Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Vertigo 7 on December 01, 2008, 09:18:14 pm
-
something's been buggin me for the past few days. Why is it in the Free Space universe that cruisers are more lightly armed than destroyers? I do realize first and foremost this is onry a game and also that the term "destroyer" would tend to imply superior fire power, and "cruiser" would tend to imply going out for a stroll.
The reality of cruisers and destroyers are that cruisers are, in fact, more heavily armed than destroyers in the modern navy, especially post WWII.
During the WWII era, cruisers and destroyers were vastly different in that both had very different roles. Cruisers were primarily an Anti-air platform where Destroyers were an Anti-sub platform. Each were armed accordingly, and destroyers had the more advanced sonar system. In today's navy, equipment wise there is very little difference. Both have the same sonar system and have the same radar system. The big differences come in capabilities size and armament.
Modern destroyers have 1 5" gun, fore, while cruisers have 2, 1 fore and aft. Both have 2 VLS launchers, however, 1 of the launchers on the destroyer is only a half launcher. (If you don't know what VLS is, its essentially a grid on the deck where the missiles are housed, 8x8 for a total of 64 missiles per launcher giving Cruisers a max total of 128 missiles and destroyers a max total of 92 as one launcher is 8x4).
Both will typically have 2 CIWS anti-missile gun systems, however some destroyers are being equipped with RAM anti-missile missile system instead of CIWS.
Cruisers also have the capability to house 2 SH-60B (anti sub) helo's where as most destroyers can only land 1 helo, however i believe destroyers are being made now with a hangar, but they can only house 1 helo. And both ships have the exact same engine and are capable of the same top speed.
Also, destroyers are smaller than cruisers and they are designed with a concave hull to deflect radar away, giving it a very small radar profile (along with a special radar absorbent material) where cruisers are not.
And finally, Cruisers will typically have a full bird Captain as CO and destroyers will typically have a Commander as CO. (and for those that don't know Navy ranks, Captain = Colonel and out ranks a Commander)
as the shape of war and the world has changed, no surface ship has any one role any more (big decks excluded, ie carriers and amphibs) all of the frigates have been decommissioned, scrapped, sold and/or used for target practice. The cruisers in service today are no longer being produced and the modern destroyers are being cranked out like they're goin out of style. Cruisers and Destroyers both simultaneously fill the roles of Anti-air and Anti-sub platforms.
So with all of this in mind, why is it that cruisers in FS are portrayed as weaker ships than destroyers? :p (and yes im a bit biased cuz i served on a Cruiser)
-
That is because the ship designation system is completely different and no way related to the modern day designations excpet that the terms were probably borrowed.
-
You forgot to mention the nonsensical placement of corvettes.
I'm guessing it's because the Fenris was designed first and the marketing people were all 'A MAJESTIC SPACE CRUIIIISER.'
Then they started building Orions and they needed something that sounded fearsome, so they were all 'It doesn't cruise, it DESTROYS.'
As for corvettes, I guess they needed something friendly and appealing to the peacetime government. 'We'll be building a line of cheap, effective...corvettes!'
-
I like the description. It seems very fitting.
-
IIRC WWII destroyers were such because they were "submarine destroyers". Perhaps FS destroyers fill an analogous niche in Freespace?
And as you said, cruisers were primarily AA, which is very similar to cruisers in FS. As for corvettes, I'm pretty sure that it just sounded cool.
EDIT: BTW, what ship do you serve on, Vertigo?
-
I was on the Mobile Bay (CG-53). I've been out of the Navy for 2 years
-
something's been buggin me for the past few days. Why is it in the Free Space universe that cruisers are more lightly armed than destroyers? I do realize first and foremost this is onry a game and also that the term "destroyer" would tend to imply superior fire power, and "cruiser" would tend to imply going out for a stroll.
The reality of cruisers and destroyers are that cruisers are, in fact, more heavily armed than destroyers in the modern navy, especially post WWII.
During the WWII era, cruisers and destroyers were vastly different in that both had very different roles. Cruisers were primarily an Anti-air platform where Destroyers were an Anti-sub platform. Each were armed accordingly, and destroyers had the more advanced sonar system. In today's navy, equipment wise there is very little difference. Both have the same sonar system and have the same radar system. The big differences come in capabilities size and armament.
Modern destroyers have 1 5" gun, fore, while cruisers have 2, 1 fore and aft. Both have 2 VLS launchers, however, 1 of the launchers on the destroyer is only a half launcher. (If you don't know what VLS is, its essentially a grid on the deck where the missiles are housed, 8x8 for a total of 64 missiles per launcher giving Cruisers a max total of 128 missiles and destroyers a max total of 92 as one launcher is 8x4).
Both will typically have 2 CIWS anti-missile gun systems, however some destroyers are being equipped with RAM anti-missile missile system instead of CIWS.
Cruisers also have the capability to house 2 SH-60B (anti sub) helo's where as most destroyers can only land 1 helo, however i believe destroyers are being made now with a hangar, but they can only house 1 helo. And both ships have the exact same engine and are capable of the same top speed.
Also, destroyers are smaller than cruisers and they are designed with a concave hull to deflect radar away, giving it a very small radar profile (along with a special radar absorbent material) where cruisers are not.
And finally, Cruisers will typically have a full bird Captain as CO and destroyers will typically have a Commander as CO. (and for those that don't know Navy ranks, Captain = Colonel and out ranks a Commander)
as the shape of war and the world has changed, no surface ship has any one role any more (big decks excluded, ie carriers and amphibs) all of the frigates have been decommissioned, scrapped, sold and/or used for target practice. The cruisers in service today are no longer being produced and the modern destroyers are being cranked out like they're goin out of style. Cruisers and Destroyers both simultaneously fill the roles of Anti-air and Anti-sub platforms.
So with all of this in mind, why is it that cruisers in FS are portrayed as weaker ships than destroyers? :p (and yes im a bit biased cuz i served on a Cruiser)
You should know that the Ticonderoga cruisers and Spruance destroyers share the same hull. Modern destroyers have grown to the size to match cruisers. They just stuff more equipment onto the Ticonderogas and call it a cruiser. In fact it is almost like the Fenris and the Leviathan.
-
I know =) the *sprucans are all decomissioned tho... infact i decomissioned the Nicholson before going to the Mobile Bay
-
In contemporary terms
corvettes < frigates < destroyers < cruisers < battle cruisers (only Kirov but oh well) < carriers < super carriers
You'll notice corvettes are at the bottom.
In freespace terms
cruisers < corvettes < frigates < destroyers < super destroyers < juggernauts.
Destroyers are actually an odd mix of a contemporary carrier and a historical battleship (only in space), which makes sense given the strategic problems subspace presents.
-
Yeah i'd caulk it up to the game developers just going with what sounded cool as opposed to following generally accepted naval designations. If they actually had a bunch of ex Navy on the dev team they probably would have baulked at the way GTVA Command deploys its naval assets :P
-
Good point, but logically :v: named the classes for implications.
-
lol im sure if the team were all ex-navy they woulda nuked the shivans back to their home world and the game woulda been over on the 3rd mission of FS1 =D
-
I don't think the classes of FS1 caps are related to real world classes, at least in terms of size and weight.
-
Good point, but logically :v: named the classes for implications.
I think they just named them after the cool factor...that, and they probably had the star wards "star DESTROYER" ringing in their ears.
-
I think they just named them after the cool factor...that, and they probably had the star wards "star DESTROYER" ringing in their ears.
:wakka:
-
The GTA was born from a union of everyone, i've no idea if every current nation sticks to the same size prefixes, ummm dunno where i was headed with this my minds drawn a blank.
-
Well... even historically...
