Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Alan Bolte on August 22, 2004, 02:10:45 am
-
I don't know where this might have been discussed before, I couldn't find it. But it's bothered me that the known lables for ships in the FSverse are limited to Cruiser, Corvette, and Destroyer (not to mention juggernaught or super destroyer).
Not only is there a lack of other lables, but the existing ones don't seem to fit. To steal from Dr. Saxton (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/warships.html#nomenclature):
gunboat
a small vessel of shallow draught and with relatively heavy guns. [Oxford]
monitor
a heavily armed warship of shallow draught. [Oxford]
corvette
a small, lightly armed, fast vessel, used mostly for convoy escort, ranging between a destroyer and a gunboat in size. [Macquarie]
frigate
a naval escort vessel between a corvette and a destroyer in size. [Oxford]
destroyer
a fast warship with guns and torpedoes used to protect other ships. [Oxford]
cruiser
a warship of high speed and medium armament. [Oxford]
battlecruiser
a warship of maximum speed and fire power, but with lighter armour than a battleship. [Macquarie]
battleship
a warship with the heaviest armour and the largest guns. [Oxford]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks sort of like the situation is this:
FS1:
The oldest ship class in the GTA navy is the Fenris Cruiser. At one time, it was the epitome of a cruiser, a fast ship that could pack a punch. the Leviathan varient was apparently developed for the V-T war, and was also called a cruiser because it was simply a varient on the existing design. The Orion class was developed with a new scale in mind, where a fleet would be composed of vessels so large that the Colossus would be considered only fairly large. With a ship that big, including some fighters wouldn't be a problem, and might be good for anti-bomber defense. The resulting ship design was so large and powerful, and the present resources of the GTA so limited relative to the production of a super-sized fleet, that it was adapted to serve in a carrier role, thus creating a sort of battleship/carrier when it was clear that the Fenris-scale would have to suffice (war had begun, and for real, current war, you need a lot of ships with proven designs, not some new concept model). For some reason the original designation of destroyer was kept when the design went into production.
FS2:
So now you have this bizzaro fleet left over from a major war, and you need to gun up just incase the Shivans come back. Now is not the time to go and restructure things. By bizzaro, I mean you've got destroyers larger than cruisers serving as carriers, and your cruisers have gotten pretty useless, possibly useful as anti-fighter frigates. Everything's upgraded with beam cannons. The Aeolus Crusier is created as a replacement for the Fenris and Leviathan, but is called a cruiser because by this point the names would have lost their original meaning for all practical purposes, and the ship is designed to fit in with the bizzaro fleet as it is now. Meanwhile, the super-sized ship idea is brought back, and the Deimos is called a Corvette such that it makes sense size-wise with the destroyers. The Hecate Destroyer is designed with the same idea as the Orion, with a fairly large armament and a fighter complement that is sufficient but small relative to its size. Concepts for a new fleet are outlined, but the prototype vessel to serve as a Cruiser or Battleship in this new navy isn't completed in time for this new war, and ends up being nothing more than a poorly deployed, underwhelming supership.
-
yeah, that's how i always thought of it, i guess the definitins at the top would have to be redifined for use in the freespace universe, for example
Destroyers
as you said these are more carriers, also the biggest ships in the fleet with lots of firepower
Corvettes
the same as a destroyer but without a fighterbay, from little mention of corvettes being lost in the command breifings i'd guess it doesnt serve a very high comand role (radar, coordinating attacks, commuunicating with fighters) and is more of a "pure warship"
Cruiser
Seems to be mainly now a tactical snd support platform, by suport i not only mean command support but also weapons support (most cruisers seem to have a fairly large forward beam cannon)
Juggernaut
Big
Atleast the frigates are inbetween the size of a coorvette and a destroyer
By the way, you missed PT boat
-
To me the class names in FS are more closely related to their roots than the actual meaning of the word.
In FS1, you only had 2 warship classes, Crusiers and Destroyers
Therefore:
Cruisers cruise(patrol and picket deployments).
Destroyers destroy(deployed only to kill enemy warships and installations).
In FS2, the development of corvettes and frigates shows that the Naval forces are tracing their roots in classifaction if not role.
Therefore cruisers cruise and destroyers destroy things.
The Sathanas was designated a juggernaught because it was essentially unstoppable.
Destroyers are as big as they are because they do double duty as both warships and mobile fighter bases. If you take the fighter component out of a destroyer, you end up with a frigate similar to the Iceni.
