Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Kie99 on March 07, 2005, 05:19:34 am
-
Not solely in head to head but as general purpose warships. Which would be more likely to survive a Juggernaut-less war against the GTVA?
-
Ravana, no doubt whatsoever.
-
Why? The Demon has a stronger hull (160000 hitpoints), the same weapons (2 Lreds and an Sred), and can attack ships coming at it from any direction apart from the back.
The Ravana, however can only attack ships in front of it (unless that SRed on the pylon can attack the sides, even so its only got the same power as a Cain's beam.) and has a weaker hull.(100000 Hitpoints)
IMO the difference in strength between the Ravana and Demon is similar to the difference between the Orion and Hecate. The old ship is better than the new one.
P.S. I sense another argument between me and Aldo
-
It all depends on the positioning.
If the Demon can get out of the forward firing arc of the Ravana, the Demon will have no problems. If the Ravana can get the Demon in its sights, the Ravana will eat the Demon for lunch.
-
Not solely in head to head but as general purpose warships
-
I agree with kv1at3485 in here; they are pretty equal warships, and whichever wins will greatly depend upon the situtiation they are in, and what sort of fightercover they have. Like any destroyer, they need fighters and bombers to help them.
-
The demon is a much less capable anti-fighter/bomber ship. While the ravana has some big holes in its screen too its alot better.
And aren't the Ravanas hitpoints only 80,000?
I'd still have to go with her.
-
80, 000 HP = Deimos
90, 000 HP = Iceni
100, 000 HP = Ravana, Orion, Hecate.
160, 000 HP = Demon
135, 000 HP = Hatshepsut
120, 000 HP = Typhon
400, 000 HP = Hades
800, 000 HP = Lucifer
1, 000, 000 HP = Colossus, Sathanas, Knossos
I checked the Tables again
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Not solely in head to head but as general purpose warships. Which would be more likely to survive a Juggernaut-less war against the GTVA?
Purely on stats, or taking into account actual fighting?
Stats-wise, they're about equal. Demon has stronger hull and larger fire cones, but the Ravana has vast firepower to use on it's target, giving a very quick kill.
In an actual strategic situation, however, the Ravana wins hands-down. The Shivans are always the aggressor, so they attack far more than they defend. The Ravana is one of the most lethal offensive vessels in the game (comes behind only the Sath and maybe the Colossus) - there is nothing that can defeat a Ravana from a defensive position other than the Colossus (an Orion might get lucky if it destroys enough turrets on it's first volley, but it's unlikely), so the Ravana has to be the better option. I personally prefer the Demon in terms of design, but it suffers compared to FS2 Shivan ships due to bad turret placement and poor AAA cover.
EDIT: And you've got your stats wrong. The Typhon has 120,000 hitpoints, and the Hatshepsut has 135,000.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Why? The Demon has a stronger hull (160000 hitpoints), the same weapons (2 Lreds and an Sred), and can attack ships coming at it from any direction apart from the back.
The Ravana, however can only attack ships in front of it (unless that SRed on the pylon can attack the sides, even so its only got the same power as a Cain's beam.) and has a weaker hull.(100000 Hitpoints)
IMO the difference in strength between the Ravana and Demon is similar to the difference between the Orion and Hecate. The old ship is better than the new one.
P.S. I sense another argument between me and Aldo
Because the GTVA seemed more scared of the Ravana in the nebula than it was of any Demon class destroyer. It tore several ships into shreds prior to that mission, IIRC.
That and..... well, just look at the thing - it's ****ing evil looking! You could stab people with it... or open tin cans.
-
Ravana is far deadlier than the Demon (against fighters/bombers also), while mantaining the Demon's fighterbay... what's the doubt?
-
The question is "What would be more likely to survive the 2nd Great war if Juggernauts and Lucifers were not involved?" And I think the Demon would because it has better armour.
Sure the Ravana can kill a Destroyer in about 5 minutes if its facing it head on, but how often do you see the GTVA fighting their enemy with a craft of equal power(apart from with fighters)?
The GTVA would know not to send a destroyer against the Ravana because it would get fried, they would send a corvette, on one of its 3 blind sides, with some bombers and fighter cover (like in Slaying Ravana).
If they tried that against a Demon the Corvette would have to get in right behind the Demon to avoid getting slaughtered, and it would take longer to kill it, allowing the demon to deploy more fighters and bombers to kill the corvette and neutralize the bombers.
The over-hyped anti-fighter defences on a ravana can be quickly neutralized by a Harpoon or 2, but it takes longer on a Demon because of the higher hull strength.
Oh yeah and in a war with the GTVA a Demon can take out any GTVA destroyer apart from the Hades, so the head to head stats wouldn't really matter for this debate.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
The question is "What would be more likely to survive the 2nd Great war if Juggernauts and Lucifers were not involved?" And I think the Demon would because it has better armour.
Sure the Ravana can kill a Destroyer in about 5 minutes if its facing it head on, but how often do you see the GTVA fighting their enemy with a craft of equal power(apart from with fighters)?
The GTVA would know not to send a destroyer against the Ravana because it would get fried, they would send a corvette, on one of its 3 blind sides, with some bombers and fighter cover (like in Slaying Ravana).