Destroyers were originally 'torpedoboat destroyers'.. Basically gun armed torpedoboats designed to destroy out the torpedo armed torpedoboats before those could harm the battleship lines in fleet engagements.. That is before the classes (torpedoboat & torpedoboat destroyer) more or less merged into a single ship class commonly known as destroyer capable of handling both of tasks of its predecessors. In similar way destroyer could just have been something like 'carrier/cruiser destroyer' shortened to destroyer.
On the other hand both corvette and frigate were sailing (and later steam) ship classes, both not heavy enough to serve as man-o-war (ie. battleships) but instead operating as patrol ships, escorts, couriers etc. etc. Surviving steam frigates were actually reclassified as cruisers before WW1 era. The names (and their current usage) were revived by British to describe their small new mainly ASW sloops in WW2.
So given their history you could pretty much define any ship class as having any designation you want. Or then just steal something from the age of sail like British did it, galleons, yawls, and brigantines in space would be kinda cool though.
-
FS ship designations actually follow B5 ship designations pretty close.
-
Well... even historically...
Destroyers were originally 'torpedoboat destroyers'.. Basically gun armed torpedoboats designed to destroy out the torpedo armed torpedoboats before those could harm the battleship lines in fleet engagements.. That is before the classes (torpedoboat & torpedoboat destroyer) more or less merged into a single ship class commonly known as destroyer capable of handling both of tasks of its predecessors. In similar way destroyer could just have been something like 'carrier/cruiser destroyer' shortened to destroyer.
On the other hand both corvette and frigate were sailing (and later steam) ship classes, both not heavy enough to serve as man-o-war (ie. battleships) but instead operating as patrol ships, escorts, couriers etc. etc. Surviving steam frigates were actually reclassified as cruisers before WW1 era. The names (and their current usage) were revived by British to describe their small new mainly ASW sloops in WW2.
So given their history you could pretty much define any ship class as having any designation you want. Or then just steal something from the age of sail like British did it, galleons, yawls, and brigantines in space would be kinda cool though.
Well least they didn't stick to the Man-o-War designations in FS2
Incoming jump signature Fifth Rate hostile configuration!
-
The best justification I ever heard for it was that Cruisers were launched first and called cruisers because they're roughly the size of naval cruisers. Then destroyers were designed to wipe the floor with cruisers - making them "Cruiser destroyers". That idea falls apart when you consider FS2 designations, but FS2 wasn't as well backstoried as FS1 was, so I can see how things like that snuck in.
-
The best justification I ever heard for it was that Cruisers were launched first and called cruisers because they're roughly the size of naval cruisers.
Aren't FS cruisers about the size of naval super carriers? Okay, perhaps they're just a touch smaller.
-
FreeSpace cruisers are bigger than biggest modern aircraft carriers in both
length and width but especiall volume...
EDIT: Well, not perhaps in length when it comes to Fenris/Leviathan and Cain/Lilith. Rakshasa is kinda thin too, but this shot is a pretty good one. The thing is, I can't imagine the cruisers floating so they are at the very least a lot heavier than aircraft carriers...
(http://www.freespacegalaxy.de/forum/upload/carrier_comp_4.jpg)
At any rate I would say the reason for cruisers being smaller than destroyers, corvettes and frigate (Iceni) is the same reason that fighter/bomber wings are smaller than squadrons, while in our designations "Alpha Wing" would be Alpha Flight, being part of a Squadron, which is part of a Wing. It's either :v: didn't know the accurate military terminology of unit sizes (and ship types) in relation to each other, or (more likely) just ignored the modern definitions and went with what sounded cool and worked in the script and voice acting.
-
Ooh, nice. :yes2::cool::yes:
I was thinking that a cruiser was meant for light duties such as convoy escort or quick-hitting attacks. Note that, apart from the Leviathan, the other Allied cruiser designations are quite agile for their size.
The destroyer is supposed to be a heavy hitter used for battling large ships or cruisers.
As for the corvette...it's a hybrid. And it reminds me of Chevrolet. :nervous:
-
When I saw that image, the first thought that ran through my mind was, "That fleet is FUBARed."
-
lol when I first saw it I thought Herra has too much time on his hands :p
-
When I saw that image, the first thought that ran through my mind was, "That fleet is FUBARed."
If you'd ever play Homeworld, you'd know what a 'military parade' formation is, that task force was assembled to look nice on pictures.
And as for battlecruisers- other than the Kirov there was the USS Alaska (however it/she? and it's sister Guam were called 'large cruisers'), HMS Tiger and the HMS Hood to name a few...
-
From what i was reading the Alaska class was designated a "Large Cruiser" not necessarily a battle cruiser. It was intended as a lets-make-do replacement for the battle ships lost at pearl. Its primary function was carrier escort and AAW cover.
Only 2 of them were completed and a 3rd partially completed but launched anyway, the plans for the rest were cancled
-
lol when I first saw it I thought Herra has too much time on his hands :p
It's not my render, it's IceyJones'. There are several other scale comparision renders...
-
If i remember correctly from the FS Ref Bible or something like that it said that the Fenris was initialy the biggest space vessel constructed. Then came the Orion and the Levi .
So in theory it would make sence to name the biggest ship out there a cruiser.
Then came the Orion or a previous variant of the Orion which could eat Fenris cruisers for breakfast and they though "wow this thing can destroy anithing out there" lets name it a.....destroyer.....or at least thats how it would seem to me!
-
Perhaps battleship doesn't sound nice for a capship with huge hangars, and supercarrier doesn't sound nice for a ship with huge guns...
Also- I agree with the 'cruiser destroyer' theory.
P.S. what would the FS equivalent of a 'torpedo boat destroyer' be called?
-
Since FS cruisers are more or less equivalent to torpedo boats, I'd say "corvette".
-
Meh id say more like friggate or something like that ! since friggates like the Iceni can pound away really fast really hard at almost if not all capships out there. I mean the Iceni is fas agile with a devastating forward ark beam placement. Jump in pound away then get out fast !
And as far as i can tel the Iceni is one of the fastest capships out there!
-
Pounding hard and pounding fast is all well and good, but the Iceni wasn't built to duke it out for extended battles. Just crash through blockades from what i gathered of it's constant "on the move" style.
-
Yeah well torpedo boats arent meant to duck it out for long with enemy ships either they move in fast bomb/torpedo the living lights out of the enemy then get out fast !
The Iceni may be a blocade runner but it is also a superb fast attack/strike warships with the beam firepower that would put the Aquitane to shame and rival the Orion.
-
So the Iceni is actually more of a (albeit very heavy) torpedo boat than a torpedo boat destroyer.
-
The Iceni is extremely heavily armored though.
-
The Iceni is a pocket 'battleship', like the Lilith, but slightly bigger, faster, and better armored.
-
And while we're at putting ships into classes, the Big 'C' and Big 'O' are pre-Dreadnought battleships in my books, while the Big 'S' and the Big Hat have something of a Dreadnought to them (the difference is in the fact that the C and O have 2 "calibers" of beams- direct and slash, while the S and the Hat have a uniform main battery, much like pre-D's had 2 calibers of main guns, and the D came out with an 'all big gun' layout).
-
And while we're at putting ships into classes, the Big 'C' and Big 'O' are pre-Dreadnought battleships in my books, while the Big 'S' and the Big Hat have something of a Dreadnought to them (the difference is in the fact that the C and O have 2 "calibers" of beams- direct and slash, while the S and the Hat have a uniform main battery, much like pre-D's had 2 calibers of main guns, and the D came out with an 'all big gun' layout).
I dont uhmm.... i cant uhm.... what?
-
Big 'C' = Colossus
Big 'O' = Orion
Big 'S' = Sathanas
Big Hat = Hatshepsut
-
So then whats the big D ????
