IIRC, beams in fact DO use ammo in the BP continuity, because they are actual streams of plasma. "kilotons" of it according to one tech room entry i think. seems to me that projectiles might actually be MORE space/weight efficient than beams. it's at least explainable in the fluff if the writers want to go that way.
i also think the uriels would be a great asset to the GTVA as cruiser-killers. and then you could scale back (or just get rid of) the cruiser classes that aren't fighter-supression, since cruisers aren't really effective against anything bigger.
No, it was not. You're thinking of something entirely different. I want to say it was called the... Stheno, or something like that. It was a really ****ing big bomber, not a Diomedes.The only Stheno bomber i know of is the one that esarai made with the 4 turrets. It's not that big (56m, the same as the Vajradhara).
As far as the logistical chain goes... the GTVA is essentially cheating the system with beams, since these would produce heat which would raise the internal temperature of the ship to melting point and disable them since GTVA ships have no radiators (at least canonically [same for the shivs... unless those giant claws actually had a point other than looking scary]) but we overlook that and simply say beams are better, essentially giving them unlimited ammo, as they don't have a need for radiators that would need to be cooled down or replaced by others after heavy beam usage.
UEF bomber technology is a dead end. The GTVA is moving in the direction of making bombers into fighters, if the deployment of the GTB Rhea is any indication. Soon we might be looking at anti-capship weapons being fired off of heavy and even medium fighters. The Lapith just won't fit within GTVA bomber doctrine.The Lapith is pretty much the UEF version of the Artemis. It's a bit on the large side, but it's both fast and maneuverable. It might actually work.
And of course, the GTVA don't have an equivalent of the Custos. We haven't seen it in action yet, but since cruisers are only good in an anti-fighter role at this stage, perhaps we will start seeing cruisers becoming lighter and lighter.Yes they do: the Cretheus. We haven't seen either in action, so we can't say which is better.
As for using UEF technology, just because the GTVA might publicly declare the technology of the defeated UEF as 'inferior' doesn't mean that they can't be a hypocrite about it and implement UEF technology anyway. In fact, that might be the most sensible approach the GTVA could take - they get all the associated propaganda benefits while not neglecting a major opportunity to improve their capabilities against the Shivans.When did they declare UEF tech was inferior? It is in a lot of cases, but that's a conclusion drawn from observation, not propaganda.
As far as the logistical chain goes... the GTVA is essentially cheating the system with beams, since these would produce heat which would raise the internal temperature of the ship to melting point and disable them since GTVA ships have no radiators (at least canonically [same for the shivs... unless those giant claws actually had a point other than looking scary]) but we overlook that and simply say beams are better, essentially giving them unlimited ammo, as they don't have a need for radiators that would need to be cooled down or replaced by others after heavy beam usage.We overlook that because most science-fiction has magic heat disposal tech. Mass Effect is pretty much the only popular universe that doesn't.
It always surprised me that they never developed any better anti-subsystem weapons than the energy-hogging Akheton and the short ranged Stiletto/Stiletto II.*cough*Trebuchet*cough*Maxim*cough*
It always surprised me that they never developed any better anti-subsystem weapons than the energy-hogging Akheton and the short ranged Stiletto/Stiletto II.*cough*Trebuchet*cough*Maxim*cough*
Well, here's a scary thought for you: A Deimos with its missile launchers loaded with Slammers :P
The problem with Archer is that it's huge. It wouldn't fit on any existing GTVA strikecraft, and the concept of a hardmounted weapon is new to them. It seems that GTVA had a problem with developing a good anti subsystem weapon, because they always had to make sure it wouldn't damage the hull. Notice that both best anti-subsystem weapons in GTVA are quite destructive and can bring smaller ships (transports and cruisers) down if you're not careful. Archer is better than Maxim in that regard, but still suffers from the same problem. The reason Paveway is better might be that UEF needed such weapons a lot more than GTVA, and thus better developed them.