If they tried that against a Demon the Corvette would have to get in right behind the Demon to avoid getting slaughtered, and it would take longer to kill it, allowing the demon to deploy more fighters and bombers to kill the corvette and neutralize the bombers.
The over-hyped anti-fighter defences on a ravana can be quickly neutralized by a Harpoon or 2, but it takes longer on a Demon because of the higher hull strength.
Oh yeah and in a war with the GTVA a Demon can take out any GTVA destroyer apart from the Hades, so the head to head stats wouldn't really matter for this debate.
You seem to have missed the point. Shivans attack. They don't sit there waiting for you to niftily jump in behind them and kick them in the arse.
-
How often do the GTVA get to pick their fights against the Shivans, though? Of course, the Ravana could just deploy cruisers to protect its own sides, or more fighters (as the Shivans have fighter-carrying cruisers, possibly the Ravanas complement is more free to protect its base rather than perform wide-ranging patrols and escorts)
-
I'd favour the Demon, because you need bomb hits or Trebs to disable its LRed turrets - anything with a Subach can cripple the Ravana's armament if it gets close enough.
-
The GTVA got to pick their fight in Slaying Ravana, the Corvettes jumped in where it couldn't hit them. The Ravana wasn't attacking then and got found out. I didn't see any cruisers being deployed then.
P.S. Could some Admin rename this thread Kietotheworld [edit]and SadisticSid[/edit] Vs. HLP? :p
-
No they didn't. The Actium and Lysander were attacked by the Ravana. The Lysander was lost, and so were numerous other ships, including a destroyer, before Alpha wing successfully attacked it with bombs.
-
Well in Slaying Ravana the Ravana was most definetely on the defensive, I don't think anyone here wouold contest that.
cue contesting of point
-
Well, in the GTVAs attempts to locate that Ravana they lost a corvette, a destroyer, and suffered damage to multiple other warships. It's possible more ships than that were destroyed, too;
[q]This is Lieutenant Samsa. The allied attack against the SD Ravana has deteriorated. We've lost the GTD Delacroix, and the surviving warships in the battle group are damaged. Petrarch is scrambling the 107th to assist. Command will also sortie the GVC Somtus and the GTC Yakiba. Once they cross the subspace portal, we will move them into position.[/q]
(note the 'surviving warships'; implies maybe others were lost)
So it was a very effective defense at the least.....
-
Ravana wins against GTVA. Demons are too easy to disable
-
Ravana!!!
It has better fire power... just try killing it in your bomber in the nebula and then compare that to killing the demon after the Sath has jupped out in the mission whose name i cant remember. Its almost to easy.
Also it has a compareble compliment of fighters and bombers.
Its designed for attack which is more the stratergy used by the SV's and is thus better suited to the race.
Plus the Demon is just fat slow and ugly!
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
80, 000 HP = Deimos
90, 000 HP = Iceni
100, 000 HP = Ravana, Orion, Hecate.
160, 000 HP = Demon
135, 000 HP = Hatshepsut
120, 000 HP = Typhon
400, 000 HP = Hades
800, 000 HP = Lucifer
1, 000, 000 HP = Colossus, Sathanas, Knossos
I checked the Tables again
I thought the Hecate had 120,000 HP :confused:
-
Anh, just checked now, 100000, oh and I find Ravana killing much easier than Demon killing.
-
I personally favor the Demon, for the simple reason that in such a non-juggernaut non-Lucifer situation, the GTVA will simply set up heavy-duty node blockades on the nodes they can use and fire a Meson Bomb down any unstable nodes in the system to keep the Shivans from using those. The Demon can defend itself against a node blockade, but the Ravana is out of luck against those Mjolnirs to its sides.
Also, it has been my experience that the Demon is actually more difficult to attack successfully then the Ravana. (Though neither is particularly difficult.) The Demon has all-around antifighter coverage, and generally more of it. For the purposes of this comparison we will discount the blob turrets as generally ineffective. (I say that because they aren't dangerous enough for me to memorize their placements.)
The Demon has a forward flak gun and missile battery, two missile batteries and a beam for each side amidships, a flak each for the rear left and right, and a flak for the lower stern.
The Ravana has jack-diddly to defend its front against fighter attack (which is another reason it would rapidly lose its main armament), a flak for each side amidships, another flak each for the aft sides, a beam for the lower midships, and a flak for the upper and lower stern.
The Demon would seem to come out ahead, except in terms of stern coverage.
-
Arguably, in a true invasion the Shivans would try to advance so quickly that the GTVA doesn't have time to organize Mjolnir or otherwise blockades. The Shivans seem to concentrate on holding nodes; I'd imagine they'd probably want to grab several systems as quickly as possible - almost blitzkreig style - to the extent that the GTVA couldn't sit back and try and wait them out without sacrificing a vast amount of the population.
EDIT; actually, i wonder if the first Shivan incursion to Gamma Draconis could have been intended for that purpose - or at least to provide a blocking force to stop the GTVA blockading the Knossos node. They didn't achieve that, of course; but possibly they never expected the GTVA keep the node open and advance, but rather to destroy it and shut them off from Capella. Perhaps that caused them to move before they were ready to do so - or is that anthromorphising the Shivans too much?
-
Originally posted by comic
just try killing it in your bomber in the nebula and then compare that to killing the demon after the Sath has jupped out in the mission whose name i cant remember. Its almost to easy.