Yeah he lost me too with that arguement!
-
The D (no big)...
Its either the HMS Dreadnought, or the SD Demon.
-
The Hecate would be more akin to a heavely armed super carrier . With the Hattie having better hul plating and guns(it must be german made) ! :P
The orion is more like a a battleship paid a late night visit to a carrier and 9 month's later a uber baby of terror was spit out and well looks like it wasnt breast fed enough as it doesnt have enough aaaf capabilaties.
-
Apt analogy.
-
well the Orion could be worse... could look like a giant space lobster :nervous:
-
Hey, giant space lobsters are cool!
At least I think that... :nervous:
-
Well its red...but i don't think its been boiled enough .....some plasma beams would o the trick i think...
When you want to make a lobster like a fancy restaurant woul make make sure to use the Vasudan plasma beams. Nothing cook's them faster or better !
-
Leave the animalistic designs for Vasudan ships.
Leave the arachnid- and insect-esque to the Shivans.
Boxy designs or boxes with streamlines goes to the Terrans.
And yeah, the Iceni is more of a runner than a fighter. Its maximum velocity well implies that.
-
Freespace cap ships always remind me of the lil engine that could. All those ginormous engine glows and they put along slower than my grand mother... no wonder they discovered sub space.... no one woulda ever gotten anywhere =p
-
Well, would you like to look at an Orion and a Demon firing beams at each other while flying around at 5000 m/s, making crazy loops? :lol:
-
actually... yeah ;7
-
Well, would you like to look at an Orion and a Demon firing beams at each other while flying around at 5000 m/s, making crazy loops? :lol:
When's the next JAD coming out?
And since I mixed a few members up, here's something to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906))
(2 calibers of main guns, IMHO, is the same as the use of slash and direct beams on one ship. The Shivans might have grown out of slashers after building a revolutionary Dreadnought equivalent, and that's why they use only direct firing beams. The GTVA still has to figure out that a 3 gun broadside from the Hat hurts much more than the 2 BGreens+2 TerSlashes an Orion could offer)
-
Well, would you like to look at an Orion and a Demon firing beams at each other while flying around at 5000 m/s, making crazy loops? :lol:
Suuurrrrrre. :drevil:
-
Think about setting the time compression to x64 in a dense asteroid field. Your wingmen just don't have fast reflexes to dodge asteroids at 800m/s. :p
-
thats just cruel. FOR SHAME!
-
Droid . . . .yes. Yes i do.
-
And yeah, the Iceni is more of a runner than a fighter. Its maximum velocity well implies that.
That + ETAK explains why it has 3 BGreens (2 on one side, 1 on the other) instead of 4 (2 on both sides to balance it).
-
:nod:
Still, I wonder what kind of power plant does the Iceni have. How is it possible for something slightly larger than a Deimos to mount such powerful beam cannons and ETAK in the same ship?
-
Energizer Lithium Delta Cell
-
Energizer Lithium Delta Cell
BUNNIES!
Well, the Iceni was a one-of-a-kind ship that the NTF poured all their resources into, so the NTF probably didn't hold back in giving it all the stuff they had.
-
A Frigate such as the Iceni (which always seems to be either running or blasting through blockades) is probably designed for short, intense combat situations. In this situation, reserve power (batteries) can give it an initial capability greater than a similarly sized ship designed for fleet combat (such as a Deimos). After a few weapons' exchanges, however, it is likely to run out of battery power and either use less weapons or use them as a lower level, and be inferior to the fleet combat ship (as the batteries are wasted space by this time in the battle).
As for ship class names, Star Wars has a lot to answer for, but ship type naming in space would have to be different, as the average size change with time would be likely to be much larger (although modern destroyers are larger than WWII cruisers so that effect occur on earth as well.)
-
:nod:
Still, I wonder what kind of power plant does the Iceni have. How is it possible for something slightly larger than a Deimos to mount such powerful beam cannons and ETAK in the same ship?
I'd say he obviously has plenty of emergency power given the way his ship is designed with lots of redundancies in case of any one failure. Idk, he could very easily be using a deimos or an orion power plant. The size of his ship seems plausible he could have either one. What suggests an orion power supply? Fast fast frigate dishing out orion like whoopass.
In my head it seems like either power supply could get the job done (might as well toss in the list vasudan corvette power supply...we all know the zods make more efficient power supply's).
I don't think it's about how much power the iceni it needs as much as how it uses it. I'd be betting that it uses a modified corvette power supply. Or, maybe like the rest of the ship, a custom build power supply.
-
Like my friends above said, an Orion and the Iceni were designed for vastly different roles. An Orion is supposed to plant itself in a system and run combat operations throughout for weeks, or even months at a time. The Iceni was basically built for a one way trip.
-
I don't think that the Iceni was even meant to be in combat zones anyway as it would be just one big fire/capture magnet.
The 3 BGreens perhaps were just added to quickly destroy enemy before it could alert their friends to the Iceni.
-
It's not meant to stick around in combat zones. It is meant to make a mad dash through one, blasting a few things that may try to attack it. This goes together very well with the Terran beams weapons, which have a long reload, but high single-burst damage.
-
. . . definitely not the SGreen surely? ;)
-
Regarding the powersupply i bet it uses some sort of modified or brand new sistem that was already existent but was deemed to expensive to mount on a Corvette.
As for its role well the Iceni is IDEAL for the kind of threaths the GTVA faces and the kind of war it has with the shivans.
I mean think about it. The GTVA is usualy playng catchup with the shivans and on some ocasions it tries to rush from one place to the other to blocade or pick off vulnerable targets.
That means you need fast ships with massive firepower to boot. That leaves out the Hecate and the Orion.
The Hecate because of its crappy beam cannons. And the Orion because of its low speed.
That means you only have the Hattie and the Deimos to boot. Both of them are fast and can take out enemy fighter wings . However moving a destroyer is not as easy as moving a Deimos. So the Deimos will most likely be the best choice right??
Wrong !!! The deimos is good but suffers from the same crappy slasher beams . So you have to get the Sobek. Even then The Sobek is vulnerable because of its 2 beams even if they are supperior to the Deimos.
And they take a lot of time to take out an enemy capship such as a Demon or Ravana.
Then you have the Iceni with 3 mind you 3 BGreens mounted in a forward firing ark for offensive purposes. Add to the Iceni 2 bommber wings and 1 fighter wing or perhaps 3 heavy fighter wings And you have yourself one toasted Shivan capship.
I mean it has the firepower and the HP of a destroyer but much better speed and flexibilaty .
The Iceni would fill in a gap in the GTVA arsenal. I mean you wont have to move the big arse distroyer from one end o the GTVA space to the other.
And you have the Sobek and the Deimos plus the Hecate and the Hattie and the Orion as a simbol of pride and strenght. Not to mention the Orion can still kick arse even better then the Hecate.
-
Like my friends above said, an Orion and the Iceni were designed for vastly different roles. An Orion is supposed to plant itself in a system and run combat operations throughout for weeks, or even months at a time. The Iceni was basically built for a one way trip.
I was thinking that the Iceni was the one that had more reserve power. Keep in mind that it was encased inside the NTF Boadicea, which is an installation.
-
Wasn't the Iceni carrying the ETAK project inside also?? I would think that the Iceni is a total separated development, so It might not usefull for comparisons.
-
Yeah well the fact that the Iceni caried the ETAK doesnt mean it was meant to be part of the original design.
Also there are some......issues regarding the Iceni origins. Wheather it was a GTVA project or an NTF project.
However what we do know is that Bosch was named to be supervisor of the project and that Bosch STOLE the Iceni from the shipyards when he rebelled. However we can not prove that the Iceni was in fact a GTVA design or project or whatever but the circumstacial evidente points to it and not the other way around.