As for the primaries, it's hard to say. The Kayser and Rapier are almost identical, and the UEF doesn't really have an equivalent to the Balor, which appears to be the future of GTVA primary weapons. The heavier UEF primaries; the Archer, Redeemer, and Vajra, all have one big flaw: Ammo. More ammo-reliant weapons means more ammo to be carried by the support ships, which either means less ammo overall or bigger (and more vulnerable) support ships. Their sheer effectiveness might be worth it, or it might not. Like I said, it's hard to say.
I wonder what the GTVA did with all of their Piranha and Infyrno missiles, did they realize they were crap as fighter mounted weaponry and say "screw it, Trebuchet everything?"You need to play WiH more. Most if not all bombers fielded by the Tevs carry Piranhas, and will use em when attacked.
When did they declare UEF tech was inferior? It is in a lot of cases, but that's a conclusion drawn from observation, not propaganda.Well, they haven't yet, because the war is still going on :P But propaganda is a significant part of the GTVA's doctrine, if the Colossus is any indication.
As for the Infyrno, well, not only is it not very efficient, and the AI sucks at using it, but it is designed to wipe out thick bomber formations, which isn't exactly the typical UEF deployment doctrine now is it.I think they still keep the Infyrno, and are ready to use it if the need arises. It simply didn't arise yet. UEF aren't usually deploying bombers and heavy fighters in large formations, not to mention their bombers are quite well armored, so a Trebuchet is a better weapon against them. Infyrno can make mincemeat of Shivan bomber and Basilisk formations, but isn't too well suited for use against UEF.
Mass Effect does have magic disposal tech, we are never shown it, but the Codex states one thing and they did another in the cutscenes (they never show any radiators or anything get hot on the ships...) in fact the only Sci-Fi game that I've seen to have radiator-"like" parts is AFF:PS... (I believe it would be best if we took this part of the discussion elsewhere for the sake of the thread)
On topic, I think it would be foolish of the GTVA to use fed weaponry, they have been developed for entirely different theaters (GTVA to fight Shivans across multiple systems, UEF for a single one.)
We have infinite beamz as the GTVA, the only good thing out of the UEF arsenal would be the AM-Missile farms, customized for GTVA missile armaments (something like a Supernova MK2 comes to mind.)
All other weapons on the UEF arsenal would be a drag on GTVA tactics as they require ammo, the only thing that would require little adaption are missiles, hence it being the only logical choice, with all that AM it's not unfeasible to thing the GTVA could come up with enhanced designs for Trebs and other missiles.
All of the UEF's (Military) ship designs are useless to the GTVA since they don't fit with their tactics, which would mean time and money spent on making new strategies, refitting UEF ships and other things that would be a waste of resources when you could use them to build already optimized designs.
This has been said again and again, but it can't be said enough : logistics are the true problem here. UEF ships are high-efficiency / low-duration concepts. They can't operate more than a few hours straight before needing to dock and resupply (for fighters, probably days for capital ships). Tev crafts can hold up weeks in the wild until it becomes a problem (remember that Kappa wing fighter in the nebula beyond Gamma Draconis ? Remember the Imperieuse hiding for weeks without any sort of logistical support while already being short on supplies in WiH ?).
The Tevs have an entirely different ship-building philosophy than the UEF. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have the technology, resources and means to build ships equivalent or even superior to the Uriel or the Narayana in term of efficiency/firepower/whatever. But they don't. Why ? Because it's expensive, because their pilots aren't so great, you can find all the reasons you want. But ultimately, the Tevs fight a marathon while the UEF fights a sprint, and that doesn't show only in their tactics, or in the state of their fighter corps, but also very heavily in their ship design on both sides.
why DID the TEI design very offensively-minded ships when tasked with better defending the GTVA systems?The answer should be obvious. The Shivans are hunters. They are swift, powerful, and they have endless numbers. Any defensive posture against them is fundamentally flawed. What do you think even 3 or 4 Tev fleets massed to blockade a single node could do against a couple of Dantes with Sath escort ? Or anything worse the Shivans could come up with ? After Capella, the GTVA cannot afford the risk of believing they can sustain and win against a full-scale Shivan assault.
why DID the TEI design very offensively-minded ships when tasked with better defending the GTVA systems?The answer should be obvious. The Shivans are hunters. They are swift, powerful, and they have endless numbers. Any defensive posture against them is fundamentally flawed. What do you think even 3 or 4 Tev fleets massed to blockade a single node could do against a couple of Dantes with Sath escort ? Or anything worse the Shivans could come up with ? After Capella, the GTVA cannot afford the risk of believing they can sustain and win against a full-scale Shivan assault.
