[MC_K]

Hi,

I've been playing homesick campaign and I came over a interesting thought.

We all know that nodes are being collapsed by a destruction of a major vessel, such as the Lucifer or the GTDs Bastion and Nereid, loaded with meson bombs.

But.. why bother? There are numerous missions that have subspace combat, where if any capital ship is destroyed, it collapses the node. So why not just bring a mere Fenris set on autodestruct through a node, instead of expensive destroyers loaded with even more expensive bombs?

[Rodo]

Cause a mere Fenris will not be able to start the reaction to destroy the node completely.
I think... 

[General Battuta]

Because Homesick isn't canon so anything it says about minor ships destabilizing nodes only applies...to Homesick?

[-Norbert-]

What Battuta said. As far as we know the only thing able to collapse a node is either a whole lot of meson bombs, or five super reactors like the Lucifer had.
Minor Homesick spoiler:

Spoiler:

While it is quite a while that I played it, but I think even in homesick the collapsed jumpnodes were not fully stable. If I remember correctly the first node only fit corvettes or smaller (and destabilized completely after the Deimos was through) and the others needed to be stabilized by the Ravana to be traversed at all.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

Just to be sure. There hasn't been a lot of research into the subject (obviously, since jump nodes are invaluable to any FS race), and if you want to collapse a node you want to do it first time right.
Imagine if the GTVA had sent a single Fenris to collapse the E Peg - Capella node, and it had turned out that it wasn't enough - how many Shivans could have gotten through before the Bastion came in?

[MC_K]

Thanks for your replies guys.

@Batutta, I got the impression from Homesick, but then I've seen it in other campaigns. I remember one where a sath was chasing a squadron of cruisers or something like that through subspace.

So, a good answer could be that the more stabilised the node is, the larger ship it needs to collapse it succesfully? Is there a canon, or at least a semi-canon answer to this ?

[NGTM-1R]

People don't like throwing around Orion hulls, I guess. Even I don't, but I at least used converted corvettes.

[General Battuta]

Thanks for your replies guys.

@Batutta, I got the impression from Homesick, but then I've seen it in other campaigns. I remember one where a sath was chasing a squadron of cruisers or something like that through subspace.

So, a good answer could be that the more stabilised the node is, the larger ship it needs to collapse it succesfully? Is there a canon, or at least a semi-canon answer to this ?

There is no canon information so the answer is 'whatever works for your campaign'.

[Kie99]

The implication in the main campaign is that you need a truly massive blast to destroy a node - either a superdestroyer or a destroyer loaded with Meson Bombs, otherwise the GTVA would have just sent a cruiser.  Of course, you could make the argument that a Fenris would work, and by sending a ship filled with Meson Bombs the GTVA were just making absolutely sure, or that nodes of varying stability require various blast sizes to take them out, but there's no canoncial support for that idea. 

[Zacam]

I'm a big fan of the AD&D approach to the problem:

"Rocks fall, everybody dies"

[BlueFlames]

I'm a big fan of the AD&D approach to the problem:

"Rocks fall, everybody dies"

So, in FreeSpace, that'd be....

Code: [Select]

$Name: SJ Sathanas 1 ;! Object #1
$Class: SJ Sathanas
$Team: Hostile
...
$Arrival Location: In front of ship
+Arrival Distance: 2500
$Arrival Anchor: Alpha 1
$Arrival Cue: ( has-time-elapsed 10 )

I never had quite equated FRED'ing to DM'ing before.