-
I used to think that the Iceni was supposed to be a larger Deimos. :nervous:
-
From what i could gather form the canonc evidence provided the Iceni was suposed to be some sort of in between ship !
A ship that could go in and pond away like a destroyer could but faster . And would usually benefit from a few wings of fighter/bombers from a destroyer 1 sistem away or in sistem just some other place. Since a destroyer is much more expensive and a much more difficult ship to replace.
Basicly they wanted some sort of destroyer without the fighterbay . So the Iceni fits that role.
-
So essentially a Deimos is a standard ship you throw into combat, take out cruisers, ect. and the Iceni is designed to run blockades.
-
Not just run blockades. How should i say this. Sure the ship is perfect to run blockades but it can also dish out dammage in a battle. Basicly the corvettes are for all intents and purposes suposed to be as numerous if nor more numerous then the cruisers. while destroyers would still be the mother of all space warships they would not be sent head in to engage enemy capships. They are too big too cumbersome. Instead the Iceni would be used for that role.
Not Iceni bosch has but the Iceni in its original intent.
Whiel you would see destroyers engaging enemy capships from time to time they are there to be put to use in the most dangerous sectors of the battlefield.
I believe that the Hecate was designed with the Iceni class so to speak in mind. If you notice the Hecate is much more of a C&C carrier/warship then its much more powerfull counterparts the Hattie and the Orion.
Basicly that is why i believe they decided to phase out the Orion . too big too slow an too vulnerable to enemy attack's by fighter's and bombers and even capships. The Iceni so to speak i bet has much less crew then a destroyer . Not to mention it would be a lot cheaper even if it is brand new and with the most advanced tech available. It would still not be able to reach the same cost as a destroyer.
Just imagine for every destroyer the GTVA has at least 1 or 2 Iceni's out there with Deimos and Sobek's dishing out damage with the destroyer further back providing C&C and fighter/bomber wigs as required.
and if the battle got too hot you would just send in the destroyer personaly to help out . But i believe that 3 BGreens plus an aditional 4 slasher at least would be able to make short work of anithing smaller the SD class.
Also i believe that the Vasudans would of suerely got theyr own version of the Iceni eventualy if they were not in fact working on it already at the time of the NTF rebellion.
-
That is possible, but I think the high costs for constructing a large amount of Icenis wouldn't be worth it. The amount of technology and resources that goes into creating a small ship with the amount weaponry, armor and engine power that the Iceni possesses probably means that creating one might be just as strenuous as creating a destroyer or several corvettes.
I think it would be more feasible for the GTVA to just create more Hecates and Orions - Fighters and bombers are the main combatants in FreeSpace, so creating a ship capable of ferrying them around would be more efficient than creating one small pocket destroyer that can't really do that much save for run around and escape.
You also have to take into account that the Iceni isn't really much good in a defensive sort of position. Sure it has a lot of firepower, but before long you'd soon see that having more fighters and bombers would be more effective in creating a better defense of a Jump Node or installation. The Iceni is more fitted to running away and offensive missions - Perhaps SOC mission strikes deep into enemy territory, much like the GTFf Saphah of Derelict.
Really, I can't see a widespread creation of Iceni like vessels for the GTVA, at least not in the numbers you're suggesting. If they were created, IMO they'd be used as a rare forward-attack craft for strategic assault missions in conjunction with a few heavy fighters like the Ares or Erinyes. I don't think Icenis would be used in a large, numerous support role due to large construction costs as well as its inability to really do that much good in defensive missions.
-
Hmm i see your point!
However i believe that destroyer fully armed and manned would be less then half the price of an Iceni.
And while i agree that its usage is limited to perhaps 50-60% or the operations GTVA has to conduct it is much safer to haveb a ship such as the Iceni then a full blown destroyer dont you agree?
Also i bel;iev that if used properly an Iceni class could in theory provide much more adequate protection to a node (meaning blocade it ) then lets say a destroyer or just corvettes and bommbers etc.
I do agree that you need to have fighter/bomber present almost everywhere. But with the Advent of fighters such as the Aries and the Erynies a ships such as the Iceni suddenly becomes a whole lot more needed then it used to.
Also we do see the GTVA lately mounting increasing offensive operations in nature. I mean it has to mount such operations or it would be eaten alive by the shivans. they have to force the shivans back with something. And the Iceni would be just the ship for such a fight.
Also while i honestly do not believe the Iceni to house such a massive instalation for the ETAK i do believ it to be somewhat big and would require a bit of space in the ship.
If i am correct then i would corectly assume that the space needed for the ETAK was taken from Weapons and such. That would mean that the Iceni would in theory be able to house at least 2 or 3 more aaaf weapons such as a aaaf beam and perhaps a flack or 2 even a missile laucnher that would increase its aaaf capabilaties by a LOT!
-
To be honest, the Iceni's build made me think that it was meant for a hunter-killer role, because she's fast and has a large enough punch to threaten most destroyers. And if she was mass-produced, I doubt every Iceni would carry ETAK, which would take up considerable space, nor would we see them in Fenris/Leviathian numbers. Maybe about 30 Icenis, tops, spread throughout the entire GTVA. The Iceni would be a most capable hunter seeker.
-
I kinda think that the Iceni was built with the budget disregarded. Even without ETAK, it'd be insanely expensive compared to most destroyers.
-
Well it is Bosch's ship and the flagship of the NTF so I'd say it is a one of a kind ship.
-
The Iceni must definitely be expensive to produce, though. It uses the same grade of armour plating as the GTF Ares. ;)
-
I don't see why people have all decided that ETAK must be huge and massively power consuming.
-
I don't see why people have all decided that ETAK must be huge and massively power consuming.
Any prototype tends to either suck terribly, drains energy like a running tap at full speed, or both.
-
It's essentially a translation device. It uses the same communications equipment as everything else. There's nothing to suggest that it would be energy intensive.
-
and what do these people use for money anyway?
-
C-Bills.
-
Credit cards? :nervous:
-
Their markets are probably dominated by Hydrogen and other natural resources.
-
I don't think that there would be a Delta-Serpentian Dollar or a Capella Crown would there? ;)
-
Honestly, if they're as culturally developed as the FS1 tech made it sound, they might not have a need for currency.
-
Just for interest which part says that?
Perhaps instead of currency, the market has reverted back to the BC ways of goods - gold, metal, furnished material = nebula gas, metals from asteroids, space-craft.
But what happens down on the planets? Surely things cannot change so drastically over the period of 300 years. :)
-
Considering the Orion tech room description states "The cost to build one outweighs the cost to pay it's crew for 3 years"[more or less], I assume they still have a monetary currency.
-
lol . . . oops . . . you're right of course
-
I don't think that there would be a Delta-Serpentian Dollar or a Capella Crown would there? ;)
I's like a wallet full of capellan crowns, :yes:
Or Ribos Biscuits :nervous:
-
I'm not reading the whole thread, it looks like it's off topic anyway now, but part of the reason for the change is the lack of the term battleship. It's become commonplace in sci-fi universe creation to leave out the designation battleship as a space craft class because of the word 'ship' in it. That was, I think, a big cause for the shifting around of the terms. Destroyer as stated ended up becoming what is basically a battleship/light carrier.
-
Imperial Star Destroyer anyone?
Why in Babylon 5 is the Earth Ship an "Omega Destroyer" as well? Larger than the earlier "Heavy Cruiser".
Writers in non-contemporary settings don't give a crap about convention, they care about what sounds cool. And Destroyer sounds cooler than Cruiser, though of course that's up to debate. Cruiser only sounds cool imo when it's got other modifiers on it, like Battlecruiser, or Warcruiser.