The Tev standard contingency in case of the Shivan incursion would be to attack on all fronts in order to break the Shivan momentum, and gain enough time to meson bomb the nodes.
Failing that, exodus. Why do you think they designed Anemois if their actual objective was to hold at all costs their controlled systems, which have secure and abundant supply lines ? If they can't stop the Shivans quick enough, I'm pretty sure the GTVA has contingencies for BSG-like exodus as a last resort to preserve mankind and zodkind.
Capella has demonstrated that the Shivans can't be defeated conventionally. Any encounter with the Shivans is not a battle for victory, it's a battle for survival. A desperate one.
Well the Tevs aren't bad at sentry guns. The Zods themselves let them handle it. It has been said that one of the yet-unseen use for Tev cruisers was as potential minelayers, deploying clusters of sentry guns to defend strategical positions or cover retreats.
Those would be, however, support tools first and foremost. Sentry guns are only efficient in very specific circumstances, and easily destroyed. That holds true for both small sentries like Cerberus guns, and Mjolnirs.
It's not as if the GTVA doesn't need logistical support at all. In fact, they're only so dependent on it in the Sol Theatre because they're on the offensive. If they were defending the GTVA systems from a Shivan attack, they'd have the same logistical luxuries that the UEF enjoyed.
It's not as if the GTVA doesn't need logistical support at all. In fact, they're only so dependent on it in the Sol Theatre because they're on the offensive. If they were defending the GTVA systems from a Shivan attack, they'd have the same logistical luxuries that the UEF enjoyed.
Careful with that comparison. The Tevs in Sol have been going out of their way to avoid damage to logistical infrastructure. The Shivans would give them no such courtesy.
Even on the defensive, the GTVA would have to worry about logistics far more than the pre-Blitz UEF did.
Antimatter cored maxim rounds. :cool:Good thing that in Freespace, there is no such thing as overkill :)
We have infinite beamz as the GTVA, the only good thing out of the UEF arsenal would be the AM-Missile farms, customized for GTVA missile armaments (something like a Supernova MK2 comes to mind.)UEF beam jamming tech isn't of any use? As I stated before, beam 'jamming' technology might be re-purposed to HELP the beamz do stuff rather then hinder the beamz. Imagine what kinds of exotic weapons the GTVA could come up with if they had the ability to bend beam cannon fire.
Mass Effect does have magic disposal tech, we are never shown it, but the Codex states one thing and they did another in the cutscenes (they never show any radiators or anything get hot on the ships...)No magic involved there, just something you seem to have overread. In ME the ships "store" the heat in some reservoirs, mostly in the not otherwise used compartments right below the armor of a ship. Only outside of battle do they start to dissipate the heat.
Also, killing shivan fighters and bombers is easy. Capella-era craft can do that job perfectly well. It's shivan capital and supercapital ships that are the issue.Easy until Shivans decide to bring their strike craft capabilities up to their full capabilities. As BP's own fluff states, their weapons operate at reduced efficiency. It might even be true for shields too.
start assuming the Shivans are all-powerful and can't be stopped, better just throw yourself through the nearest airlock.
start assuming the Shivans are all-powerful and can't be stopped, better just throw yourself through the nearest airlock.
And this is how the Shivans win their wars...
Easy until Shivans decide to bring their strike craft capabilities up to their full capabilities. As BP's own fluff states, their weapons operate at reduced efficiency. It might even be true for shields too.
wut
There's also that hidden text on nuRayana textures which speaks 'bout it IIRC.