It's Bearbaiting, and Helios >> Cyclops in all cases.
You try to destroy a Ravana with Helios torps, and it becomes even more of a joke. The only saving grace it has is that it's anti-fighter beams stand a small chance of intercepting the warhead where the Demon is more or less defenseless.
-
Ravana vs. Demon?
Why not just make a mission in FRED and find out. :p
-
Because its not a head to head situation. If you gave me the positioning of the ships in relation to each other then I could tell you the winner in about a minute, but this is about which is a better general perpose warship and has more chance of survival.
-
The Demon is a battlewagon designed to last in the battle and deal with ships on either side as well as infront. Its very dangerous...but not ideal in all situations.
The Ravana is a offensive weapon attacking directly and then retreating. Its not ideal for it to stay in the battle but it can jump in and quickly inflict heavy damage with all weapons at the same time.
The difference between Hecate and Orion are different but nonetheless complementary. The Orion, like the Demon, is a battlewagon designed to get into a fight and last...taking on ships on all sides. The Hecate is designed more as a flagship vessel with better defense than offense. If you're a bomber and you want to destroy a capital ship, the Hecate is much more fearsome than the Orion.
-
The Demon is making a comeback in the poll!
-
I vote Demon
(damned missile batteries)
-
Aesthetically, the compact, angular structure of the Demon makes it look like it would be impossible to kill.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Not solely in head to head but as general purpose warships. Which would be more likely to survive a Juggernaut-less war against the GTVA?
The Demon has better fire coverage and more hitpoints, making it a better warship for anything except frontal assault.
-
Originally posted by comic
Ravana!!!
It has better fire power... just try killing it in your bomber in the nebula and then compare that to killing the demon after the Sath has jupped out in the mission whose name i cant remember. Its almost to easy.
The Boanerges used as the default bomber in "Slaying Ravana" is slow and unmanageable and the available Ursa is even more cumbersome. A Sekhmet flies more like a fighter than a bomber. Bombing the fricking Colossus probably wouldn't be that hard in a Sekhmet.
-
Ravana, definately. If anybody recalls the mission "Their Finest Hour", a Ravana arrived, and did some pretty heavy damage to the Colossus. Sure, the Ravana was destroyed, but that was expected. Plus, the Ravana looks purely evil. While the Demon may have a stronger hull, the Ravana has heavy forward-firepower. If the Ravana is used strategically, then warping in from any point, the enemy would take devastating damage (considering it warped into beam range). It depends really, but I'd go with a Ravana.
-
I have to admit that I voted more on aesthetics/sentimentality than the actual poll criteria. (As a side note related to that, how can anyone call the Ravana "deadly-looking"? Four weak little spikes up front, those red...things hanging out like loose coaxial cables...I always thought it looked fugly. :p Contrast that to the Demon, which looks something like a huge, bloated, just plain evil spider. Think Shelob, but with beam cannons. :D)
As far as usefulness in a war, I'll stick by my vote of Demon. True, the Ravana has the up-front massive firepower; however, as several people have pointed out, its main beams are very easy to take out in a short period of time. After that, it's a sitting duck. In contrast, the Demon has stronger armor, a greater field of fire, and is much more of a hassle for a fighter to go up against.
-
Aesthetically the Ravana is much better than the Demon IMO, it got 2 Big thick spikes and those 2 on top, agreed, the other two near the front are rubbish, but those pipes are just scary.
-
Ravana would win, Demon is two big and think. But the demon is not too far behind either..
-
and can attack ships coming at it from any direction apart from the back.
It also can't hit anything directly in front of it either.
It has better fire power... just try killing it in your bomber in the nebula and then compare that to killing the demon after the Sath has jupped out in the mission whose name i cant remember. Its almost to easy.
The Ravana in that nebula mission would only be able to kill so many ships if they sat right in front of it. The Demon has one less SRed beam, but the weapons are positioned differently.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
It also can't hit anything directly in front of it either.
What are the chances that a 2km long ship will be placed DIRECTLY in front?
ust 1-2° left or right and it can shoot... it has great fire coverage...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
What are the chances that a 2km long ship will be placed DIRECTLY in front?
ust 1-2° left or right and it can shoot... it has great fire coverage...
What are the chances that the Shivans will know their ships best offensive position and maneuver to take advantage?
Quite high, I'd wager.
-
And what are the chances that a GTVA will deploy Trebuchet-armed fighters to destroy the beams.
Quite high I'd wager :p
-
And what are the chances the Shivans would deploy interceptors to intercept the GTVA bombers?
Quite high I'd wager.
Better put the kettle on, this could go on for a while.......
-
And what are the chances that the GTVA would deploy escorts?
Quite High I'd wager.
Regardless, by the time the Ravana's beams were in range they would have been destroyed by Trebuchets. And even if the Ravana jumped in right next to the Hecate/Orion, it would only be able to get a few shots off before the Trebuchet's nerfed it or the Hecate/Orion jumped out.
-
The Ravana has an excellent chance to maul a destroyer whose fighter escort isn't paying attention, or blow up something smaller.
On the other hand, a wing of Perseus fighters armed with Trebs, or even MX-64s, will almost always get through to knock out the beams.
-
Any likely scenario of disarming the beams of the Ravana can too be applied to the Demon...
