gasp* take the canon at face value, and not try to dismiss it because you don't like it. I seem to recall you having another issue with canon and "ret-cons" a few months ago. If you think it's wrong, oh well. Go ahead and have an opinion.
If one cow is named "Bessie," then it stands to reason that all cows are named "Bessie."
:lol:
You should then explain my why the crewnumber of destroyers is "so low"
Ummm... we already did before you posted this. The automation reduces the need for personnel. More mundane and manual jobs are done by automation.
-
Speculation? Yeah...but canon sources can prove it wrong:
"Admiral Petrarch reports that his gunners destroyed the Urobach and all but one of the fighter wings."
Please note that the Aquitaine was a Hecate, new state of the art destroyer. If a Hecate has no automation technologies like turrets, then no other ship in the GTVA arsenal should.
That could be 3 guys with joysticks. You have no idea what those gunners do.
That sounds more like a LAN :wakka:
-
For all we know their gunnery rooms could look like game rooms. :yes:
-
That would be insanely funny. I can just imagine the place when they're off duty, hooking the screens up to their NextBoxes or whatever the hell they'll be called in the 2300s and desperately hiding them when the CO comes past to check on "Progress" :lol:
-
I imagine the "bridge" woudl be mulit-monitored madness with one kickass control stick in the middle. o_o
Anyways, it seems most of you have missed the fact that Vasudans are aliens, and how they would go about their lives is a complete mystery to us. They could live in beehive like structures, which would same a lot of space.
-
Is it any stretch to say that something like a Sobek or Deimos, which encompass substantially more volume, couldn't in turn hold substantially larger crews?
No, but the question is - what does that crew do?
A carrier like Nimitzs needs that much crew and we know why. Pilots usually fly in shifts - ergo a carrier would usually carry 2 if not 3 times more pilots than it has craft on board. Some of the craft are 2-seaters.
so for a Destroyer that normally carries 120-150 combat spacecraft, we have a MINIMUM of 300 pilots. Next we need flight crew...of which you again need quite a few to service the airplanes. and they also work in shifts.
All in all, just on aircraft you'd need A MINIMUM of 1000 people. Note that the Nimitz, with around 80 aircraft, has 2800 personnel listed as pilots and flight crew.
The basic ships crew is roughly 3000 people. For the Enterprise the numbers are 3215/2480. Kitty Hawk 2930/1782 Forrestal - 2900/2279
So a little less than half the ships crew is just there for the aircraft.
So assuming a similar distribution, roughly 4000 crew on a FS destroyer would be there just for the aircraft.
In comparison, crews for combat warships are drasticly smaller - 1500 for the Iowa battleship, which is almost as big as an aircraft carrier. Between 300-100 for other US ships, raging from cruisers to frigates and destroyers.
It leaves me to wonder what do the 6000 on the corvette actually do?
It only has 30 turrets or so, so there's not that much to mantain or control (Iowa has over 100).
So that leaves me to think wether that corvette was a good representative of the standard number. Maybe it was ferrying troops or scientists or refugees?
Given that a corvette is roughly twice the length of the Iowa (ergo, it has more than twice the volume) I can see it having more (around 3000).
But I just don't see what the 6000 would be doing.
And since we're at the matter of fleet numbers, knowing the number of people in the fleet and the number of people on the biggest ship, it's not a stretch to be able to come up with a reasonable fleet estimate. Simple logic dictates that there are more cruisers than corvettes in a fleet and more destroyers than corvettes.
A fleet is highly unlikely to have more than 2 destroyers, given how important they are and how costly and big.
-
Very, very good point, TrashMan. He said pretty much what I would have posted had not I noticed his post.
The others are making major and debatable assumptions on the GTVA's technology and on the Vasudans - we can't base a canon-based discussion on such assumptions. Feel free to add whatever you want in your campaign, but don't bring this kind of discussions to canon.
We don't have the knowledge(in terms of FS universe) to even estimate crewnumbers and fleet lists - how do you expect to come out with estimates? The Sobek's matter has also proved to be some sort of plothole, and that's 50% of the known knowledge of crewnumbers(with the other 50% being the number of Terrans in destroyers).
-
We don't have the knowledge(in terms of FS universe) to even estimate crewnumbers and fleet lists - how do you expect to come out with estimates?
Exactly why he brought it here. Now we can WAG (Wild A$$ Guess) away to our heart's content and have fun arguing.
-
It leaves me to wonder what do the 6000 on the corvette actually do?
[/quote]
well, what about reserve crew to replace casualties? a ship like that would probably lose to lose quite a few people after a volley of beam fire, or several torpedos. I'm sure that having a cyclops torpedo exploding right by a gunnery crew's ear is bound to cause some fatalities.
or...
I'm pretty sure that you've all seen the hall fight video from FS1. the shivans totally wasted the terrans. maybe the vasudans were being cautious and packing extra marines just in case the shivans wanted to share the love of plasma cannons and energy swords? after all, the corvette we got the crew numbers for was going to respond to the shivans warm welcome in gamma draconis.
-
Very, very good point, TrashMan. He said pretty much what I would have posted had not I noticed his post.
The others are making major and debatable assumptions on the GTVA's technology and on the Vasudans - we can't base a canon-based discussion on such assumptions. Feel free to add whatever you want in your campaign, but don't bring this kind of discussions to canon.