There is no question that Shivan tactical behaviour is often poorly optimized. The local structure absorbs losses that could otherwise be deflected, applies force to surfaces instead of gaps, and deploys weapons and craft which the perform well below the parameters that their engineering is capable of. Witness the primary weapons on Shivan fighters, which could outstrip the Kayser special issue weapon in every aspect yet consistently do not; or the enhanced performance of the Mara fighters that SOC captured during the second incursion. We raise these points in light of successes of our colleague and respected friend, Admiral Chiwetel Steele in combat with the Federation in Sol. It is our contention that his tactics, often compared to that of the Shivans, are in fact their antithesis and that widespread adpotion of his doctrines could doom any warfighting effort against a notional third incursion.
Shivan behaviour is not locally optimized. We advance the notion that it is instead globally optimized: globally optimized for the task of not winning battles but of destroying entire species, empires far vaster than we, the Alliance, could achieve in the next thousand years. Admiral Steele's success relies on honing a specific set of tactics aimed directly at an enemy's weakness, exploiting superior information and denying the enemy knowledge of his own movements and plans. The Shivans, conversely, are adapted to fight and win a very different scenario: engaging a foe capable of simulating all possible outcomes, with perfect information on Shivan capabilities, and with the Shivans possessing no such advantage. Like a cancer or an immunity plague, the Shivans seek to diversify their strategies, to present as many different vectors of attacks as possible and allow the enemy, through their responses, to select those which they fear the most and those which will do the most harm.
To use a metaphor from an old story - Steele is Batman, with a single linear plan; but the Shivans are the Joker, or an entire Hive of Jokers, enacting madness in every direction - wasteful locally, but globally impossible to counter, for any adaptation to one strategy simply renders the defender vulnerable to the next...
They are godslayers, built as an infinitely broad and deep reactive organism, converting all losses into information and then to ultimate victory. They begin, intentionally, from nothing, free of all exploitable preconceptions; to attack them is to teach them.
Remember that Shivans and Vishnans are no stranger to each other. From what we know about them, I'd say they're unlikely to go on an all-out war with each other. That said, knowing them, everything could change after they appear again, and after humans mess with their affairs a second time.
How "BP canon" is this? No clue.
QuoteHow "BP canon" is this? No clue.
It is canon in so far as that it is a text that exists in-universe.
UEF bomber technology is a dead end.
Heavy bombers are only a dead-end if you don't adapt your doctrine and tech to match. Take the swarm-launch capability of a warhammer, slap it on a larger torpedo, and give it a stand-off range. It's a huge bomb, and heavy bombers can't carry very many of them at all, but they don't need to. You end up with heavy bombers being able to jump in, fire a single massive salvo of heavy torpedoes from stand-off range, and jump out before enemy interceptors can respond. Make them a follow-up to an Ares wing using Trebs against point defense (instead of against fighters) and you can easily take out large ships without losing your people.
With torpedo tech remaining the same in BP, heavy bombers become irrelevant in terms of how many torpedoes they can carry--if they can loiter next to its target and spend minutes lobbing pair after pair of torpedoes until the target is dead, then it's just plain more efficient to use four light bombers instead, in every way. And if you don't expect bombers to survive getting off more than one or two pairs of bombs off before disengaging, what's the point of heavy bombers at all?
" Drop a Uriel..." http://bit.ly/S8RyXs
:P
Hugely expensive and logistically demanding bombers don't work when one is going up against a horde of cheap destroyers.
What I'm saying is that UEF bombers wouldn't do very well against anti-shivan warfare compared to cheaper, faster bombers en masse.
It's just weird to have an unstoppable, unerringly accurate, almost guaranteed subsystem-kill weapon that can be fired from 3 km away without effort. Feels cheap.The Trebuchet says hi. Except if BP nerfed it, then I withdraw my comment.
Hell, I wouldn't mind it if every missile had a $Weapon Hitpoints entry.This would surely make an interesting mod balance. I'd expect warships to pack much more CIWS-like point defence to compensate for the number of targets.
This would surely make an interesting mod balance. I'd expect warships to pack much more CIWS-like point defence to compensate for the number of targets.