-
Not really. You need bombs to kill the beams on a Demon. The turrets are much tougher. Even paired Cyclops bombs aren't enough. The Demon can also shoot back, but the Ravana has no antifighter coverage for its beams.
-
Completely exposed and unprotected, unlike the Sathanas where that Flak rips down your shields while you're waiting 30 seconds for your next Helios.
IMO a Demon with a wing of dragons (ph34r) would have a better chance of destroying a Hecate with 4 Herc IIs escort than a Ravana in the same scenario.
-
Well the Ravana's fightercover is alright in most missions, it gives the escorting fighters and the bombers a hell of a run for their money. I dont remember how good the Demons' fighter cover is. Yes the turrets can reach you and the turrets are stronger, i dont think the turrets of the Demon give you much of a run for your money. You can sit there next to a turret 200 m out and bomb it, without much worry of fighters.. IIRC
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
And what are the chances that the GTVA would deploy escorts?
Quite High I'd wager.
Regardless, by the time the Ravana's beams were in range they would have been destroyed by Trebuchets. And even if the Ravana jumped in right next to the Hecate/Orion, it would only be able to get a few shots off before the Trebuchet's nerfed it or the Hecate/Orion jumped out.
That's assuming that a) the Shivans can't do very precise jumps and
b) the GTVA would have Trebuchet armed bombers prepped in the launch-bay or on patrol.
And also c) that the GTVA ship was able to jump out (due to recharge / damage) and that the Shivans wouldn't target the engines to stop them escaping.
Of course, making an enemy withdraw damaged can count as a victory too, if that enemy ship is in a tactically key position; particularly a destroyer, which is responsible for fighter escorts and patrols.
-
*cough*
Perseus wing on CAP with Trebs. I find that highly likely, considering it is, after all, an interceptor, and the Trebuchet is the signature interceptor's missile. It doesn't need a bomber to carry it.
And a Ravana without its beams is in trouble. A Demon can probably still escape, with its heavier armor, but a Ravana probably won't stand up to BGreen hits too well.
Another funny thing I've noticed: Shivan capital ships rarely jump in with escort. They jump in and launch escorts, or they're already in-mission and so are the escorts when you arrive, but they don't jump in with escort fighters deployed already. I suppose that might have been coincidental, though...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's assuming that a) the Shivans can't do very precise jumps
Well I did address that point in the post
even if the Ravana jumped in right next to the Hecate/Orion, it would only be able to get a few shots off before the Trebuchet's nerfed it or the Hecate/Orion jumped out.
[/color]
and
b) the GTVA would have Trebuchet armed bombers prepped in the launch-bay or on patrol.
Even a few Harpoons/Tornadoes along with a Subach can take out the Ravana's beams. Not to mention the fact that most Admirals would insist on an escort with Trebuchets (IMO)
And also c) that the GTVA ship was able to jump out (due to recharge / damage) and that the Shivans wouldn't target the engines to stop them escaping.
Well they wouldn't need to jump out if the Ravana had all the efectiveness of a pointy ornament
Of course, making an enemy withdraw damaged can count as a victory too, if that enemy ship is in a tactically key position; particularly a destroyer, which is responsible for fighter escorts and patrols. [/B]
-
Well, I should point out this is a circular argument; there's no such thing as an uncounterable strategy, it's the timing you have to devise and implement that stratey that makes the difference.
Perseus with Trebs can be countered by escort fighters, AAAf beams or simply running diversionary attacks to draw away the destroyers fighters before an attack.
Ravana can jump in at the GTVA destroyers weak spots - front, rear, probably top or bottom - and attack there. In particular, attacking the rear to disable the destroyer, launching a defensive screen of interceptors, and them possibly raking the ship with its beams or focusing on the rear solely.
An admiral might insist on Trebuchets and escort, but you don't always get what you want in war; the Shivans might divert the escort as mentioned earlier, or cut off the supply chain of munitions.
A pariticular issue being the fighter cover of the fleet; the Shivans have a distinct advantage in having smaller fighter carrying cruisers, which means they don't need to rely on destroyers for the escort of their entire fleet.
IMO the Shivans would win, simply because they have the numbers to tie up every GTVA asset and thus manipulate the battle to their ends. I don't think the GTVA could engage the Shivans in any sort of large scale front and maintain a tactical advantage.
Thus, I think the Shivans would be in a position to use the Ravana tactically, and as a result the Ravana would be used more effectively than the Demon due to its more focused firepower.
-
It only takes 4 Trebuchet's to kill the beams of a Ravana, or a few more harpoons, if a destroyer was so cut off from supplies by Shivans attacking convoys then sure, maybe the Ravana would win, but I would fancy 4 Perseuses to be able to kill the beams without using any secondaries.
-
If the Perseuses can survive. PRoblem is that we can't really determine that based on FS2 because the AI is useless; and if we extend the player abilities to cover all GTVA pilots, why not also all Shivan pilots?
-
Then the game would be insanely unbalanced.
A full-length movie or a cutscene, however, would be awesome to show this off. Just like how the turrets fire in the FS2 intro compared to the turrets in-game.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If the Perseuses can survive. PRoblem is that we can't really determine that based on FS2 because the AI is useless; and if we extend the player abilities to cover all GTVA pilots, why not also all Shivan pilots?