Frankly, I'm tired of everybody and their brothers/sisters/aunts/ect/whatever, trying to compare FS ship classes with every other game/universes ship classification system. What it boils down to is V had these mondo sized ships, the largest, coolest ship ever, and they wanted a name that sounded cool, so they became "destoyers", "cruiser" just isn't as impressive to the ear as "destroyer".
-
yeah, there called destroyers becase it sounds cool, just accept it already, V isn't going to change it
-
Alan Bolte: :yes: :yes:
It is a great idea to look into the real meanings of the warship types. I don't think the Deimos was classified as a corvette, because it was small compared to the Colossus. There must have been something else in the background. [V] was simply misinformed. And how nobody recognised it, don't ask me.
I locally admit that I utterly misjudged the gunship classification. My only presentable and released mod for FreeSpace 2 was called the GTGs Antwerpen, a gunship-type ship, which was 390 meters long. Ugh. I desecrated the gunship classification!! :ha: Too good nobody complained about it. :D
juggernaut: (www.reference.com)
- Something, such as a belief or institution, that elicits blind and destructive devotion or to which people are ruthlessly sacrificed.
- An overwhelming, advancing force that crushes or seems to crush everything in its path: “It doesn't assume that people need necessarily remain passive when confronted by what appears to be the juggernaut of history” (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt).
- Juggernaut Used as a title for the Hindu deity Krishna.
Frigate (www.reference.com)
- A warship, usually of 4,000 to 9,000 displacement tons, that is larger than a destroyer and smaller than a cruiser(!!), used primarily for escort duty.
- A high-speed, medium-sized sailing war vessel of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries
-
[V] was simply misinformed. And how nobody recognised it, don't ask me.
They just wanted use those names not misinformed
(and it's not always cool use Class names that lot use)
-
Being overlooked is the fact that ship classifications have been designated and changed (roles and size vessel) several times over the last number of centuries as the current naval ships have evolved from oar-power to sail to modern propulsion. The classifications changed as was convenient for each seperate navy. They continue to change. Ask any naval service people you know. Pick a country's naval forces.
What was considered a destroyer during the 1st World War was considerably changed by the time the end of World War 2 came about. Side by side vessels from each era, though designated the same would look and be fought in rather different ways.
Point is, V was pretty much justified for not using current class designations for their fictional space warships - by the time of the FS Great War era, the classifications would almost certainly have changed completely several times anyway. Sounding cool is just icing on the cake... though I still like "Dreadnoght" as the coolest sounding large ship class.
Dreadnought trivial stuff:
* Dreadnought is NOT spelled d-r-e-a-d-n-a-u-g-h-t!
* Dreadnought is NOT spelled d-r-e-a-d-n-a-u-t!
* Dreadnought has never been an official naval designation for a type of warship.
* The term "Dreadnought" is derived from the 1906 revolutionary British Battleship design, HMS Dreadnought. It was the first of its kind completed in the world at that time, giving the British crowing rights. Other ships of similar design were generally in the works in other world navies or modified during planning to be up to the new standard.
* HMS Dreadnought was actually classed as a Battleship.
* HMS Dreadnought was revolutionary for two major reasons:
1, it was the first major capitol ship to be solely powered by steam turbines, and
2, it was the first Battleship to have no intermediate caliber guns. It carried all big guns for its main armanent, and small caliber and AA weapons for the rest of its gun armanent. Normal practice at the time was to have say, 4 or so 12", a like number of 9", and a lighter battery of 5" or 6" plus assorted machine guns and torpedos. It was most important at the time because gunnery relied on the splashes made by each shot to range in on their targets - no radar. Intermediate caliber guns make roughly the same sized splash as the heavier guns, causing difficulty in determining which splash beloned to which gun, and in battle it would be very confusing indeed. With all big guns to shoot, targetting became magnitudes easier.
* All mixed battery Battleships were and still are referred to as Pre-Dreadnoughts, though it is also not an actual class. They were still classed as Battleships.
* Dreadnought is a term used to describe a Battleship having a uniform primary gun battery, and no intermediate gun battery, taken of course from the first Battleship of the type. Though Dreadnought sounds cooler, the correct designation is still "Battleship".
-
plus "battleship" even now sounds old fashioned.
-
And who has heard of the "pocket battleship"?