It wasn't an intentional nerf, but if you have a subsystem with an armor class better than Heavy Armor 100, Trebuchets become almost useless because they aren't Puncture weapons like Paveways and Stilettos are. That makes sense, because the Treb is a multi-role missile, but it somewhat kills its anti-subsystem capabilities. Add Trebs to Aristeia and try to shoot down the Medea's beams with them and you'll see what I mean.It's just weird to have an unstoppable, unerringly accurate, almost guaranteed subsystem-kill weapon that can be fired from 3 km away without effort. Feels cheap.The Trebuchet says hi. Except if BP nerfed it, then I withdraw my comment.
Wings of Dawn is already like this. But the AI doesn't know how to attack weapons with a hitpoint total; it'll still only shoot at bombs.That's a shame. Adding the bomb flag to everything would horribly clutter up the B target queue. Oh well.
Bombers just don't nearly have the same niche in the GTVA.
If they can extrapolate that post-Capella GTVA research would focus on strong beam weaponry, it would make sense for the next response to include deploying powerful AWACS and neutralising the advantage the GTVA thinks they have.This isn't how Shivan adaptation works. It's completely reactive, not proactive.
If they can extrapolate that post-Capella GTVA research would focus on strong beam weaponry, it would make sense for the next response to include deploying powerful AWACS and neutralising the advantage the GTVA thinks they have.This isn't how Shivan adaptation works. It's completely reactive, not proactive.
So the upgrade in beam tech shown by the GTVA initially in the Deimos class and the Colossus wouldn't be enough to trigger a counter from the Shivans, given that the second Sathanas encounter ended the Colossus threat?The whole Sathanas swarm thing was the counter to the Colossus and other advances made by the GTVA in the interwar years.
I wouldn't say it's completely reactive. The Shivans had shields and beams in FS1, after all.And how do we know those weren't "leftover" reactions to the Ancients?
The broader argument against Shivan capabilities being 'purely reactive' is that it's way too predictable and so in some sense controllable. They don't work in terms of 'counters' formulated in response to observations of the enemy; that's too analytical and mindful. I suppose it's true that they mirrored GTVA actions in the nebula, but remember that that only represents the default threat response. Their anima-oriented behaviour is quite different: the Sathanas swarm, for instance, wasn't a response to the Colossus but the first move of the apatic anima that took Bosch.How do we know it wasn't purely a reaction to Bosch's input?
I suppose it's a semantic distinction. But there's a very, very abrupt change from tit-for-tat trading of blows to an overwhelming, apparently goal-oriented surge literally minutes after that Azrael leaves, one which is explicitly noted in the GH leaks. The input just doesn't match the response the way it did in the first half of the incursion.Without actually knowing what the input was, exactly, or the... "decision-making", for lack of a better term, that led to the response, we can't know that the response didn't match it.
We also know that SJ Sathanas 01 contained some sort of horrifically destructive ecosystem and that this is apparently used as an input into general Shivan behaviour, which suggests a sort of directionless initiative to their actions rather than direct reaction.Similarly, the purpose of the "Nightmare Furnace" is only guessed at by Terran (and possibly Vasudan) analysts. Whether or not their guesses match reality is an open question.
The GTVA probably has aggressor squadrons and simulations gaming out the utility of UEF ships and tactics even now.
There's too much talk about logistics in this thread. Canonically, they did what they needed to support the military operations. You could assume your way even into cutting the existing military, but historically, military developments always found a way into the battle.
Yes, but the UEF simply cannot fight for a prolonged period of time, because they need to return to their supplydepots to load new torpedos, railgun/massdriver/whatever-ammo.Not in 10 days. But in a reasonable ammount of time they would find ways, they would adjust. They can't now because they never planned for such a thing.
Though it would be funny to see a Karuna running out of ammo just once :D
They can't because their ships aren't designed for it. A UEF fleet wouldn't have survived the events of AoA. Constantly harassed by Shivans the way the 14th BG was, they'd have run out of ammo in a matter of hours and fuel in a couple of days.Yes, but the UEF simply cannot fight for a prolonged period of time, because they need to return to their supplydepots to load new torpedos, railgun/massdriver/whatever-ammo.Not in 10 days. But in a reasonable ammount of time they would find ways, they would adjust. They can't now because they never planned for such a thing.