We don't have the knowledge(in terms of FS universe) to even estimate crewnumbers and fleet lists - how do you expect to come out with estimates? The Sobek's matter has also proved to be some sort of plothole, and that's 50% of the known knowledge of crewnumbers(with the other 50% being the number of Terrans in destroyers).
Isn't that what he just did in his entire post? Granted, I think it's a plausible and well thought out reason, but how is his speculation any better?
-
Very, very good point, TrashMan. He said pretty much what I would have posted had not I noticed his post.
The others are making major and debatable assumptions on the GTVA's technology and on the Vasudans - we can't base a canon-based discussion on such assumptions. Feel free to add whatever you want in your campaign, but don't bring this kind of discussions to canon.
We don't have the knowledge(in terms of FS universe) to even estimate crewnumbers and fleet lists - how do you expect to come out with estimates? The Sobek's matter has also proved to be some sort of plothole, and that's 50% of the known knowledge of crewnumbers(with the other 50% being the number of Terrans in destroyers).
Isn't that what he just did in his entire post? Granted, I think it's a plausible and well thought out reason, but how is his speculation any better?
T-Man used known facts about RL Carriers and applied them to the FS Universe, it's better than pulling facts out of one's ass.
-
Probably there is a certain number of non-essential crew that are necessary for a ship to work at full capacity.
A corvette has that, plus a few more to maintain non-essential systems.
A destroyer has that, plus a lot more to maintain non-essential systems.
Makes sense?
-
Not really... lol
-
Yeah. BS is my specialty.
-
We're probably forgetting the eventual presence of marines inside warships. They're needed in case of boarding.
-
Very, very good point, TrashMan. He said pretty much what I would have posted had not I noticed his post.
The others are making major and debatable assumptions on the GTVA's technology and on the Vasudans - we can't base a canon-based discussion on such assumptions. Feel free to add whatever your mom's mom want in your mom's mom's campaign, but don't bring this kind of discussions to canon.
We don't have the knowledge(in terms of FS universe) to even estimate crewnumbers and fleet lists - how do your mom's mom expect to come out with estimates? The Sobek's matter has also proved to be some sort of plothole, and that's 50% of the known knowledge of crewnumbers(with the other 50% being the number of Terrans in destroyers).
Isn't that what he just did in his entire post? Granted, I think it's a plausible and well thought out reason, but how is his speculation any better?
T-Man used known facts about RL Carriers and applied them to the FS Universe, it's better than pulling facts out of one's ass.
Wait, he took a ship from our time that floats on water and compares it to a ship in the future that floats in space and says we should essentially copy paste the roster minus the flight crew?
How many people run life support on the aircraft carriers to produce oxygen or keep it from decompressing all over?
-
Arent ppl here underestimating the total number of destroyers available to the GTVA at the time of the beginning of the FS campaign ? I mean we already know they lost a few of them . Also 2 or even 3 destroyers per fleet is not such a uber number when you consider the location and responsabilaties of the fleet/battlegroup . I mean a front line fleet/battle group would in all logic have a higher number of warships then a fleet that guards for example Delta Serpentis.
As for the other numbers i tend to agree actualy . I just think the total number of destroyers available should be about 40 or so . Its not such a high number in fact its a bit low in my personal opinion .
Also do not forget that a ship is put in storage or mothball because they dont want it gone . They want it there in case they need to refit and reequip them for some emergency.
Im sure the GTVA has surpluss storage facilatties that house cruisers corvettes or even destroyers especialy the Orion class which we know was almost phased out.
Also do we know how they went about it with the phasing out of the Orion ? Or the vasudan counterpart ? I mean we know that most of the vasudan destroyers had to be retired from active service and that the Hattie was put as a replacement in the end. However did the Hattie made it out in enough numbers as to fill in all the gaps left out by the predecessor? The same goes for the Hecate.
I suspect that the vasudans were a bit late with the Hattie and that is why we see a LOT of Sobek's out there in missions that would perhaps be better suited for a destroyer.
I mean IMO the war with the shivans couldn't have come at a worse time . They were involved in a full fledged civil war. They were in the process of reequipping the fleets .
IMO a par time solution would be to bring back in service the old Orion's they have in storage. refit them and push them back on the fleets. It it a stop gap solution i know. But even so an Orion is a formidable weapon is used properly. Much more lethal and intimidating in many ways when compared to the Hecate perhaps.
As for the Sobek i can only say this :"keep them coming " they are very lethal and effective .
As for the numbers of crew available. Well i do believe that some ships may have permanent crew's that get time of when the ship gets in for maintenance and such every year or so. but i believe most ships have crews in a rotating sistem. a few months a year perhaps then some time off.
Also we must remember that there are replacements for lost crew in battles and such.
The one thing the GTVA seemed to be lacking is experienced pilots .
That and enough Erynyes and terran maras :P
-
Wait, he took a ship from our time that floats on water and compares it to a ship in the future that floats in space and says we should essentially copy paste the roster minus the flight crew?
How many people run life support on the aircraft carriers to produce oxygen or keep it from decompressing all over?
We have subs too. And we have rockets, a shuttle and space stations to use too.
If you want to take that into account, then the crew numbers become even LESS, since subs are double-hulled (and space warships will probably be too), so hte usable internal volume decreases.
Not to mention that subs by default have smaller crews than naval ships of comparable size.
I really don't see how you think space ships will have more crew, given that there will probably be more automation in the future.
Exactly what is there to do that wasn't yet accounted for?
-
We have subs too. And we have rockets, a shuttle and space stations to use too.