And no, it´s not a toy ship that you keep in your pocket. :D
Does "Scharnhorst" ring a bell? German battleship. It had everything that caracterized a battleship, except in size. It was the size of a cruiser. But alás it´s not a kewl name as "dreadnought"...
:D
-
That quote from reference.com is wrong. Frigates are smaller than destroyers, and have been for a while.
Newest frigate:
Oliver Hazard Perry (Long Hull Group):
Displacement: 4,000-4,100 tons full load
Dimensions: 455 x 45 x 22 feet/138.6 x 13.7 x 6.7 meters
Destroyers:
Spruance (oldest class and largest)
Displacement: 9,000-9,400 tons full load (DD 997: approx. 9900)
Dimensions: 563 x 55 x 29 feet/171.6 x 16.7 x 8.8 meters
Arleigh Burke (Flights I & II)
Displacement: 8,850-9,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 505 x 67 x 30.5 feet/153.6 x 20.5 x 9.3 meters
Arleigh Burke (Flight IIA, under construction)
Displacement: 9,200 tons full load
Dimensions: 510 x 67 x 30.5 feet/155 x 20.5 x 9.3 meters
Slight difference in sizes there. The only other frigates on active deployment at the moment (accoridng to this source) are the short-hull group of the Perry class, and the size difference isn't that great.
-
I prefer FS2 types to the proper naval ones.... 'destroyer' just sounds better than 'cruiser' IMO - as many have pointed out. Dreadnaught, however, is the best name. Cos it sounds really ****ing menacing :D
Albeit, didn't FS2 actually have a naval bloke credited as a consultant?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Albeit, didn't FS2 actually have a naval bloke credited as a consultant?
Naah... he was probably from the Air Farse!:D
-
*chuckle*
That was awful...I think part of my soul died.
-
I really don't take care. Let's suppose things will change in the following 331 years.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
And who has heard of the "pocket battleship"?
And no, it´s not a toy ship that you keep in your pocket. :D
Does "Scharnhorst" ring a bell? German battleship. It had everything that caracterized a battleship, except in size. It was the size of a cruiser. But alás it´s not a kewl name as "dreadnought"...
:D
Gotta disagree, Swamp_Thing. The Scharnhorst wasn’t a pocket battleship. The German Panzerschiff ("Armored Ships”) were the Deutschland Class (Admiral Graf Spee, Lutzow and Admiral Scheer). These were heavy cruiser-sized ships with 11” battleship-sized guns. They were around 600 feet long and weighed 12,000 tons. In contrast, the battleship Scharnhorst and her sister, Gneisenau, were around 760 feet long and 31,100 tons.
-
Scharnhorst was actually a battlecruiser. Lighter armour, slightly smaller guns, but faster. Hence the low displacement. :)
-
Pyro, if you want to call Scharnhorst a battlecruiser, I won't argue with you, but most sources I've seen call her a battleship. The reality is that the Allies didn't have a ship class that covered a "battleship set up for commerce raiding". The Nazi plan was apparently to eventually re-gun her with 15" guns but it never happened.
This is from the Encyclopedia thefreedictionary (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/DKM%20Gneisenau)
Like the "pocket battleships" of the Deutschland class, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were political compromises, symbols of international power for the Hitler regime, but designed not to overly inflame the British. They are often referred to as "battlecruisers" or "light battleships", which is incorrect. In fact, as completed, they were straightforward battleships that traded extra guns for their 32 to 33 knot (60 km/h) speed and extended range to allow for commerce raiding. They initially carried nine 11 inch (280 mm) guns in three triple turrets, two forward and one aft, inferior to any British capital ship of the time. If they had carried their designed main armament of six 15 inch (380 mm) guns in three twin turrets, they would have been formidable opponents, faster than any British capital ship and nearly as well armored. But due to Hitler's shifting attitudes towards the surface navy and the priorities of war, they retained their 11 inch (280 mm) guns in triple turrets, like the Deutschland's, throughout their careers.
-
As far as I'm concerned, [v] did it the way they did cuz they feel like it.
It goes
fighter/bomber
cruiser
frigate
corvette
destroyer
superdestroyer
juggernaught
-
I take a couple cues from Nodewars in my classifications, but mostly stick to FS conventions. (I will never give the name "Dropship" to a lowly orbit-to-surface ship! Nevaaahhhh!! :p)
Fighter/bomber
Gunship (converted freighters, speedy AAA things, etc)
80-249m
Cruiser/Dropship (depending on fighterbay-based or not)
250-599m
Corvette/Strike Carrier (depending)
600-999m
Frigate/Escort Carrier (depending) (The Iceni is the only canon FS2 ship known to use this convention, and it was bigger than the Deimos.)