Though it would be funny to see a Karuna running out of ammo just once :D
Come on. There is no consistency at all, no clear structure of how resources and logistics work. They only used it sparringly to tell a part of a story sometimes. At other times, it seemes like a non factor.Cite examples. As far as I can tell, logistics have been an issue in BP from the start.
I can't even see a way to dispute their defensive prowess.Other than the fact that they're losing the war?
The other assumption made to keep this discussion alive is that UEF is unable to provide logistics for their ships. They do just fine for what they are made, in Sol. If requirements change, why wouldn't they rise to the challenge ? In a reasonable timeframe, obviously.The best way to meet that kind of change in requirements is to design an entirely new class of ship.
I can't even see a way to dispute their defensive prowess.Other than the fact that they're losing the war?The other assumption made to keep this discussion alive is that UEF is unable to provide logistics for their ships. They do just fine for what they are made, in Sol. If requirements change, why wouldn't they rise to the challenge ? In a reasonable time frame, obviously.The best way to meet that kind of change in requirements is to design an entirely new class of ship.
But it seems that there's an underlying thought here that UEF school of thought is inferior here.Citation needed.
So you're already assuming some very grim scenarios for the sake of argument, but ok.OK, that bit made me smile a bit, I'll admit :). The "grim scenarios" we are assuming are called the final parts of Freespace 2 and Age of Aquarius, but potentially without the part where 95 % of the Shivan forces' strength doesn't give a crap about us. This is, in my opinion, the kind of scenario the GTVA wants to be ready to deal with in one way or another, so I'd say it's reasonable to assume that further encounters with the Shivans would go very grim very fast.
And if we assume all these worst case scenarios, in the end, I have to ask-what missions in FS2 would UEF have problems with ? And in what missions would they absolutely blitz the Shivans? With all their shortcomings and on short notice.Now that is something I like to think about. It's likely that the UEF would have trouble conducting extended operations in Gamma Draconis, and would be incapable of maintaining an expeditionary force in the nebula or beyond. Assuming that Capella, being 3rd Fleet HQ and all that, would be a very well-supplied system, I think early Shivan incursions, such as Sathanas #1, would be dealt with rather quickly. However, as more Shivan poor into the system and their infrastructure gets more and more damaged, they would crumble faster than the GTVA fleet.
There is no knowledge of specific requirements for maintaining a ship, or sustaining maximum readiness in a war.We don't have specific numbers or anything, if that's what you are saying. What we do have is the techroom explicitly stating that the UEF fleet is taylored for high performance operations where supply is only a jump away, which bears the implication that these crafts would not last as long as the more balanced designs of the Alliance in a situation where supply is scarse. And given how immensly important logistics is said to be for the Alliance fleet, it again has implications regarding that fleet's ability to operate outside it's home system, or in a different logistics framework.
QuoteAnd if we assume all these worst case scenarios, in the end, I have to ask-what missions in FS2 would UEF have problems with ? And in what missions would they absolutely blitz the Shivans? With all their shortcomings and on short notice.Now that is something I like to think about. It's likely that the UEF would have trouble conducting extended operations in Gamma Draconis, and would be incapable of maintaining an expeditionary force in the nebula or beyond. Assuming that Capella, being 3rd Fleet HQ and all that, would be a very well-supplied system, I think early Shivan incursions, such as Sathanas #1, would be dealt with rather quickly. However, as more Shivan poor into the system and their infrastructure gets more and more damaged, they would crumble faster than the GTVA fleet.
If you want to write your own fiction about the UEF adapting to the logistical realities of a Shivan incursion, that's fine and it could be pretty cool. Telling the BP team that they're wrong about their own setting is pretty dumb though.It is, if GTVA doesn't have any bases from which it could deploy UEF craft and if it is going to lead many offensive wars, attacking well defended hostile systems from now on. But until now, they led mostly short, defensive battles, sometimes attacking first for tactical advantage. It could use UEF's stuff, and in a big way.
I'm suggesting that designing an Uriel or a Karuna is way, way harder than maintaining it and supplying it. That's pretty much where I came in into the topic.
So when did GTVA need long legs exactly? Sol invasion, sure, don't send UEF stuff to Sol. Send something else. Use some of UEF craft for strategic attacks.