If you want to take that into account, then the crew numbers become even LESS, since subs are double-hulled (and space warships will probably be too), so hte usable internal volume decreases.
Not to mention that subs by default have smaller crews than naval ships of comparable size.
I really don't see how you think space ships will have more crew, given that there will probably be more automation in the future.
Exactly what is there to do that wasn't yet accounted for?
Not many subs take the beatings ships in FS2 do. I would dare say there would be tons more damage control people in these ships.
As for why there could be so many? They could have crews running 8 hour shifts. Every job could have 4 guys. We don't know how long they stay out of port.
It's not that I disagree with your line of thought (I think it's pretty spot on as a way to gauge crews). It was fact that Mobius jumped on your post with such glee.
You're speculating just like everyone else. You don't know what they do on those ships any more than we do.
Any guessing you do, whether based on current crews on naval vessels or assigning crews based on how many letters are in the ships names, is all speculation. No one has implied we weren't guessing.
Some people , like myself, like to shoot the breeze about what it could be. Mobius has spent this entire thread telling us there is no way to know for sure AND we're all wrong (I dunno how he knows this, he just does).
I'm just curious about it. If he thinks our guesswork is a waste of time, why is he even in here grading our guesses (mine, yours, everyone's)?
-
Find a canon list of ships and spacecraft serving one of the GTVA fleets and I may reconsider my opinion
Or you could just go away and let us have fun arguing. :D
:D
-
Not many subs take the beatings ships in FS2 do. I would dare say there would be tons more damage control people in these ships.
Probably.
But that also means FS2 ships have a lot thicker hulls and more armor...again, less volume.
As for why there could be so many? They could have crews running 8 hour shifts. Every job could have 4 guys. We don't know how long they stay out of port.
Given canon travel times, serving a destroyer is similar to serving on a naval warship. Actually, I'd say it's less stressfull.
GTVA ships are apparently able to go from one end of GTVA space to the other within days.
I do very much doubt that they have 4 shifts. Not very efficient. Not to mention it's not economicly sound.
-
Economics don't really matter in a war zone. To keep a ship at high alert for an almost indefinite period, multiple shifts are essential.
-
Economics don't really matter in a war zone. To keep a ship at high alert for an almost indefinite period, multiple shifts are essential.
Or lots of stims as BSG taught us
-
Given canon travel times, serving a destroyer is similar to serving on a naval warship. Actually, I'd say it's less stressfull.
GTVA ships are apparently able to go from one end of GTVA space to the other within days.
I do very much doubt that they have 4 shifts. Not very efficient. Not to mention it's not economicly sound.
That was more hyperbole. I could see ships have a double/triple crew however.
-
Economics don't really matter in a war zone. To keep a ship at high alert for an almost indefinite period, multiple shifts are essential.
Economics always matter, but keeping your warships at high efficiency is also very important.
-
Rewording a little: Economics take the back-seat in a war zone.
-
I thought there was a "money no object" option.
-
Economics don't really matter in a war zone. To keep a ship at high alert for an almost indefinite period, multiple shifts are essential.
Give me any sane reason why would ships in the future have more crew shifts than ships have now?
It obviously works quite fine as it is.
And I beg to differ, in war, economics are very important. The side with better economy and industry usually wins.
-
Rather than build more advanced fighters and bombers, why don't they build ten times as many Apollos and anubi
Likely because it would be a pain to have to train ten times the number of pilots and expect the same level of performance from the pilots...
-
Not to mention that the concept of "horde" may be outdated at the time of FreeSpace. Factions should rely more on good training and cutting edge technologies, the numbers aren't that important.
-
Quality training means better pilots, higher survivability rates and lower maintenance and production costs with the disadvantage of fewer numbers. Still, it's three to one, so there is no contest.
-
Destroyers have relatively limited carrier capabilities, meaning that if you have only 400 or so spacecraft to protect a fleet(and carry out strikes) they necessarily have to be good at it.
At this point, I guess that the training levels of regular GTVA forces(spacecraft based on planets, regular soldiers, etc. etc.) aren't comparable to those of the "Navy".
-
Well, keep in mind that a wing of four to eight elite fighters can more or less defend a destroyer from anything. That leaves the other 100+ pilots to do whatever they want. :wtf:
-
Well, keep in mind that a wing of four to eight elite fighters can more or less defend a destroyer from anything. That leaves the other 100+ pilots to do whatever they want. :wtf:
Err, no. 8 fighters isn't enough to defend a destroyer unless they have unlimited respawns and they're all SquadWar homies.
-
Well, in the main FS2 campaign, 8 fighters are often all that is there to defend a destroyer >.>
-
Well, in the main FS2 campaign, 8 fighters are often all that is there to defend a destroyer >.>
In fact, my walkthrough for Dunkerque is based off the fact that Delta wing defended the GTD Messana from all Shivan bombers. On Very Easy. :nervous:
-
Well...
Colossus wields more firepower than 5 Orion-class destroyers combined xD
And it is more than most of the battlegroups wield:D So, we have to have about 50-60 Orion's to withstand it.[we've got, well, 13 battlegroups]. OK, 40 Orions. We can call it whole fleet, I think. Whole fleet has got firepower about 40-60 Orions combined, am I wrong?
-
Kobrar i didnt get anithing that you said could you please rephrase that ??
-
Sorry.
I'll try to explain it. I don't speak english very well. I'm not even... Never mind:D
OK.