Sure the Perseuses might die but they would almost certainly be able to get a few shots off at the turrets, and by the time they were dead a few more fighters would probably have arrived.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Sure the Perseuses might die but they would almost certainly be able to get a few shots off at the turrets, and by the time they were dead a few more fighters would probably have arrived.
If there were more fighters available. And there's no guarentee the perseus' would get enough shots to stop the Ravana doing massive damage to the GTVA ship.
-
In more or less equal situation (h2h) Ravana would own every GTVA vessel, as well as Demon (which is a cooler design, but it doesn't matter).
-
A destroyer is supposed to have a large amount of fighters onboard, I don't think it will sit there not deploying any of them. There must be a lot of fighters on standby for such an attack.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
What are the chances that a 2km long ship will be placed DIRECTLY in front?
ust 1-2° left or right and it can shoot... it has great fire coverage...
Play the second to the last mission of Derelict. When the Demon arrives, the Vasudan corvette is more like 25 degrees or so to the left or right. Eventually that angle would increase enough for the corvette to be in trouble.
-
IMHO, the Ravana was designed to be deployed AFTER an enemy capship was deployed so it can let loose with it's forwards without worrying about sides or back.
The Demon was designed as a 'bait' destroyer, sent in tranquil areas to lure out enemy vessels. It can withstand an attack from (almost) any direction so it doesen't need to worry about getting into an advantageous position. Plus it has a HUGE firing arc.
The Ravana was most likely designed to engage warships that have already arrived at long-range, so it can concentrate all it's fire in one direction.
I voted for the Ravana because it looks way more imposing and sleek than a fat fugly Demon.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
A destroyer is supposed to have a large amount of fighters onboard, I don't think it will sit there not deploying any of them. There must be a lot of fighters on standby for such an attack.
That depends on the tactical situation; the FS2 destroyers are pretty much the sole source of fighter cover for the entire fleet, so you could thin out their reserve fighters using multiple attacks over a wide area. i.e. plan attacks to reduce that reserve / waiting force.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That depends on the tactical situation; the FS2 destroyers are pretty much the sole source of fighter cover for the entire fleet, so you could thin out their reserve fighters using multiple attacks over a wide area. i.e. plan attacks to reduce that reserve / waiting force.
And then when the forces that have been spread out discover that their destroyer is getting smacked by a Ravana they will warp into the area and destroy the virtually undefended forward beams.
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
IMHO, the Ravana was designed to be deployed AFTER an enemy capship was deployed so it can let loose with it's forwards without worrying about sides or back.
The Demon was designed as a 'bait' destroyer, sent in tranquil areas to lure out enemy vessels. It can withstand an attack from (almost) any direction so it doesen't need to worry about getting into an advantageous position. Plus it has a HUGE firing arc.
The Ravana was most likely designed to engage warships that have already arrived at long-range, so it can concentrate all it's fire in one direction.
I voted for the Ravana because it looks way more imposing and sleek than a fat fugly Demon.
I would have to agree with him. I will admit i have never really explored those ends yet (thought about and realized them) so thank you for the help!
-
I would have to agree with him. I will admit i have never really explored those ends yet (thought about and realized them) so thank you for the help!
You're very welcome, Charismatic. :)
-
kietotheworld: A GTVA destroyer will typically last only a matter of minutes against an attacking Ravana. That is not enough time to launch a decent number of fighters for defence, let alone recall them from long-range patrols, have them regroup and launch a co-ordinated attack on a couple of turrets. It's simply not going to happen.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
kietotheworld: A GTVA destroyer will typically last only a matter of minutes against an attacking Ravana. That is not enough time to launch a decent number of fighters for defence, let alone recall them from long-range patrols, have them regroup and launch a co-ordinated attack on a couple of turrets. It's simply not going to happen.
You really don't need to have a co-ordinated attack. You just say to some wings in different battles.
"Alpha Wing, jump to {location of battle}. Blow up SD Fyrilg's left forward beam turret"
"Affirmative" {Subspace Drives Engaged}
"Beta Wing, jump to {location of battle}. Blow up SD Fyrilg's right forward beam turret"
"Affirmative" {Subspace Drives Engaged}
And thats assuming there aren't any wings on patrol.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
And then when the forces that have been spread out discover that their destroyer is getting smacked by a Ravana they will warp into the area and destroy the virtually undefended forward beams.
At which point the Shivan bombers, light vessels will tear the **** out of every unprotected vessel in the fleet, resulting in the GTVA loss of probably quite a few essential transport vessels, freighters, cruisers and corvettes.
-
That is a co-ordinated attack. The wings in question need to be suitably armed, and they need to be in a position where they can leave their current location without causing problems (eg leaving a big hole in the fighter cover for wherever they are, or getting shot to pieces by hostiles they were fighting as they try to disengage). Secondly, they need to get into position once they arrive in the vicinity of the battle (and the journey itself takes time - subspace travel is not instantaneous). Thirdly, they may have to deal with the Ravana's own fighter cover first - a daunting task in itself. Only then can they start attacking the turrets, by which time it may well be too late.
-
I find it hard to belive a Ravana carries more fighters than a Demon - actually, it makes sense the other way around.
the Demon is much bulkier with a larger internal volume...