1000-1599m
Destroyer/Carrier (depending)
1600-2999m
Superdestroyer/Supercarrier
3000-4999m
Juggernaught
5km+
-
Personally, I put Frigates between corvette and destroyer (think Iceni).
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Personally, I put Frigates between corvette and destroyer (think Iceni).
:nod:
I think that's the general consensus.
-
Yeah I made a booboo. YOu also should take into accont firepower.
-
EDIT: double post
-
FWIW for a time many US ships were classified as 'frigates' (DLG). This began in the 50s and ended in 1975, when all frigates were reclassed as cruisers or destroyers.
The Hippocrates class is also called a 'frigate' in ships.tbl.
-
The mesh is called frigate, but it's classed a cruiser to the game (thus you being able to destroy it with fighter weapons) and I really think the "frigate" name is an obscure Star Wars reference rather than the inclusion of a new class. It's probably no coincidence that it looks a bit like a Nebulon-B. The only other instance of "frigate" in the FS2 tables is in the Iceni's tech description, though it's refered to as a corvette in the campaign. My take on "frigate" in Freespace is that the term is used for any medium-sized ship used for a dedicated purpose besides combat (medical frigate, command frigate, etc) regardless of size or firepower. It's something that everyone loves to argue about. As for the rest of the designations, well there's a relevant post on web-archive for the VBB that quotes a previous post (since lost):
http://web.archive.org/web/20010414172541/vbb.volition-inc.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/013149.html
See the second post in that thread.
It wasn't by accident, it wasn't by ignorance, but rather it was a deliberate deviation from normal conventions, and I guess now no one knows why. But saying "V screwed up" is completely incorrect.
-
Inferno also changed this. Now we have dedicated carriers, freeing up destroyers for major assaults (and losing one is no longer a complete disaster, only a major loss).
-
Bah, no offense to the Inferno crew, but R1 v1 was the uncanon of the uncanon. And with a new version coming, anything from the old R1 is questionable.
If you really want to rationalize it the class system, you could say that early in the T-V war neither side posessed anything larger than a cruiser. Maybe they didn't have the resources to build anything bigger, maybe it was a technology thing, who knows. So they [the terrans] classes their newly christened Fenris a "Cruiser" because it is similar in size to a modern-day (and presumably future) surface cruiser. Great, name makes sense. Then Terran Command decides to build something that will put cruisers to shame, the Orion. Yay. Big. But what do they call it? It's not a dedicated carrier, so that won't do. Battleship? Too tied to ancient history, so that's out. Plus it has a hanger and supports strike craft. Perhaps they also decide that no viable space-faring warship frame will ever be build significantly smaller than a cruiser without becoming a strike craft and so everything below "cruiser" designation cannot viably be used in it's "proper" place. So command adopts the term Destroyer to their new behemoths, and the name sticks. By the time Corvette classes showed up, it was plainly evident that neither cruisers nor destroyers were going away, so they assigned a new class to it (smaller than a destroyer) and chose Corvette. Enter FS2.
Now I've never liked refering to supercapital class ships as "Juggernauts" as the term strikes me as being very un-military like. I prefer to call them Dreadnauts simply because it still sounds unbelievably powerful, but not stupid. I know it was never really a class, but that's not really an argument given the assumptions stated above. And Dreadnaught is a valid spelling, by the way:
Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/)
dreadnaught
n : battleship that has big guns all of the same caliber [syn: dreadnought]
dreadnought
n : battleship that has big guns all of the same caliber [syn: dreadnaught]
-
yeah, i like how [V] did the ship classes in FS. And frankly it's completely reasonable i mean it's
a)sci-fi, you can do whatever you wan't
b)it's a game, so what sounds cool goes
c)it is possible, as already stated
btw i say Battlecruiser sounds better than Dreadnaught. it just sounds sleeker, but just as deadly
-
But then you run into confusion with cruisers, as by technical definition a battlecruiser is an overgunned cruiser. And it's got the unfortunate side effect of being associated with a very, very bad game.