We've got 13 battlegroups. Clear?
We know that Colossus wields more firepower than 5 Orion class destroyers combined. Clear? Colossus cutscene.
From techroom we know that Colossus wields more firepower than most of the battlegroups. That means 1 battlegroup =< 5 Orions.
that means 13 battlegroups=<65 Orions.
Clear?
That means 13 battlegroups can wield more firepower than 50 Orions[it's less than 65, so it can be correct]
Clear?
Do you understand now?
-
It seems the entire FS campaign was centered around the 3rd fleet in Capella, and they were responsible for eliminating the NTF, or at least had the firepower to do it. By the end of the campaign, Petrarch talks about the Fleet being 'decimated.' So its probably safe to assume the Aquitaine was the sole surviving destroyer. There were several Orions still in the 3rd fleet and 2 known Hecates.. the Aquitaine and the Phonecia. Keep in mind that Admiral Bosche was the Admiral of an enitre Terran fleet, so assuming the whole fleet rebelled along with him, the entire size of the NTF might be a good indication as to the typical size of a Terran fleet. The NTF however, would be using all available assets including mothbolled destroyers and older fighters.
-
It's safe to assume that the NTF is roughly about 2 fleets. Seeing as 3 fleets (and maybe a smattering from adjacent systems) rebelled, and probably not everyone liked that idea, there was probably not 3 full fleets.
-
Petrarch talks about the Fleet being 'decimated.' So its probably safe to assume the Aquitaine was the sole surviving destroyer.
decimated = reduced by 10%.
-
Petrarch talks about the Fleet being 'decimated.' So its probably safe to assume the Aquitaine was the sole surviving destroyer.
decimated = reduced by 10%.
Only in the classical sense.
-
dec·i·mate (ds-mt)
tr.v. dec·i·mat·ed, dec·i·mat·ing, dec·i·mates
1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group).
2. Usage Problem
a. To inflict great destruction or damage on: The fawns decimated my rose bushes.
b. To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust fund.
3. To select by lot and kill one in every ten of.
Decimate can mean pretty much any number. So your guess is as good as mine...
-
Petrarch talks about the Fleet being 'decimated.' So its probably safe to assume the Aquitaine was the sole surviving destroyer.
decimated = reduced by 10%.
In Pertrarch's vocab anyway :lol:
-
Decimated can both mean "completely destroyed/killed" and "almost completely destroyed/killed". The variety of the term is the result of the fact that, sometimes, there virtually is no difference between one meaning and the other.
Writing what dictionaries intend by "decimating" may be a bit pointless giving the various meaning of the verb. It's the writer's mind that really counts, not what the majority of the population thinks.
-
Petrarch talks about the Fleet being 'decimated.' So its probably safe to assume the Aquitaine was the sole surviving destroyer.
decimated = reduced by 10%.
In modern usage, more like 90%.
-
Or in simpler terms:
:beamz:
-
Petrarch talks about the Fleet being 'decimated.' So its probably safe to assume the Aquitaine was the sole surviving destroyer.
decimated = reduced by 10%.
Alternatively 'Reduced to 10%'.
Which is what I've always taken it as.
-
Or in simpler terms:
:beamz:
:yes:
-
It still doesn't give us any numbers. It could be 50% it could be 70% it could be 80% or 90%.
We just don't know.
-
It still doesn't give us any numbers. It could be 50% it could be 70% it could be 80% or 90%.
We just don't know.
Well it's safe to say it's a number that hurt the GTVA to some extent.
-
I think its safe to say the writers didn't mean that the Fleet had been decimated by 10%.
-
Modern usage (however incorrect) usually means more than 10%
-
Am I stupid? :doubt: I mean I have the feeling like the GTA and PVN had more ships in the Great war, than the GTVA in the time of FS 2. Is that so? I mean it could be! Lots of ships were destroyed, unusual and disabled. So even, the GTVA had to change their productions of fleets and stuff. Imposible Uncorrect
-
A fighting force cand be decimated even if it suffers just 30% losses ! It all depends on where the losses were taken and in what manner. I mean if those 30% represent most of the crews and such or fighterpilots and crews then youre screwed your combat potential has been reduced to less then half.
It all depends on what or rather how the term is used .
For example if you have 1.000 people servicing 10 planes but out of the 10 planes 8 are destroyed but the service crew or men are still there they are of no use therefore your have been decimated even if youre losses are just 8 people.
The same goes the other way around. If you have a destroyer that has what 10.000 people on it but durint the battle 8.000 get killed or injured then you sir can cosnsider your forces decimated. Its a bunch of things that work toghether and depend on the situation.
Petrarch could of been referring that the force the GTVA used to engage the shivans was reduiced in a dramatic manner and therefore it was not able to put even a dent in the enemy. However such a force is in most cases less then half the total force available to you. Even at 40% force projection and 60% losses of the 40% you were still kicked hard in the nuts and you have to fall back to lick your wounds.
-
Let's not turn this thread into word games...
It doesn't matter what "decimated" means in that context, other than the fact that the fleet took a beating by the end of the incurson. Why wouldn't it have? The shivans came back even stronger than before now, plus the civil war experienced by the GTVA before that time, plus the fact that they could still be repairing from the Great War.
-
The fact is they were rebuilding after the Great War. I mean designs such as the Deimos,Hattie and Hecate were still being introduced to the fleets while the older classes were phased out when new models were becoming available.