-
A couple of wings will result in the death of numerous cruisers? And the Destroyer would always have an escort anyway
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
A couple of wings will result in the death of numerous cruisers? And the Destroyer would always have an escort anyway
More than a couple of wings; probably about 80-100 fighters (from the Ravana and supporting Rakshasa cruisers), possibly Cains, Liliths, Molochs, etc acting in support.
And no doubt the Ravana would have its own escort and probably an additional attack force (i.e. bombers designated for tactical ops rather than escort)
-
...... :blah: Who would have to engage the Shivan fighters first or get shredded by them while trying to attack the turrets...
And you need to read up on strategic conflict. Withdrawing the patrols to try and cover the destroyer will leave gaps in the perimeter. That means lots of dead convoys and supply ships, as well as hits on repair and resupply facilities and any targets of opportunity, ie warships moving behind the lines, who will probably not have constant or substantial fighter cover.
Trashman: Interesting point. :nod: The Demon is bulkier, agreed, but the Ravana's fighterbays are still quite substantial. My own theory is that the Demon is more of a C&C ship, and the Ravana is a purely offensive beast (similarly the Hecate is a C&C vessel, while the Orion is a full-blooded battleship), so the Demon may have additional equipment such as comms gear or even production facilities on board that the Ravana sacrifices in favour of having a truly huge set of guns. ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
More than a couple of wings; probably about 80-100 fighters (from the Ravana and supporting Rakshasa cruisers), possibly Cains, Liliths, Molochs, etc acting in support.
I meant if 2 wings leave a battle that wouldn't result in the slaughter of all the other ships in the area. I have no idea where you get your 80-100 numbers from.
And no doubt the Ravana would have its own escort and probably an additional attack force (i.e. bombers designated for
tactical ops rather than escort)
A Perseus with either 4 Trebs ora couple of banks f harpoons can easily take out a Ravanas beams. What is so hard to understand about that. In most situations the escort of a destroyer will have Trebuchets, since they arethe primary intercept missile and a Destroyer's escort is designed to intercept enemy bombers.
If a wing of 4 Perseus have 1 Trebuchet each the Ravana will be completely screwed and its only option will be to retreat.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
A Perseus with either 4 Trebs ora couple of banks f harpoons can easily take out a Ravanas beams. What is so hard to understand about that. In most situations the escort of a destroyer will have Trebuchets, since they arethe primary intercept missile and a Destroyer's escort is designed to intercept enemy bombers.
If a wing of 4 Perseus have 1 Trebuchet each the Ravana will be completely screwed and its only option will be to retreat.
If the Perseus wings can a) escape shivan escort fighters (which are still faster IIRC) b) escape the Ravana AAAf c) be supplied and sortied in time d) can get the correct firing aspect on the Ravana when exiting from the bay (i.e. the Ravana can manuever itself so that the Perseuses will need to cross its AAAf defenses) and e) the bombs/missiles can get past a Flak screen.
Offhand, the Ravana beam turrets are about 400 hitpoints. A harpoon is 70, and a Treb 350 damage. But the Treb takes 6 seconds to reload; a lifetime if you have a wing of Dragons on your tail.
And, of course, if your bomber intercept is busy attacking the Ravana, who's going to protect you from bombers?
-
I've tested this. Repeatedly. The Perseus wing will get through. Recall the Trebuchet has a five-klick range. Assuming that, as you say, the Ravana jumped in at short range, then it will be well within range. Turn towards the Ravana, lock, fire doubles. Wingman turns towards the Ravana, lock, fire doubles. Forward LReds down. Second pair (GTVA wings are normally four fighters so far as we can tell.) of Perseus fighters does the same for the SReds. Poof. SReds down.
Total time elapsed: not greater then ten seconds. Shivan fighter escort may or may not have actually engaged the GTVA interceptors yet, but probably not. If they have, they certainly haven't had time enough to kill them. Forward antifighter weaponry for the Ravana is nonexistant, and the Trebuchet in any case outranges any antifighter defense on any Shivan ship. Shivan bombers are just entering lock-on cycle if they were launched from the Ravana after exiting subspace, or if they arrived at the same time (which, recall, is something that generally does not happen) they're just launching their bombs, which can be intercepted before they impact.
-
Someone said the Ravana is an offensive 'bait' ship, and someone said the Demon has good all-round defense.
I agree with those people. :p
I hate to sound sappy and peacemakerish, but the two really seem like they're meant to work together. The Demon jumps in, and the enemy force sends its bombers towards it, while it deploys its own fighters and bombers. Once the bombers and fighters are suitably engaged - SURPRISE!! :D - the Ravana jumps in behind or to the side of the opposing fleet and starts firing its main beams like crazy.
Result: The Demon takes most of the pounding, but its HP edge and strong antifighter defenses are more likely to enable it to survive. The Ravana is able to get off several volleys, since most of the enemy fighters have either expended trebs on the Demon or are dead, and the enemy fleet is forced to deal with a second caship/fighter attack from behind or to the side.