-
well, i guess it can be confusing if you're very aware of modern classes... lol kinda glad i'm a bit ignorant in this area
but anyways, it's like learning a new set of controls and besides, you can see how big it is and how heavily armed it is when it's in your face. also, i tend to pay attention to the designation instead of the class
-
When I hear Battlecruiser I think HMS Hood, not BC-3000 or whatever it is you're refering to. I agree with some of what has been said, class doesn't matter, just use what sounds cool.
Designations change from era to era, in the age of sail a Frigate was top of the line or close to. Nowadays a frigate is a pretty minor vessel. Whose to say what it'll be in however many years?
Freespace isn't the first to do such things either, Babylon 5 has Omega Destroyers and the smaller Hyperion Heavy Cruisers. Star Wars has Star Destroyers. I personally think that FS was thinking along the lines of the latter myself.
-
ewwww BC-3000???
I'm talking about the Higgaran Battlecruiser man!
-
I dunno . . . I'm not up to date with games as my computer doesn't run a lot of them. The most recent game I have is GTA3 :) and the most recent one I played aside from freespace was Ultima5. Yipee.
I've never even heard of "Higgaran Battlecruiser"??
-
It's a homeworld2 reference. In Homeworld 1 the largest ships were Heavy Cruisers (Dreadnaughts, incidentally, in HW:Cataclysm) and Battlecruisers in Homeworld 2.
-
Which really sucked...the game as a whole, not the ship.
But anyways, the term "destroyer" was NOT the original name of destroyers as we know them today.
Destroyers were originally two seperate classes: either the "torpedo-boat destroyer", meant to protect your big ships against those tiny ships that launched those pesky newfangled devices that punch holes beneath the waterline, or "battleship destroyer", as they were meant to launch those pesky newfangled devices that punched holes beneath the waterline. Eventually the two functions were combined into one ship, and the name was shortened to just "destroyer".
I think what happened in the Freespace universe is roughly similar. The first large combatant craft were called cruisers, because they were similar in size and function to cruisers as we know them. Then someone developed a ship meant to waltz in and blow your cruiser group to Kingdom Come, and they called it a "cruiser destroyer", which was eventually shortened to just "destroyer".
Then people started developing intermediate classes, and needing new names for them, turned to classic descriptions of classes, and called their new overgrown cruisers "corvettes", and their new scaled-down destroyers "frigates".
I also think the carrier concept is somewhat off. The FS destroyer is, in many ways, a tactician's dream: it can carry a significant fighter force, and yet it remains both defensively and offensively powerful even without those fighters. This is the kind of ship everyone wishes they had, because it doesn't require the kind of escort a dedicated carrier does, and can fight on effectively even if most of its air group (or in FS, aerospace group) is destroyed.
-
And with a new version coming, anything from the old R1 is questionable.
There still will be carriers, but they will be somewhat weakend. The same principle remains.
I also think the carrier concept is somewhat off. The FS destroyer is, in many ways, a tactician's dream:
But it obviously didn't work well enough against the Shivans. The Destroyers in INF are there for one purpose: To provide lots of very big guns. Making something like that your fleet command center is not a good idea, IMO. This is because you are reluctant to use it (or else you would risk losing it), but then you rob your fleet of some serious firepower.
-
Worth remembering that FS is a space, not naval fleet. Why should it match the naval equivalent, anyways?
-
Kosh, of course it didn't work against the shivans... they have numeric, technological, and size superiority... go read what Sun Tzu says when you are outnumbered 10 to 1...
The FS destroyer works very much like the HW2's Battlecruiser instead of the carrier, it can carry fighters and bombers and stuff, while possessing a massive armament. I don't want to get into a pure carrier vs hybrid discussion again (see old thread about it), but the thing is in any military decision you can never be reluctant, you either commit yourself or you don't. If you just enter half-way you are a gonner. The destruction of a major ship will always be a major loss/disaster, be it carrier, destroyer, or hybrid. You lose something that you spent years building.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
But it obviously didn't work well enough against the Shivans.
actually, up to and including Corvette class the Alliance wasn't doing too badly. It's just Destroyers and Jugs where the GTVA suffers. Well, untill they learn how to do simple flanking manouvers that is..
-
The problem with fighting the Shivans is that they're too good at tactical placement of their ships in a subspace jump. They always appear right where they can bring their whole main armament to bear on you. This is not necessarily the case with GTVA ships.