One proof of that is the fact that the Deimos and Sobek were supposed to replace ALL existing cruiser classes and become the backbone of the GTVA armed forces. Yet we know they still had loads of cruisers left . The Sobek did have a head start being built a lot sooner then the Deimos.
The Hattie on the other hand i believe it was younger then the Hecate .
Also lets not forget the fighter designs and bomber designs that were still in process of testing at the time of the second shivan invasion.
So yeah they were about in the middle of all of it.
-
I thought a good pilot was priceless.
Producing an Anubis - 100 credits.
Producing an Apollo - 500 credits.
Producing an Erinyes - 3500 credits.
Finding three ace pilots to fly them - priceless.
-
Producing an Anubis - 100 credits.
Producing an Apollo - 500 credits.
Producing an Erinyes - 3500 credits.
Finding Alpha 1 to fly them - priceless.
Fix0red.
-
For everything else, there's ship-guardian-threshold.
-
Judging from the numbers I saw in game as I progressed through the campaign I always imagined the GTVA fleet numbering somewhere around about 300-400 warships, and maybe a couple thousand fighter/bombers at most. To me the GTVA fleet isn't very big. Look at this cost of the average GTVA warship undoubtedly in the billions of credits. Assuming 1 credit is similar to 1 US dollar constructing a large warship such as the GTD Aquitaine would be similar to the US outputting a super carrier. If that thing gets destroyed it would be a great loss. The GTVA Colossus would have sucked up immense money and resources taking up to 20 years to construct and if you look at the size of Terran-Vasudan holdings (number of systems) a fleet of 300 ships would be about correct. Mind you I didn't add the number of ships that defected to the NTF nor were loss to the Shivans in their initial attack before entering the Nebula. So during the Second Incursion the numbers may be closer to 200 and maybe just over a 1000 fighters/bombers. And I have to crunch the numbers but for game and role playing purposes a more realistic estimate is four ships to every system bringing the number of warships to around 80. But the average GTVA fleet is definitely larger then four warships so in the end I have no idea.
During the Great War the combined strength of the two races should be much smaller when the Shivans arrived with the Lucifer fleet the Terrans and Vasudans were engaged in a 14 year long war so it's safe to assume that a vast majority of their fleet was destroyed in that war. Freespace 1 openly admits by the time the two races signed a cease fire to combat the Shivans that both militaries were financially, militarily, and mentally drained and that both governments were nearly on the verge of collapse.
So in the end my estimate is:
14 Year War: Terrans - Around 30 warships, perhaps several dozen fighter/bombers. Vasudans - 25 warships, perhaps several dozen fighter/bombers (reason for smaller numbers is because the Vasudan paraliament is known for it's Byzantine practices and gross inefficiency so that contributes to things to.)
Great War: At outbreak similar to 14 Year War estimates. At conclusion - Both races probably have a little more then a dozen warships, unknown number of small craft definitely more then a few dozen though not by much.
Reconstruction - Unknown. Both races underwent massive reforms some of which were definitely aimed at the military... Needs more info for a meaningful estimate.
NTF Rebellion - Military might of both species is for all intents and purposes combined. GTVA warships probably around 150, over 1000 fighter/bombers (this estimate assumes the NTF Rebellion split the military's numbers clean in half.
Second Incursion - Around 100 ships, over 1000 fighter/bombers.
Ground forces --
The GTVA ground forces probably consists of a combined army/marine corp that is separated from the navy though there is definitely marines onboard warships as can be seen in the Terran flight deck screen representing the GTD Aquitaine. Considering the Security Council sent in 500,000 marines just to take Cygnus Prime from the NTF which is one fight amongst dozens. And considering the GTVA didn't seem to have too much trouble protecting it's planets from ground attacks. Estimating the number of soldiers you'd need to comfortably hold about two dozen systems, and provide yourself with field armies for foreign deployment as well as local defense armies. I'd say the GTVA army is around about 15-20 million strong.
-
There is a possible inconsistency with the number of ground troops, though. The GTVA decided to evacuate Capella after only 100 000 casualties.
Oh, and...
/me fires a BABeam.
(http://v4belg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p0D5khEhyPmr8oknCuRm8YiivAso3WZ8tlzzvdPQfvNqBHww7tq1L0Bo5OqorliLo6WwwIOgWTOAeSX6bNhv0Lg/WelcomeAncient.png)
-
Blatant disagree with T-V numbers. Operation Thresher yielded 500 pilot casualties at the beginning of FS1, WAY more than a few dozen ships. And remember, the GTA still has other fleets, and traditionally, the GTA/GTVA never engages more than 2-3 fleets in a specific conflict, for all we know there could've been a load of ships waiting in other systems as part of other fleets which would've formed the reserve. In FS2 the GTVA had dozens of fleets, yet only the 3rd and 4th Terran Fleets were deployed against the NTF and the Nebula and the 13th Vasudan Battle Group, the local forces, yet the GTVA held back the rest of their fleets, that's my evidence for you.
As referring to the fleets engaged with the Shivans in the GW, I'd probably agree with you, but fighters man, waaaaaaay more. Did you see the CBanim at the beginning of FS2, look at all the squadrons based on the Bastion in the Great War, that surpasses your few dozen fighters already. Post-Reconstruction you've done a better job IMO, sounds realistic, the combined power of three fleets/battlegroups.