Edit: So I'm voting Demon, because the bait-and-switch tactic would wrk with most Shivan vessels, except the Demon is the only vessel that could effectively be the 'bait'. Only the Sathanas/Lucifer have more HP, and they generally just beat the crap out of their opponents through sheer attrition. (ie there's not a whole lot of need for any strategy other than "beam-free-all"
-
Bait-and-switch...hmm...if I hadn't sworn off Shivans in a campaign for a year or so...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If the Perseus wings can a) escape shivan escort fighters (which are still faster IIRC)
They are trained to avoid Shivan escort fighters and they will only need a couple of seconds to do this.
b) escape the Ravana AAAf
They can be 4999 Metres away from each beam, and each set their missiles to dual fire mode.[/color]
c) be supplied and sortied in time
They will be on patrol.
d) can get the correct firing aspect on the Ravana when exiting from the bay (i.e. the Ravana can manuever itself so that the Perseuses will need to cross its AAAf defenses) and e) the bombs/missiles can get past a Flak screen.
Chances are if they are on patrol they will be near different parts of the ship. They wouldn't all be in the same place.
Offhand, the Ravana beam turrets are about 400 hitpoints. A harpoon is 70, and a Treb 350 damage. But the Treb takes 6 seconds to reload; a lifetime if you have a wing of Dragons on your tail.
If there are 4 Perseuses then each one can just target a main beam (Lred/Sred) and then the Ravana will be screwed.
And, of course, if your bomber intercept is busy attacking the Ravana, who's going to protect you from bombers?
ngtm1r has addressed this point.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Bait-and-switch...hmm...if I hadn't sworn off Shivans in a campaign for a year or so...
:wtf: I can't make any sense of that post.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
They are trained to avoid Shivan escort fighters and they will only need a couple of seconds to do this.
Shivans are 'trained' to destroy fighters trying to evade them.
They can be 4999 Metres away from each beam, and each set their missiles to dual fire mode.
So they'll be flying far escort? What happens if something jumps in close to the destroyer? Or simply jumps in at the opposite side, in such a way as the fighters need to fly several km just to get in range? Or are you suggesting they will somehow guess exactly where the Ravana will arrive?
I'd also point out that the further away a fighter is, the more likely bombs are to be to destroyed en-route by the Shivan fighters or flak. If long range bombardment was effective, we'd have artillery ships instead of bombers.
They will be on patrol.
Patrol where? In exactly the right position and with exactly the right weaponry to engage a Ravana? what about other threats - how can they defend against them with a specialised loadout?
Chances are if they are on patrol they will be near different parts of the ship. They wouldn't all be in the same place.
So in other words there's even less chance of a substantial attack force intercepting the Ravana quickly?
If there are 4 Perseuses then each one can just target a main beam (Lred/Sred) and then the Ravana will be screwed.
Assuming a 100% hitrate with 2 missiles, under constant AAAf, flak, and enemy fighter attack, and having to maneuver into position (which, incidentally, is where the escort fighters will cover most - the ships weak spots and the attack runs to them)? I doubt it.
ngtm1r has addressed this point.
I don't believe he tested with a) on-scene Shivan escort or b) Shivan bombers targeting the GTVA ships weaponry/engines systems. also I'd consider the effectiveness of the Ravana in described main campaign briefings as a more reliable guide, because it's volitions canon description of the Ravanas' combat effectiveness.
-
I tested it with on-scene escort, though I admit the bombers launched from the Ravana about five seconds after it dropped out of subspace.
They did eventually kill my Orion by sheer weight of numbers, but the Ravana died from the Orion's ready group bomber wing too. Admittedly the GTVA can't afford to trade ships with the Shivans on a one-for-one basis, though.
-
Quote's make it difficult to um.. quote
So they'll be flying far escort? What happens if something jumps in close to the destroyer? Or simply jumps in at the opposite side, in such a way as the fighters need to fly several km just to get in range? Or are you suggesting they will somehow guess exactly where the Ravana will arrive?
They would be circling the destroyer, they wouldn't be all bunched up together
I'd also point out that the further away a fighter is, the more likely bombs are to be to destroyed en-route by the Shivan fighters or flak. If long range bombardment was effective, we'd have artillery ships instead of bombers.
Trebuchets can't be destroyed by Flak
Patrol where? In exactly the right position and with exactly the right weaponry to engage a Ravana? what about other threats - how can they defend against them with a specialised loadout?
Patrol around the destroyer. A Trebuchet/Tornado loadout is effective against any threat to a Destroyer below Juggernaut size, in which case the destroyer is F***ed anyway.
Assuming a 100% hitrate with 2 missiles, under constant AAAf, flak, and enemy fighter attack, and having to maneuver into position (which, incidentally, is where the escort fighters will cover most - the ships weak spots and the attack runs to them)? I doubt it.
Again trebuchet's are unkillable by Flak/AAAf/fighters
I don't believe he tested with a) on-scene Shivan escort or b) Shivan bombers targeting the GTVA ships weaponry/engines systems. also I'd consider the effectiveness of the Ravana in described main campaign briefings as a more reliable guide, because it's volitions canon description of the Ravanas' combat effectiveness.
The Ravana can be very quickly dispatched by a couple of fighters, which can then destroy the bombers, or get destroyed by the escort, but that would happen anyway.
So in other words there's even less chance of a substantial attack force intercepting the Ravana quickly?
There is a 6 second fire-wait time for the Trebuchet so 1 Perseus fires 2 Trebs. One beam down, waits at most 6 seconds (because another fighter could shoot down the other turret) and then the Ravana is screwed.