-
:wtf: umm... I don't think they just pick any bass-ackwards name just because it sounds cool. There's always a seed of convention.
I think that "Cruiser-Destroyer" makes perfect sense.
-
:wtf: umm... I don't think they just pick any bass-ackwards name just because it sounds cool. There's always a seed of convention.
I think that "Cruiser-Destroyer" makes perfect sense.
Yeah, convention, as in, Star Wars convention. Of course I don't know that, I'm only guessing, like everyone else. Some people care about contemporary or WW2 parallels and some people don't. Do we know what sort of person gave the ships names? No, not really.
But seriously, does anyone think any large ship in sci-fi would be called a Destroyer if not for the ISD and Star Wars? Well I'm sure someone else would have continued the trend at some point, but perhaps not with the same impact. I think most large ships called Destroyer in sci fi are called as such because of the ISD myself.
Dreadnought is another seriously overused term. It's cool that FS2 went with Juggernaut instead (hmmn, was the Samatra a Juggernaut? Samatra / Sathanas . . hmmn. Maybe it was just a battle platform).
-
Wouldn't a Dreadnought be more like a normal sized capital ship armed with only large beam cannons for taking out large ships? The HMS Dreadnought wasn't considerably larger than her contemporaries, IIRC, and usually is Sci Fi Dreadnoughts aren't enormous.
-
I always felt that a dreadnought had both the armour and firepower to be a real threat on the battlefield, basically a tank, and it was always enourmous.
-
I believe the original qualification for being a dreadnought was that the main batteries of the ship were all of the same caliber (rather than of mixed calibers.)
-
i thought the dreadnought qualifier was to be ugly as sin and covered with weapons =p
-
The qualification for a dreadnought is that there's little else to match it. The clue's in the name. :p
-
I believe the original qualification for being a dreadnought was that the main batteries of the ship were all of the same caliber (rather than of mixed calibers.)
That was the original qualification, yes.
A normal battleship with all big (and the same) calibers.
-
The only Dreadnought for me is good old trusty CNV-301 :)
-
The original dreadnaughts distinction was not just the guns, several other warship at the same time and slightly earlier has similar 'big-gun' armament, but relied on more balanced armour and reciprocating steam engines, while Dreadnaught relied on an armour belt and turbines to be able to outrun anything else of her size (such as the IJN's Satsuma-class or the USNs South Carolina-class).
But yes, To be class as a dreadnaught a ship should be able to survive combat with anything, being able to outgun anything it can't outrun.
-
Well the best i can think of of a dreadnaught in FS terms would be a ship a bit bigger then the ...Orion or Hecate or whatever with massive more HP and double the beam cannons of the Orion. Or at least beam cannons that could scare the lights out of even the mighty orion or the Hattie or even the Ravana for that matter. It would not be able stand for long against a Sath but it would be able to take on anithing out there smaller the a jugg.
The Iceni would be akin to a poket battleship of ww2..and even that is pushing it.
However refering to FS2 era ships the Iceni had it been a bit larger and some fighters/bombers on it it would of been a poket destroyer.
So given the current specs it's a friggate. Too big and too heavely armoured and armed for a corvette yet not quite big enough to be a poket destroyer of sorts.
So how about a battlefrigate or something like tat . since the medical ship the Hipacrates was also called a frigate.....
-
In my opinion, FS2 Dreadnaught = Lucifer-sized, Orion-armed battleship
FS2 Frigate = Small, fat, oversized, chubby, deadly ship
-
Small . . . oversized
WTF?
-
Yeah whats with the oversized ???
Except for the Sobek and the Deimos the Iceni is the most streamlined ship in game.
-
Yeah whats with the oversized ???
Except for the Sobek and the Deimos the Iceni is the most streamlined ship in game.
The Iceni also happens to be larger than a Deimos, even though it's much smaller than an Orion.
-
Yeah whats with the oversized ???
Except for the Sobek and the Deimos the Iceni is the most streamlined ship in game.
I still dont get your point ! Its smaller then the Orion yeah its barely 1 km in lenght.
The Deimos barely scratches 0.8 or so with the Sobek even smaller at about 0.6 km or so !
so......whats with the fast oversized. For its size its got excelent HP and more then enough raw firepower to put the Hecate to shame.
The Iceni also happens to be larger than a Deimos, even though it's much smaller than an Orion.
-
Right, here are my reasons for describing a frigate (or the Iceni, if you put it that way) as I did:
Small, because it's smaller than a destroyer;
Fat, because it has a huge side profile;
Oversized, because it is larger than a corvette;
Chubby, because it is fat and oversized; and
Deadly, because it has destroyer-class armament.
-
lol what about the Demon or the Sath. they have a pretty big fat profile if you ask me.
Actualy the Iceni considering everithing is not that fat. In fact i find it a rather dificult target especialy for the slasher beams. :D
-
lol what about the Demon or the Sath. they have a pretty big fat profile if you ask me.
True, but the former's a destroyer and the latter a juggernaut.
Actualy the Iceni considering everithing is not that fat. In fact i find it a rather dificult target especialy for the slasher beams. :D
Well, in a literal sense, it isn't fat. :)
-
nah i know now what you mean . But its profile its slightly bigger then a Deimos so by all intents and purposes its really anemic if you ask me ! thats what makes it so cool. You have a ship that you dont actualy expect it to do better then the Deimos by a large margin against other capship's that is untill it lets loof on your escort warship with its 3 BGreens .
Then your jaw drops and you are in awe of what such a tiny ship can dish out.
It like the like engine that could you know...
-
The slasher beams are actually no more accurate on a large target than they are at a small. IIRC
-
Errr......well sort of....its just a bit harder for a slasher to overshoot the broadside of a jugg or a destroyer then it is to overshoot a corvette/frigate .
Man those slashers suck. I saw payred slasher beams hitting the sath for less time that it takes me to blink and then shooting off into space.
I mean come on ou would figure 300 years into the future they have better tageting computers on those things !
-
No, it isn't. The slasher picks two points on the model to slash between. It doesn't matter if it's a cruiser or a jug... once again IIRC
-
I mean come on ou would figure 300 years into the future they have better tageting computers on those things !
. . . and we see why the Shivans are smart enough to arm their warships with good, honest straight beams.
(Although it's quite amusing to see a group of maras get toasted by a TerSlash coming their way)
-
No, it isn't. The slasher picks two points on the model to slash between. It doesn't matter if it's a cruiser or a jug... once again IIRC
Yeah, that's how it works. It picks two points, usually on opposite sides, and then slashes across it in its lifetime (the bigger the target, the aster it moves).
-
so basicly if it picks the 2 tips on 2 sath arms most of its firepower will be wasted :)))
Edit
Oh yeah and shivans are smart cuz they decided to arm theyr warships with honest to god normal beams of doom,.
-
Yes, but if a normal straight beam misses a target, it causes no damage. Although slashers are pathetic at choosing a good line to slash across, they always slash ACROSS a ship, so they will almost always cause some damage, even if it's hitting for only a tiny period of time.
-
If it just barely clips a ship, it does next to no damage though.
The good thing about slash beams, IMO, is its fast recycle rate. Even if it does miss, it gets another shot pretty quickly, as opposed to having to wait 30 seconds for a BGreen.
The LRed, BFRed, and Mjolnir Beam don't have either deficiency, which makes them very powerful.
-
Lol can you imagine 3 mjolnirs mounted on a Deimos or Iceni or even a Hecate ......Now that would even the plains a bit dont you think.
-
But something I've noticed with the Terran beam graphics compared to the Vasudan or Shivan is that the beam cannons seem to be firing unrefined and all-out bolts of plasma.
On the the other hand, the Shivan LRed or BFRed beams appear to be composed of cool, efficient forms of energy.