-
Even if the GTVA had a massive fleet it couldn't deploy more than a certain number of warships to a contested system - the logistics would be a serious problem. Resupplying and coordinating large groups would be very difficult... in other words, even if you have who knows how many fleets, you can't fill a system with them.
Apparently, only the Shivans can do that. To some degree.
-
Is it any stretch to say that something like a Sobek or Deimos, which encompass substantially more volume, couldn't in turn hold substantially larger crews?
No, but the question is - what does that crew do?
A carrier like Nimitzs needs that much crew and we know why. Pilots usually fly in shifts - ergo a carrier would usually carry 2 if not 3 times more pilots than it has craft on board. Some of the craft are 2-seaters.
so for a Destroyer that normally carries 120-150 combat spacecraft, we have a MINIMUM of 300 pilots. Next we need flight crew...of which you again need quite a few to service the airplanes. and they also work in shifts.
All in all, just on aircraft you'd need A MINIMUM of 1000 people. Note that the Nimitz, with around 80 aircraft, has 2800 personnel listed as pilots and flight crew.
The basic ships crew is roughly 3000 people. For the Enterprise the numbers are 3215/2480. Kitty Hawk 2930/1782 Forrestal - 2900/2279
So a little less than half the ships crew is just there for the aircraft.
So assuming a similar distribution, roughly 4000 crew on a FS destroyer would be there just for the aircraft.
In comparison, crews for combat warships are drasticly smaller - 1500 for the Iowa battleship, which is almost as big as an aircraft carrier. Between 300-100 for other US ships, raging from cruisers to frigates and destroyers.
It leaves me to wonder what do the 6000 on the corvette actually do?
It only has 30 turrets or so, so there's not that much to mantain or control (Iowa has over 100).
So that leaves me to think wether that corvette was a good representative of the standard number. Maybe it was ferrying troops or scientists or refugees?
Given that a corvette is roughly twice the length of the Iowa (ergo, it has more than twice the volume) I can see it having more (around 3000).
But I just don't see what the 6000 would be doing.
And since we're at the matter of fleet numbers, knowing the number of people in the fleet and the number of people on the biggest ship, it's not a stretch to be able to come up with a reasonable fleet estimate. Simple logic dictates that there are more cruisers than corvettes in a fleet and more destroyers than corvettes.
A fleet is highly unlikely to have more than 2 destroyers, given how important they are and how costly and big.
a carrier would not have 2 to 3 times as many pilots as planes for 2 reasons:
1: each pilot has their own plane - look at any deck photo and the pilots name is on the plane
2: each pilot costs millions to train - there isn't the money to put 200-300 pilots on each carrier.
A modern US navy destroyer has about 220 crew, a tico class cruiser has about 300.
My guess would be as follows:-
3-4 destroyers
6-8 corvettes
10-12 cruisers
per fleet
we can suppose that there is more than one destroyer per fleet by the cut scene in retail where the orion and sobek jump to deal with the shivans - tBTVA are not going to leave a system without a destroyer in the middle of this rebellion
This doesn't include ships used to guard installations etc - mostly Leviathan class cruisers, the other thing we don't know is how many fleets there are :confused:
An iowa may have had over 100 turrets - but they all had to be loaded by hand - something that i dare say has been sorted by 2367
-
I'm afraid your assumptions about pilots are a big bogus.
First of all, you don't know how expensive training a pilot is. Also, looks like you completely missed the point in presence of a destroyer in a given system or sector... destroyers have 10,000 crewmen, why would 200-300 pilots make the difference?
It has been discussed how ships need reserves so that their effectiveness isn't compromised following a fierce attack. What if pilots come back to the destroyer wounded? I hard believe no one would be ready to replace them. Don't forget that some pilots might be sharing the same spacecraft - in theory, an old Angel could have been used by fighters pilots and by recon pilots. Same for the Lokis used by the NTF, which served multiple purposes.
Not to mention new equipment - whenever a destroyer gets a shipment of new spacecraft, the pilots to fly them are already there. The 64th Raptors was already on the Aquitaine when the destroyer received a complement of Artemis bombers.
Finally, there's a bad proportion in your average fleet arrangement. 3-4 destroyers, 6-8 corvette and 10-12 cruisers? Although the number of cruisers may work to some extent, the number of destroyers is insanely high and the number of corvettes is out of proportion.
-
Since pilots in FS2 can decide their ship some times, I would say pilots aren't assigned a ship really.
-
That can get really impractical if a pilot is disabled for non-combat reasons, or if the mission calls for a different set of parameters (or get a new pilot). I don't really get it, aside from bomber crews of the olden days naming the bombers. Now it doesn't really warrant it.
-
I'm afraid your assumptions about pilots are a big bogus.
First of all, you don't know how expensive training a pilot is. Also, looks like you completely missed the point in presence of a destroyer in a given system or sector... destroyers have 10,000 crewmen, why would 200-300 pilots make the difference?
It has been discussed how ships need reserves so that their effectiveness isn't compromised following a fierce attack. What if pilots come back to the destroyer wounded? I hard believe no one would be ready to replace them. Don't forget that some pilots might be sharing the same spacecraft - in theory, an old Angel could have been used by fighters pilots and by recon pilots. Same for the Lokis used by the NTF, which served multiple purposes.
Not to mention new equipment - whenever a destroyer gets a shipment of new spacecraft, the pilots to fly them are already there. The 64th Raptors was already on the Aquitaine when the destroyer received a complement of Artemis bombers.