-
Quote's make it difficult to um.. quote
Not 'alf :D
They would be circling the destroyer, they wouldn't be all bunched up together
So it would take longer to regroup and bring an organized force to the enemy ship; and individual ships or wings are an easier target for defense turrets / escort fighters than a group are (simple numbers)
Trebuchets can't be destroyed by Flak
Sure? They have a bomber+ tag, whatever that means
Patrol around the destroyer. A Trebuchet/Tornado loadout is effective against any threat to a Destroyer below Juggernaut size, in which case the destroyer is F***ed anyway.
what about fighters systematically disarming and disabling the destroyer? Trebuchets aren't particularly effective close in, and the Tornado isn't 100% effective as the bomblets can be diverted
Again trebuchet's are unkillable by Flak/AAAf/fighters
Fighters/bombers aren't
The Ravana can be very quickly dispatched by a couple of fighters, which can then destroy the bombers, or get destroyed by the escort, but that would happen anyway.
And the bombers can just as quickly cripple the destroyers engines, weapons or fighterbay, for example.
There is a 6 second fire-wait time for the Trebuchet so 1 Perseus fires 2 Trebs. One beam down, waits at most 6 seconds (because another fighter could shoot down the other turret) and then the Ravana is screwed.
If it hits the turret with both. And that's a big if. And I have a feeling it'd be a 12 second wait on double-fire, but I can't be arsed checking
Incidentally, the 2 groups of turrets on the Ravana are something like 2km apart (front and back spikes). The positioning of them means that hits really need to occur directly from the front/side to get a proper impact (same as the Sathana; you need to hit a particular part for 100% effectiveness).
This means you need to approach from the front, or at an angle to the front. This means flying either straight into the front, or from the side. The side presents something like 4(+) turrets able to fire on the incoming ship, including at least one Flak turret. The front is somewhat easier for turrets 01 & 2 (provided they aren't firing), but the back pair requires flying across the length of the ship, which again is about 4+ turrets.
All of which - plus the likelihood of hostile fighters - makes it somewhat harder to take down those turrets than a simple '6 second job' (which would take longer than 6 seconds anyway as you have to actually fly to the target)
-
Quote's make it difficult to um.. quote
Not 'alf :D
They would be circling the destroyer, they wouldn't be all bunched up together
So it would take longer to regroup and bring an organized force to the enemy ship; and individual ships or wings are an easier target for defense turrets / escort fighters than a group are (simple numbers)
If one ship gets off a couple of Trebs at a turret and then gets destroyed then one more needs to do the same, then the Ravana has only 2 SRed (Cain beams) To shoot with,
Trebuchets can't be destroyed by Flak
Sure? They have a bomber+ tag, whatever that means
Not sure what Bomber+ Flag does but you definately can't target Trebuchets, its what makes the first misson of WarZone such a B***H.
Patrol around the destroyer. A Trebuchet/Tornado loadout is effective against any threat to a Destroyer below Juggernaut size, in which case the destroyer is F***ed anyway.
what about fighters systematically disarming and disabling the destroyer? Trebuchets aren't particularly effective close in, and the Tornado isn't 100% effective as the bomblets can be diverted
I think you may be getting Tornadoes mixed up with Hornets. Tornadoes are excellent at hunting down their targets.
Again trebuchet's are unkillable by Flak/AAAf/fighters
Fighters/bombers aren't
How long will it take a perseus to get a couple of Trebuchet's off?
The Ravana can be very quickly dispatched by a couple of fighters, which can then destroy the bombers, or get destroyed by the escort, but that would happen anyway.
And the bombers can just as quickly cripple the destroyers engines, weapons or fighterbay, for example.
2 Perseuses to incapapcitate the Ravana from long range, which will take only a few seconds, and the other 2 to attack the bombers.
There is a 6 second fire-wait time for the Trebuchet so 1 Perseus fires 2 Trebs. One beam down, waits at most 6 seconds (because another fighter could shoot down the other turret) and then the Ravana is screwed.
If it hits the turret with both. And that's a big if. And I have a feeling it'd be a 12 second wait on double-fire, but I can't be arsed checking
Trebuchet's are excellent at hitting their targets given a decent angle which circling fighterscould undoubtedly get
Incidentally, the 2 groups of turrets on the Ravana are something like 2km apart (front and back spikes). The positioning of them means that hits really need to occur directly from the front/side to get a proper impact (same as the Sathana; you need to hit a particular part for 100% effectiveness).
This means you need to approach from the front, or at an angle to the front. This means flying either straight into the front, or from the side. The side presents something like 4(+) turrets able to fire on the incoming ship, including at least one Flak turret. The front is somewhat easier for turrets 01 & 2 (provided they aren't firing), but the back pair requires flying across the length of the ship, which again is about 4+ turrets.
Which patrolling fighters would have a good chance of getting, and SReds don't really pose much of a threat against Terran destroyers
All of which - plus the likelihood of hostile fighters - makes it somewhat harder to take down those turrets than a simple '6 second job' (which would take longer than 6 seconds anyway as you have to actually fly to the target)
Well the Trebuchet does have a good range (Longer than a destroyer+Over Half the Ravana's range so the Flying to target bit wouldn't take that long; even if the Perseus was at one end of a destroyer and the Ravana was 3000 Metres away from the other end then the Perseus could still get a shot on the Beams.