As for flanking manuvers...one of my most burning questions about "High Noon" was why the GTVA didn't park the Colossus BEHIND the node, then go for the Sathanas' engines with beam fire so it didn't get the chance to turn around.
It really is kinda sad, though, that if you had a sharp captain, you could probably take down a Sathanas with a Leviathan by parking yourself above him and manuvering to stay there. It would take awhile, but you could.
-
I like the way Shivan Caps have such focused firepower. Kinda like a Hunter
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
I like the way Shivan Caps have such focused firepower. Kinda like a Hunter
True, but it could potentially be their Achilles' heel, too. It's just that the GTVA has never properly thought through their tactics enough to account for that. The GTVA Navy has to learn to counterpunch. Use the Shivans' frontal-gun mentality against them and give 'em a swift broadside to the rear.
[briefing to skeptical admiralty]
The other thing the GTVA needs to keep in mind is: mobility, mobility, mobility. All that Shivan firepower is for naught if they can't effectively consolidate it against their targets. Which is why Allied Command needs to put much more emphasis on bomber superiority and, more importantly, survivability. You can pack as many of those juggernaught-killing bombs on that crate with thrusters, but if it can't turn and it can't defend itself, it's as good as dead.
Multitudes of lighter warships, especially of dedicated anti-cap cruisers and light carriers, would be more flexible than the pre-Capella mentality that Bigger is Better. (Don't put all your eggs in one basket and all that.) Besides, you can have one big destroyer versus seven cruisers, at the same/similar price. You can split up the cruiser force, but the destroyer itself can't be in more than one place at once, no matter how many fighters it carries.
Which is why I think cruisers and corvettes are the backbone of the Navy, and if more ships in that size range had fighterbays, destroyers wouldn't need to be so common. Destroyers are big and powerful, yes, but they're also slow and horridly expensive. And as the Colossus' demise showed us, all that effort can be for naught, very quickly. Cruisers, on the other hand, can perform much the same role with more mobility, with roughly equal to better effectiveness (depending on how many there are and how well they're placed tactically). Each individual cruiser is also more expendable.
The old mentality that "capital ships can only really be engaged by other capital ships" has been proven wrong time and time again. It's time for the smaller ships -- fighters, bombers, cruisers, escort carriers, and corvettes -- to take center stage in the GTVA Navy.
[/briefing to skeptical admiralty]
Okay, I'm done. :p
-
Cruisers cannot replace destroyers... have you seen how much punch they can take? A sole fighter can beat the crap out of it. Now imagine what wave after wave after wave of shivans fighters would do to a fleet composed "primarily" of them... the shivans would almost even need bombers... Capital ships can only really be engaged by other capital ships because only capital ships can deploy fighters... corvettes could possibly survive a fight... but win one?
The shivans simply cannot be beaten because they have just too many advantages... size... numbers... technology... you name it they have!
Flanking maneuvers you increase the survivability rate of the alliance yes, but you cannot simply stop a Sathanas from entering a system and nuking the nearby planet or star. Especially after wave and wave and wave again of fighters, bombers, cruisers, corvettes, and destroyers entering the system.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Cruisers cannot replace destroyers... have you seen how much punch they can take? A sole fighter can beat the crap out of it. Now imagine what wave after wave after wave of shivans fighters would do to a fleet composed "primarily" of them... the shivans would almost even need bombers...
You assume I'm referring to old wastes of scrap metal like the Fenris? Hah. I'm talking, next-gen, 40K-hitpoint cruisers with 3SGreens. Or cruisers bristling with antifighter death like the GTWc Gryphon (which, incidentally, has a fighterbay...) and the Aeolus.
And I'm talking about groups of cruisers and equivalent sized vessels in place of big, slow targets.
Capital ships can only really be engaged by other capital ships because only capital ships can deploy fighters... corvettes could possibly survive a fight... but win one?
Which is why I think there should be cruiser, corvette and frigate-size ships with fighterbays, so that destroyers aren't the only ships that can deploy fighters. You missed the entire point of my previous post.
The shivans simply cannot be beaten because they have just too many advantages... size... numbers... technology... you name it they have!
Flanking maneuvers you increase the survivability rate of the alliance yes, but you cannot simply stop a Sathanas from entering a system and nuking the nearby planet or star. Especially after wave and wave and wave again of fighters, bombers, cruisers, corvettes, and destroyers entering the system.