Finally, there's a bad proportion in your average fleet arrangement. 3-4 destroyers, 6-8 corvette and 10-12 cruisers? Although the number of cruisers may work to some extent, the number of destroyers is insanely high and the number of corvettes is out of proportion.
My comments were made in response to somebody dragging the us navy carriers into this discussion and are thus not bogus.
It costs £10m to train an RAF pilot to combat readiness as stated here:- http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0015.html ( can't find a cost for a us navy pilot but when i do i'll edit the post.)
Pilots do have there own airplanes as shown here:- http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=70267 look below the cockpit and you will see the pilots name and rank
I do get the point of a destroyer showing up in system - its like a US carrier turning up in a trouble spot today - they take the matter seriously, its called gunboat diplomacy - send in something small and see what happens - if get gets smacked about call in progressively bigger and more ships until the situation is resolved, navies have been doing it for centuries.
Wartime reserves are mobilised then posted to their ship - they are not there all the time
My estimate of a fleet size was only a guess just like everybody elses here but i don't appreciate your "insanely high" comment - last time someone posted 3-4 destoyers you went uhm - perhaps you need to relax and chillout - this is supposed to be a light hearted discussion :nod:
-
I like the carrier metaphor. People tend to get upset about the 'small scale' of Freespace battles, with a few dozen fighters at most, or a bare wing of fighters defending a destroyer -- but that's larger than most air engagements today, which generally involve at most a few pairs of aircraft.
-
NathanP: Simulators are advanced enough in FreeSpace to significantly reduce the amount of money needed to train pilots.
-
I claim [Citation Needed].
-
Simulators do most part of the job.
Are you aware of how much money spent to traing pilots is used for fuel? Effective simulators significantly reduce the number of "real " flights.
-
Unless the simulators are ungodly expensive.
As usual, it's all speculation, and you can basically come up with whatever answers you want.
-
Simulators are a standard issue.
Also, they can't be more expensive than fuel, missiles, fighters, cruisers and so on. You need to blow stuff up in training missions, and it's expensive. It happens in Real Life as well - pilots do test their skills by using weapons.
It may be speculation, but you need damn good proof to prove that wrong. How can a simulator be less convenient than actual field training? If it's not convenient, what's the point in having a simulator in the first place? :wtf:
-
Pilots do have there own airplanes as shown here:- http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=70267 look below the cockpit and you will see the pilots name and rank
This is a common misconception. Though the names are painted on the planes, the planes remain interchangeable (as they should be). It is actually a rare flight when the average pilot flies the plane with his name on it.
-
In FS2 I can pick from a number of ships. Do I have one of each of those with my name on it? I doubt it.
-
Simulators are a standard issue.
Also, they can't be more expensive than fuel, missiles, fighters, cruisers and so on. You need to blow stuff up in training missions, and it's expensive. It happens in Real Life as well - pilots do test their skills by using weapons.
It may be speculation, but you need damn good proof to prove that wrong. How can a simulator be less convenient than actual field training? If it's not convenient, what's the point in having a simulator in the first place? :wtf:
I, personally, agree that good simulators would make flight training easier and cheaper, but the Tevs probably do as much live flight training as we do (for much the same reasons), and in any case, if you want expensive pilots for your campaign, it seems justifiable as well.
-
I remember hereing something somewhere where they spend millions of dollars transporting old aircraft around, fitting them with expensive remote control technology, moving them around some more, before finally sending all those millions and millions of dollars worth of an aircraft to the US where it is blown up by a pilot in training.
-
I, personally, agree that good simulators would make flight training easier and cheaper, but the Tevs probably do as much live flight training as we do (for much the same reasons), and in any case, if you want expensive pilots for your campaign, it seems justifiable as well.
Yet again, you're throwing in stuff like "your campaign" even if we're discussing canon here.
Back on topic, there definitely are field training missions at the time of FS2, but probably not that many. Advanced simulators can, in fact, simulate whatever it's needed to get sufficiently close to reality.
Imagine how devastating an interception mission can be without a simulator.
-
I, personally, agree that good simulators would make flight training easier and cheaper, but the Tevs probably do as much live flight training as we do (for much the same reasons), and in any case, if you want expensive pilots for your campaign, it seems justifiable as well.
Yet again, you're throwing in stuff like "your campaign" even if we're discussing canon here.
Back on topic, there definitely are field training missions at the time of FS2, but probably not that many. Advanced simulators can, in fact, simulate whatever it's needed to get sufficiently close to reality.
My point is that you can interpret canon however you want for your campaign, and if that includes pointing out that pilots are expensive and rare, then go for it.
Here, case in point. Let's take your assertion that simulators are realistic. Well, can they simulate G-forces realistically? You could say 'yes, sure, the GTVA has artificial gravity.' Or, 'no, the artificial gravity units are too large for an individual simulator system.'
So here's a case where you could make arguments both for and against the need for in-cockpit training.
Imagine how devastating an interception mission can be without a simulator.
What?
-
You don't need artificial gravity to simulate G-forces. Even now it's possible to simulate them (in a somewhat limited way).
-
You don't need artificial gravity to simulate G-forces. Even now it's possible to simulate them (in a somewhat limited way).
You can, but it's not easy and it's not responsive, and it's not done in most simulators.
-
Here, case in point. Let's take your assertion that simulators are realistic. Well, can they simulate G-forces realistically? You could say 'yes, sure, the GTVA has artificial gravity.' Or, 'no, the artificial gravity units are too large for an individual simulator system.'