Observation taken from vanilla FS2, not mediavps.
-
They changed the Shivan beams to have funny white stuff in the middle.
(Please do not think I am criticising the FSU team's work - I do think they have done so much great work.)
-
Uh . . . other than the color, they all look the same to me in Vanilla
-
Terran beams, especially the Mjolnir cannon ones, have mass flickering near the edges, and in the middle there is a appearance of unrefined energy being fired relentlessly. Coupled with the beam's sound (Mjolnir again) it gives the impression of the beam very coarse.
On the other hand, the LRed has a cool and dangerous sound for the beam and the beam itself is pure and essentially perfect.
-
That effect should be emboldened in the MVPs, for the sake of coolness.
Also, kind of shows how Shivan beams are so much more efficient than Terran ones. The Mjolnir seems to just be a crappy clumped together beam designed specifically to keep firing over and over and over with no consideration for safety regulations (Remember the Vindication? Or was it the Righteousness? Or Retribution? Or... Eh confused). Probably since there were no crew onboard Mjolnirs nobody cared if sometimes they spontaneously asploded. On the other hand the LRed is probably much... "Safer" (safer to some, exceedingly dangerous to others) than Terran beams.
-
The only Dreadnought for me is good old trusty CNV-301 :)
I-War for the win.
The game spells it Dreadnaught I believe though. ;)
-
Good point, but logically :v: named the classes for implications.
I think they just named them after the cool factor...that, and they probably had the star wards "star DESTROYER" ringing in their ears.
Except Star Destroyers in Star Wars fulfill the destroyer role, unlike destroyers in Freespace. Think about what we see them doing: Chasing down freighters and corvettes during naval patrol duties (a destroyer's job) and escorting battleships (also a destroyer's job). We don't see them in line engagements except when they're forced into them, and judging (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars%20evidence/Turbolaser1.jpg) from (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars%20evidence/Turbolaser2.jpg) this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars%20evidence/Turbolaser3.jpg) series (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars%20evidence/Turbolaser4.jpg) of (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars%20evidence/Turbolaser5.jpg) screenshots (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars%20evidence/Turbolaser6.jpg) from (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars%20evidence/Turbolaser7.jpg) Endor, (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars%20evidence/Turbolaser8.jpg) they don't do too well at it. :lol:
-
if the empire had star cruisers, they woulda won! I rest my case
-
They did. Some appear at Endor, though the focus is on the main characters, so attention isn't called to it. In particular, at one point the Falcon skims along the belly of a large Imperial ship, but, unlike a Star Destroyer, it has no ventral hangar bay.
-
if the empire had star cruisers, they woulda won! I rest my case
The Empire had many smaller cruisers, such as the Strike Cruiser, Carrack Cruiser, Lancer Frigate, and Drednaught. Also, don't forget that the Nebulon-B Frigate class (same ship as the Alliance medical ship seen at the end of Empire Strikes Back) was originally an Imperial cruiser design.
-
Uh . . .
Frigates are supposed to be smaller than destroyers :wtf:
-
Well Mars for once the ship designations match in FS 2 I mean corvettes are smaller then friggates and friggates are smaller then destroyers. So in this respect they have it right.
However since cruisers are so small compared to other vesseles in FS2 it amazas me that they are so cumbersome. Even the new designs such as the Mentu and the Aeolous are still rather slow and cumbersome to my taste.
-
Because if they were actually fast they'd outrun any bomber that didn't have their afterburner on. ;7
-
Actually, an Aeolus at full speed can outrun an Ares with no power diverted to engines.
-
Which moves slower than an Ostrich
-
Hey, an ostrich can run.
-
Which moves slower than an Ostrich
Hey, an ostrich can run.
:drevil:
You meant a snail, Mars?
-
Actually, an Aeolus at full speed can outrun an Ares with no power diverted to engines.
But why would you do that? :lol:
-
Just making a point, Zane. ;)
-
Except Star Destroyers in Star Wars fulfill the destroyer role, unlike destroyers in Freespace. Think about what we see them doing: Chasing down freighters and corvettes during naval patrol duties (a destroyer's job) and escorting battleships (also a destroyer's job). We don't see them in line engagements except when they're forced into them, and
That argument might hold water except that it's not an Imperial Battleship it's a "Super Star Destroyer". So even if the ISD fills the Destroyer's role, why then is the Executor and others of her class also referred to as Destroyers? Does the Star Destroyer perform that role because that's what she's made to do? Or does she perform it because nothing else will. Expanded Universe aside, the Star Destroyer and the Super Star Destroyer are the only two ships we see in the fleet. Minor variations aside.
It should be noted, that in EpIV Han Solo originally calls the two destroyers over Tatooine roughly "Imperial Cruisers" (or maybe there was just one, but, same idea). As far as I know "Star Destroyer" only came into being for EpV. Or maybe Han said Star Cruisers . . . but same idea, Cruiser not Destroyer.
-
there were 2 and he did call them imperial cruisers.
I think the label "destroyer" is way over used in sci-fi all together. It does sound more fearsome than "cruiser" but as i stated in the OP, modern day naval ships are the reverse of what most sci-fi classifications are.
-
Just making a point, Zane. ;)
I know. ;)
-
You meant a snail, Mars?
No, I mean that an Aeolus moves at roughly the same speed as an Ostrich . . . literally.
-
Except Star Destroyers in Star Wars fulfill the destroyer role, unlike destroyers in Freespace. Think about what we see them doing: Chasing down freighters and corvettes during naval patrol duties (a destroyer's job) and escorting battleships (also a destroyer's job). We don't see them in line engagements except when they're forced into them, and
That argument might hold water except that it's not an Imperial Battleship it's a "Super Star Destroyer". So even if the ISD fills the Destroyer's role, why then is the Executor and others of her class also referred to as Destroyers? Does the Star Destroyer perform that role because that's what she's made to do? Or does she perform it because nothing else will. Expanded Universe aside, the Star Destroyer and the Super Star Destroyer are the only two ships we see in the fleet. Minor variations aside.
It should be noted, that in EpIV Han Solo originally calls the two destroyers over Tatooine roughly "Imperial Cruisers" (or maybe there was just one, but, same idea). As far as I know "Star Destroyer" only came into being for EpV. Or maybe Han said Star Cruisers . . . but same idea, Cruiser not Destroyer.
Another thing to remember is that the term "Destroyer" as applied to an ISD is simply a name, not a class designation. The original designation was Imperator Cruiser, which morphed into the most commonly accepted Imperator-class Star Destoyer. Fans, over the years, have generally applied the class name "Star Destroyer" to any triangular shaped warship, such as the Victory Star Destroyer. Even then, Star Wars is a really bad example to compare to. It doesn't follow any "normal" class designations anyway. Ship class designations in Star Wars tend to be at the whim of the manufacturers.
-
That argument might hold water except that it's not an Imperial Battleship it's a "Super Star Destroyer". So even if the ISD fills the Destroyer's role, why then is the Executor and others of her class also referred to as Destroyers? Does the Star Destroyer perform that role because that's what she's made to do? Or does she perform it because nothing else will. Expanded Universe aside, the Star Destroyer and the Super Star Destroyer are the only two ships we see in the fleet. Minor variations aside.
The term "Super Star Destroyer" was used exactly once, as part of a shouted order in the heat of battle. It is more often referred to as a "command ship" in the movies.
And you don't have to go so far as the EU to find warships other than those two in the Imperial fleet; there are other classes mentioned during the Battle of Endor in the novelization of Return of the Jedi.