Going through the portal? Send something which will last a month in the wilderness. Fight hard for your life? Use better craft with better weapons, whichever those may be. They combined Vasudan technology with Terran. Decades on, they can't use UEF stuff? Hey, maybe those Hecates can finally be of some real use...
Further, take a look at the Anemoi class. Sure, they're incredibly useful. But they're assets geared for expeditionary warfare, something the GTVA actively discourages. Their capabilities are far beyond what a logistics vessel for a long-term patrol of known space would need.
Yes, there are obvious reasons why the GTVA favours endurance and ease of maintenance. Transparent ones for easy dissemination and consumption by the populace. However, there are also other reasons that people in the GTVA rarely talk about because noone wants to raise the specter of having to pack a couple thousand people into cryo and flee into the wilderness.
But you would still need factory ships to get a refugee fleet supplied. The 14th logistic ships had run dry or were nearly out of supplies after they managed to return to Sol.
They do seem somewhat defenseless for that role, though.
One would wonder that they should, at least, have some kind of special abilities, like highly complex stealth capabilities, making it extremely difficult to detect. Something like borrowing key techs from the Pegasus project, or new power sources that do not give out any heat signature whatsoever. Perhaps some subtler subspace engine.
That precise reasoning is why I followed it up with the following sentences:
They do seem somewhat defenseless for that role, though.They're defenseless for the role because they aren't combat vessels and under no circumstances are they meant to be left alone. Any exodus situation would have them accompanied by actual combat vessels and probably a very sizable civilian fleet. You know, ships to support. Anemois aren't transport ships, they're support vessels and mobile factories.
No, beams pierce through shields. The purpose isn't good shields, it's showing "Look, your one offensive weapon is useless now, it's time to sit around the table and hammer out a rather disfavourable agreement for you." In reverse, it'd be interesting if the UEF gets their hands on a beam cannon. If they already had some insight on maybe one of the Lucifer's cannons, filling in the missing bits of info with GTVA beams might make for a superior beam, if both are compatible.I don't see why the UEF would be able to build a superior beam. Yes, the UEF probably has the Lucifer's beam cannons stored somewhere. The GTVA, on the other hand, probably has SReds and LReds taken from the wrecks of countless Shivan destroyers and cruisers, not to mention the BFReds off the Sathanas (not saying they have the BFReds for sure, but it's just as likely as the UEF having the Lucifer's HReds).
So?
*Did GTVA planners specifically not include older designs to keep older beam weapons away from the UEF--on the off chance those beam weapons could be easily swapped in?
*Did GTVA planners specifically not include older designs to keep older beam weapons away from the UEF--on the off chance those beam weapons could be easily swapped in?
Lopez battlegroup doesn't have any post cappella warship in it. (so consider it old ships green beams)
super-heavy fortress bombers that can survive anti-fighter screens to deliver massive, punishing payloads that kill destroyers.
Think less Durga/Vadra, more B-29.
In role, not in shape.
Reliable is also probably the wrong term for anti-aircraft guns back then.
Think less Durga/Vadra, more B-29.
In role, not in shape.
Think less Durga/Vadra, more B-29.
In role, not in shape.
Could you elaborate a little on that please...how are the Durga/Vadra different than the B-29 in role?
Think less Durga/Vadra, more B-29.
In role, not in shape.
Could you elaborate a little on that please...how are the Durga/Vadra different than the B-29 in role?
I mean to say that the GTVA bomber concept is closer to gunboat than gunship, in BP parlance. Massive, covered in turrets, and with capabilities that fighters just plain don't have.
UEF and Tev fighters are built with vastly different requirements in mind, so many of these things may not be compatible. Rapier might be a great gun, but perhaps its draw is too high for a fighter meant to travel multiple nodes solo, for example.
The Balor and the Rapier are already very comparable weapons. The Rapier does a bit more damage and has longer range, but the Balor draws less power, it's more easily mass produced, and it's already integrated into the fleet. It also has an upgrade in the works. The Rapier isn't enough of an improvement to justify the expense of adopting it.
a transposition and a 'g'... a Balrog ?