Because the GTVA has no gravitic weapons, I tend to think their form of artificial gravity is under technical limitations that would render this impractical.
However, I think Mobius is operating under a false conception here. The training missions you undertake in FS2 are shipboard simulator because they take place under very different circumstances from those in FS1.
FS1's training missions took a place in a system that was more or less secured, and the situation was not urgent. The GTA had just taken terrible pilot losses and the Galatea was probably integrating a lot of rookies into her fightercraft complement, and a lot of new fightercraft too, so they were taking their time and had a lot of factory-new fighters that needed to be checked out and a lot of new pilots who needed to be checked out on them, as well as a group of veterans who needed a chance to gain confidence in their new wingmen. Simulators cannot impart confidence the way actual flight can, and Galatea's large group of rookies needed that confidence...and possibly extra live-flight training considering the 14 years of war tends to wreck the pre-line-assignment training schedule.
FS2's training missions take place in a situation of some urgency; the Aquitaine is on its way to lead a GTVA counterattack against the NTF. The destroyer has not been commited to combat recently and has a rate of pilot turnover more approximating peacetime; few rookies, mainly career pilots. The need of the moment is to fill out the small gaps in the aerospace group roster, not to integrate it; it already is integrated. The war has been going on for eighteen months, which means that even if training programs were accelerated the day it started Alpha 1 would still only be the graduate of the first or second class of accelerated training, and the need for further in-the-field training is not yet fully appreciated. Live flight training was thus both impractical and (thought to be?) unnecessary.
The GTVA, like any military organization since even crude simulation flying was possible, doubtless prefers real flight time to simulation. It simply wasn't going to happen in FS2 because of exterior factors.
-
I know that FS1's training was actual field training and I also know that before starting any training simulation in FS2 the briefing states that sims aren't intended to replace field training.
Yet still, claiming that training pilots at the time of FS2 is so expensive compared to the rest is a bit bogus as assumption. Remember that we have factions building kilometers-long ships.
-
Yet still, claiming that training pilots at the time of FS2 is so expensive compared to the rest is a bit bogus as assumption. Remember that we have factions building kilometers-long ships.
Which is terribly easy to do since the assembly is being done in zero gravity and these ships live in zero gravity. Not a meaningful comparison.
-
Well, one thing is sure. There aren't ever any actual field training missions with a supernova.
-
To answer the debate on number of pilots vs fighter craft. I have always felt, and something the History Channel has confirmed, that both pilots and fighters present on a ship have reserves. Because of the need to maintain combat effectiveness it is common for spare pilots and fighters to be kept onboard a ship for purposes of re-constituting a fighting force after a fierce battle. If the battle never comes then they may be transferred to where they are needed, but in the case of the GTVA I can't see them doing this too much in FS1 as they never had a dedicated frontline to hold. They were constantly on the move backward. In either case I would imagine a GTVA ship fresh out of dry dock with a full compliment of crew, pilots, and fighter craft being equivalent to 1.5 times the full compliment this means you have your full compliment of pilots and craft and a 50% reserve of both in case the bantha poo hits the fan. The 50% reserve regardless is vitally important if a ship, say the GVD Psamtik, got into a intense battle and had no reserves then after the fight was over she'd be without the means to defend herself with fighter and bomber craft this means her flak guns better be auto hitting because she gonna go down without the support. It also means if the Psamtik during the fight was to suffer a unforseen tactical maneuver on the part of the enemy she'd be without bombers and fighters to cover so she'd be one slow, big fast ass waiting to be destroyed... Obviously the cost to produce one Hatshepsut class destroyer far outweights it's compliment of fighters and bombers. Both crew and vessel wise. So I think the GTVA would be very happy to keep reserves on hand for those.... "In case sith happens" times.
-
But if you have 50% reserves for both pilots and craft.... Isn't that exactly the same as having a 50% larger fighter complement? Really, what battle is going to be so fierce that they lost all their fighters, but not fierce enough to scramble the reserves?
-
A battle with the Shivans, probably, and if Command deems it as a total washout, they probably won't order any reserve fighters to be sortied for all battles.
-
But if you have 50% reserves for both pilots and craft.... Isn't that exactly the same as having a 50% larger fighter complement? Really, what battle is going to be so fierce that they lost all their fighters, but not fierce enough to scramble the reserves?
Kinda depends on the scale, but in any case I'd have to say harassment raids against minor targets. Effective in the long term plan but if all fighters were neutralized by escort, it wouldn't be worth deploying more reinforcements.
I doubt that Command would deploy all their reserve fighters immediately unless for a really important reason . . . similar to what AE said. :nod:
-
Anyone whose undertaken any kind of Defence Force sponsored/run Leadership training will know that one thing they stress to you is the importance of using your reserves as reserves, rather than as a compliment to your fighting force, I see it as extremely unlikely forces on "Reserve duty" would be deployed regularly, after all we don't know if active squadrons are rotated to reserve squadrons to give them a rest during the war.
-
I think each squadron has enough pilots to conduct rotations within each squadron itself. However, if a squadron has too few pilots, it is probably put into reserve, and only when it has sufficient numbers of skilled pilots is it brought out of reserve.
-
However, if a squadron has too few pilots, it is probably put into reserve, and only when it has sufficient numbers of skilled pilots is it brought out of reserve.
That probably explains why most reinforcement wings deployed in canon campaigns are only composed of 2 or 3 fighters or bombers. ;)