It should be noted, that in EpIV Han Solo originally calls the two destroyers over Tatooine roughly "Imperial Cruisers" (or maybe there was just one, but, same idea). As far as I know "Star Destroyer" only came into being for EpV. Or maybe Han said Star Cruisers . . . but same idea, Cruiser not Destroyer.
There were three, actually. He said "Looks like an Imperial cruiser," after taking a brief glance down at his controls. Given what we know of the Falcon's control panel and it's near-total lack of screens suitable for displaying detailed targeting information, it's highly unlikely that he had the exact class and designation right there, and "cruiser" is a safe thing to call any given capital ship if you're not being technical.
-
I don't think a cruiser was ever considered a capital ship. At least not since sail days.
-
True, but in most space games it's anything big enough they won't let you fly it. Save for freighters anyway.
-
actually, in star wars, anything bigger then a corvette is a cruiser. as in mon calamari cruiser.
-
That argument might hold water except that it's not an Imperial Battleship it's a "Super Star Destroyer". So even if the ISD fills the Destroyer's role, why then is the Executor and others of her class also referred to as Destroyers? Does the Star Destroyer perform that role because that's what she's made to do? Or does she perform it because nothing else will. Expanded Universe aside, the Star Destroyer and the Super Star Destroyer are the only two ships we see in the fleet. Minor variations aside.
The term "Super Star Destroyer" was used exactly once, as part of a shouted order in the heat of battle. It is more often referred to as a "command ship" in the movies.
[/quote]
Quantity does not outweigh quality.
It's referred to as a "Super Star Destroyer" exactly once by Admiral Ackbar, who as the military commander of the entire Rebel fleet should know a little about the Imperial navy. And it's referred to as Command ship, by whom . . . Luke Skywalker? Han Solo? A bunch of people who've got virtually nothing to do with the military. And yeah, I know Solo is a "General". But in addition, in the heat of battle isn't it easier to say Command Ship? It's certainly got less syllables that "SSD" and if you're desperate to get something done you go for brevity.
Even then, Star Wars is a really bad example to compare to. It doesn't follow any "normal" class designations anyway. Ship class designations in Star Wars tend to be at the whim of the manufacturers.
Well then Babylon 5 is another example then. We have "Earth Force Destroyer" which Ivanova says when the Churchill jumps in during Severed Dreams. And we have a much smaller ship, the "Hyperion Heavy Cruiser" which Londo referrs to as a "Heavy Cruiser" during A Voice Cried out in the Wilderness. The Destroyer is far larger than the Heavy Cruiser.
-
The term "Super Star Destroyer" was used exactly once, as part of a shouted order in the heat of battle. It is more often referred to as a "command ship" in the movies.
Quantity does not outweigh quality.
It's referred to as a "Super Star Destroyer" exactly once by Admiral Ackbar, who as the military commander of the entire Rebel fleet should know a little about the Imperial navy. And it's referred to as Command ship, by whom . . . Luke Skywalker? Han Solo?
Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine (repeatedly)...
Not like they'd know anything about their own forces. :p
-
No, I mean that an Aeolus moves at roughly the same speed as an Ostrich . . . literally.
Good to know. :nod:
Capital ships are ships with important people on board, I think. Cruisers don't usually qualify unless if a VIP is on board.
-
Then my Pegasus is a capital ship. I'm in it!
. . . I'm important . . . right? :nervous:
-
Well then Babylon 5 is another example then. We have "Earth Force Destroyer" which Ivanova says when the Churchill jumps in during Severed Dreams. And we have a much smaller ship, the "Hyperion Heavy Cruiser" which Londo referrs to as a "Heavy Cruiser" during A Voice Cried out in the Wilderness. The Destroyer is far larger than the Heavy Cruiser.
And the Omega is exactly like the Orion or Hecate, main-line combat ship with fighter carrying capability.
-
Well then Babylon 5 is another example then. We have "Earth Force Destroyer" which Ivanova says when the Churchill jumps in during Severed Dreams. And we have a much smaller ship, the "Hyperion Heavy Cruiser" which Londo referrs to as a "Heavy Cruiser" during A Voice Cried out in the Wilderness. The Destroyer is far larger than the Heavy Cruiser.
B5 is actually fairly consistent when compared to SW. In B5, all races have ships dubbed "destroyer-class" that perform the same role with each race -the Omega and the Shar'lin both do the same thing for the Humans and the Minbari. Likewise, (generally) all of the races cruisers all perform the same functions with each race.
Personally, I think a much better study of the class names as they apply to science fiction is the Games Workshop game Battlefleet Gothic. Destroyers are actually the smallest warships in the game, with battleships being the largest.
-
No, I mean that an Aeolus moves at roughly the same speed as an Ostrich . . . literally.
Good to know. :nod:
Capital ships are ships with important people on board, I think. Cruisers don't usually qualify unless if a VIP is on board.
No, it doesn't have to do with who's on board. It's an understandable interpretation, but it's wrong.
-
B5 is actually fairly consistent when compared to SW. In B5, all races have ships dubbed "destroyer-class" that perform the same role with each race -the Omega and the Shar'lin both do the same thing for the Humans and the Minbari. Likewise, (generally) all of the races cruisers all perform the same functions with each race.
Actually even on the show itself they call the Sharlins War Cruisers.
-
B5 is actually fairly consistent when compared to SW. In B5, all races have ships dubbed "destroyer-class" that perform the same role with each race -the Omega and the Shar'lin both do the same thing for the Humans and the Minbari. Likewise, (generally) all of the races cruisers all perform the same functions with each race.
Actually even on the show itself they call the Shar'lins War Cruisers.
Yes, only the Earth main ship is defined as a Destroyer. With the possible exception of the Victory-class from crusade. Not sure what's that's called.
-
The Vyctory class is a destroyer class developed by both humans and minbari.
It is often reffered as a destroyer sized WhiteStar ship.
It uses the most advanced tech available to both minbari and humans alike . They even have the vorlon main cannon which is a similar yet far far far less powerfull derivate of the planet killer canon used by the vorlons.
It has some sort of cristaline armour that reflects about 80% of all enegy directed against it .
Basicly it kick's arse. :D I love that ship its just so awesome.
However the humans developed later on a new class of destroyers whihc incorporates shadow tech as well inclueding the organic armour full organic armour if i rememer correctly which should put the new class at a more advanced armour design . not sure how much more advanced.
Also i read somewhere that the armour used on the victory class was originaly intended for the other classes of warships the ISA had .
And the organic armour was in fact suposed to be used on the Vyctory class but because a full reverse egeniering was not in place at the time they were launched they used the other one .
However the Victory class was slated for an overhaul meaning more powerfull reactors and armour meaning either coating the ship in organic armour or stripping the old armour and replacing it withe the new one.
However stripping the older armour if i recall was rather unnecesarry as the Victory class was slated to make full use of both tipes at once.
Some sort of layered armour .
If that is true then that ship is one bad arse ship that can stand in battle for far longer time then anithing the ISA had !
-
Ahahaa "destoryers"
I don't remember where I heard it (it might be just stuff made up for TVWP), but I heard something about "Destroyer" in an FS context being a shortened name for "Carrier Destroyers"
-
Ahahaa "destoryers"
Yeah, we know.
I don't remember where I heard it (it might be just stuff made up for TVWP), but I heard something about "Destroyer" in an FS context being a shortened name for "Carrier Destroyers"
Well, when you think of it, FS2 destroyers are also part carriers because they can house spacecraft.
-
Sorry about the spelling guis!
As for the destroyers (!) that are part carriers you can also say that modern day carriers are part destroyers . Since they can take out other warships altough in a indirect manner . And they can also hunt for sub's and provide aaaf coverage and protection for other warships.
In the context of FS2 we have a carrier ability built into a ship that also can take out other smaller warships via direct fire and other ships of the same size.
The way modern day carriers are built we can also see such a trend happening. I believe the latest carrier designs make use of both advanced aaaf defesive batteries and if im not wrong also ship to ship missiles.
Basic if a carrier would be needed large enough to be fitted with an array of ship to ship weapons and ship to shore weapons i'm sure they would make such a ship.
-
Sorry about the spelling guis!
guis?
As for the destroyers (!) that are part carriers you can also say that modern day carriers are part destroyers . Since they can take out other warships altough in a indirect manner . And they can also hunt for sub's and provide aaaf coverage and protection for other warships.
The airplanes take out other warships in an indirect manner, with cruise missiles fired from BVR.
Carriers have nothing to do with those kills, because it's the aircraft's weapon systems that are doing the job. Just imagine how many kills Alpha 1's mothership would get if his kills were listed as "targets destroyed indirectly". :p
In the context of FS2 we have a carrier ability built into a ship that also can take out other smaller warships via direct fire and other ships of the same size.
In the context of reality, ships that can duke it out with other ships carry some 2-3 helicopters for Anti-Sub Warfare. One notable exception is the Russian Kirov class, which has a nice flight deck, and a few nasty antiship missile launchers. The cost of anti-capship is having 30-ish planes and helos vs 90-100 on US carriers (which are 2x heavier, so it's 60 vs 90-100, ton for ton).
The way modern day carriers are built we can also see such a trend happening. I believe the latest carrier designs make use of both advanced aaaf defesive batteries and if im not wrong also ship to ship missiles.
As mentioned before- only the Kiev can attack other ships and hope to see a nice fireball, all the US carriers can count on is firing the Sea Sparrow or Standard SAM at surface targets, but they don't work as good as Harpoons. Future US carriers (Ford Class) will be more stealthy (which means the 100 000 ton monster will give a radar signature of, say a passenger ferry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferry_loading.jpg); stealth destroyers are just as visible as this stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krabbenkutter_Ivonne_Pellworm_P5242390jm.JPG))
Basic if a carrier would be needed large enough to be fitted with an array of ship to ship weapons and ship to shore weapons i'm sure they would make such a ship.
In WW 2, most navies had medium caliber guns on carriers. During the war, anything and everything that couldn't aim at planes was designated useless. During the war, anything larger than a 5 inch DP gun was axed from carrier designs, because it was a weight bonus that could be better used as bombs or airplane fuel.
But if you really want to build a USS Colossus with antiship and antishore weapons and a flight deck, bear in mind that the Nimitz class carriers cost over 2 000 000 000 bucks (2 billion USD), without planes of course.
-
Or you could build a Kunetsnov, which is smaller, and cheaper, and has both really. Oops.
-
Kuznetsov's pretty nice, looks like Russia learned a few things on the Kiev.
However it still has lower airplanes/displacement ratio, at 50 (max cap. on paper)/67k tons vs 85(nominal)/88k tons for the USS Nimitz (just saying there's less planes on it wouldn't account to the fact it's a bit smaller).
I wonder how many strike craft a Hecate sized, 'flying hangar' style ship in the FS universe would be capable of holding...
-
I wonder how many strike craft a Hecate sized, 'flying hangar' style ship in the FS universe would be capable of holding...
Far too many.
-
I reckon about 180 to 240 strike craft.
-
So 2 such ships could take out the Big C's strike craft fleet and then disarm, disable and slowly sink it, given that they can find the C before it sees them...
-
Which is, of course, not a given. That's why we have destroyers in the first place, you need to be able to defend yourself against surprise attack and carry fighters.
-
I envision a trend in the GTVA with the fleet being much more diverse.
I believe dedicated carrier's small and large would arrive. Also dedicated warships for taking out enemy cap-ship's . No im not talking about the Deimos or such cuz they suck big time given the fact they are armed with just slasher beams.
Also escort carrier's fleet carrier's and massive carrier's with at least 250-350 strike crafts capable of swarming the enemy defensive lines and provide aid to an entire system.
-
B5 is actually fairly consistent when compared to SW. In B5, all races have ships dubbed "destroyer-class" that perform the same role with each race -the Omega and the Shar'lin both do the same thing for the Humans and the Minbari. Likewise, (generally) all of the races cruisers all perform the same functions with each race.
Actually even on the show itself they call the Sharlins War Cruisers.
Yes, but again, that's a name designation, not a size-class designation. There is one episode (can't remember which off the top of my head) where Sheridan is asking for each race to commit one ship of destroyer class to the defence of Babylon 5.
I can illustrate the name/size-class difference further using Star Wars. Lets look at a Rendell Star Drive Drednaught. The ship class is named drednaught. It is 600 meters long. In the SW universe, a drednaught size class is significantly larger. Ships like the Eclipse and Sovereign were classed as dreadnaughts, but named "destroyer". Don't let the class name/size-name difference confuse :P
-
The Rendilli Star Drive Dreadnaught is a Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, not a Deadnaught-class dreadnaught.
It's like having a "GTC Corvette". Its a Cruiser, of the named class 'Corvette'.
-
B5 is actually fairly consistent when compared to SW. In B5, all races have ships dubbed "destroyer-class" that perform the same role with each race -the Omega and the Shar'lin both do the same thing for the Humans and the Minbari. Likewise, (generally) all of the races cruisers all perform the same functions with each race.
Actually even on the show itself they call the Sharlins War Cruisers.
Yes, but again, that's a name designation, not a size-class designation. There is one episode (can't remember which off the top of my head) where Sheridan is asking for each race to commit one ship of destroyer class to the defence of Babylon 5.
I can illustrate the name/size-class difference further using Star Wars. Lets look at a Rendell Star Drive Drednaught. The ship class is named drednaught. It is 600 meters long. In the SW universe, a drednaught size class is significantly larger. Ships like the Eclipse and Sovereign were classed as dreadnaughts, but named "destroyer". Don't let the class name/size-name difference confuse :P
Uh, no. Babylon 5 designations were design designations. Omegas were Destroyers. Sharlins were Warcruisers, Warlocks were Advanced Destroyers. Hyperions were Cruisers. Olympus (What's the plural form of this? :P) was a Corvette. Primus was a Battlecruiser. Vorchans were Attack Cruisers. The Whitestar is a Monitor. They were all designated based on their design.
-
The Rendilli Star Drive Dreadnaught is a Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, not a Deadnaught-class dreadnaught.
It's like having a "GTC Corvette". Its a Cruiser, of the named class 'Corvette'.
That's precisely my point. Just because something has "Drednaught" or "Destroyer" in it's name doesn't make it a ship of drednaught or destroyer class.
-
What is considered a destroyer by one race might not be the same for another ! We should keep that in perspective.
As for the war cruisers in B5 please remember that they were in fact a bit bigger then the Omega destroyers and a LOT more powerfull.
-
Shivan Coast Guard Patrol Boat Ravana?
-
Shivan Coast Guard Patrol Boat Ravana?
I loled.
Shivan Luxury Liner Sathanas? ;7
-
Shivan Support Ship Sathanas.
-
Shivan Support Ship Sathanas.
It supports them in their goals of wiping out the GTVA :D
-
Continuing with the "support ship and luxury liner sathanas":
Galactic Terran Vasudan Water Cannon Colossus.
Galactic Terran Vasudan Fire-fighting Unit Colossus.
Or Galactic Terran Escape Pod Hecate. (for the Hecate class...)
wtf I don't see anything wrong with this post, however, it is modified for AlphaOne. btw, is it because you read some of my posts in other topics that you are going off?
-
WTF is wrong with either you or your post Excalibur i can not make heads or tales out of them !
They are even more messed up then my posts.
-
He's just continuing the joke.
Makes perfect sense to me...