I'm well aware of the Shivans' massive, mind-numbing numerical advantage, and their technological superiority. I'm talking about tipping the scale somewhat so that, in a one-on-one situation or at a choke point, GTVA stuff could maybe compete, or at the very least hold the line longer so that a Meson-equipped ship could come and demolish the Shivans' entry point before things became too out of hand.
Improving the odds of survival from 1:10^9 to 1:10^8 is still an improvement.
-
If you mention cruisers that have ridiculously large hitpoints, why not a single fighter that has the power to nuke a planet? A cargo container that can supernova star? Any fighter (except really light ones) can take on any cruiser in the FS universe and win. A single ravana could probably take on a dozen cruisers and win with moderate damage (unless you use ridiculous trigger events like continuous beams and other stuff).
About the carrier thingy, do you even know if a corvette has the space to launch, recall, repair and refit fighters?
-
The real problem with tactics, both GTVA AND Shivan, is that they deploy their big ships unescorted.
You would be amazed at how much more effective your destroyer becomes with a corvette and a few cruisers for support. This is something I've messed about repeatedly with in FRED, and when the destroyer actually deploys with a battlegroup in attendance, it works much better. An Orion becomes a real powerhouse when backed up by a few Leviathans and an Aeolus or two to cover it against fighters and bombers. A Colossus or Sathanas with a sizeable escorting cruiser group is close to unstoppable.
-
Actually I could definitely see something corvette-sized deploying fighters, but in a near-dropship fashion. In other words, the ships have the size to launch and recover fighters, but not to house all of the facilities for their long-term deployment. They get armed up and readied on a carrier or destroyer in advance, loaded into a corvette, and launched when a battle is joined. It might have some small stash of munitions for the fighters, but I wouldn't wager much. If they survive the battle, they are either forced to remain damaged or return to a carrier/destroyer to be repaired. And there simply isn't enough space in a cruiser to house a fighterbay.
-
Multitudes of lighter warships, especially of dedicated anti-cap cruisers and light carriers, would be more flexible than the pre-Capella mentality that Bigger is Better. (Don't put all your eggs in one basket and all that.) Besides, you can have one big destroyer versus seven cruisers, at the same/similar price. You can split up the cruiser force, but the destroyer itself can't be in more than one place at once, no matter how many fighters it carries.
You miss one point, though seven cruisers may equal a destroyer in firepower, you need all seven of them in the same place to do that. One their own, in or lesser numbers, a Destroyer could destroy them one by one, repair, and then continue killing them.
Look at the Sathanas, it destroys a Sobek with little damage, then the Phoenicia. It would have destroyed the Colossus too without a co-ordinated fighter attack. All the eggs in one basket can be a bad thing, but when your opponent doesn't know about the basket. Usually the basket kicks butt (at least for a while).
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Flanking maneuvers you increase the survivability rate of the alliance yes, but you cannot simply stop a Sathanas from entering a system and nuking the nearby planet or star. Especially after wave and wave and wave again of fighters, bombers, cruisers, corvettes, and destroyers entering the system.
30 RBCs, 5 Deimos and 10 wings of Erinyes blockading the node. Kill 'em before they can see you.
;7
-
30 RBCs, 5 Deimos and 10 wings of Erinyes blockading the node. Kill 'em before they can see you.
That's when the Shivans employ their ability to make jumps at uncharted nodes, and they jump behind the blockade and blow it apart because all the RBCs are pointed the wrong way and the Erinyes don't have capital-killing weapons.
-
aldo_14, with that scenario it is impossible to come through the node with or without destroyers (unless you are shivan, in which case you deploy Sathanas which would either ram the RBC or at least create a protected "box" around the node, a Ravana would jump and then jump again to another part of the system, another Ravana would jump in or a Demon, etc... the Deimos would be powerless against at least 2 Ravanas possibly, maybe 3 Ravanas because of the 5th so they can beat them with minimal damage).
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If you mention cruisers that have ridiculously large hitpoints, why not a single fighter that has the power to nuke a planet? A cargo container that can supernova star? Any fighter (except really light ones) can take on any cruiser in the FS universe and win. A single ravana could probably take on a dozen cruisers and win with moderate damage (unless you use ridiculous trigger events like continuous beams and other stuff).
[/b]
You're again assuming the cruisers have no fighter or bomber support, and that they'd be brain-dead enough to attack the Ravana in its frontal arc, where its two LReds could tear apart a cruiser in one shot.
Good gunnery against the Ravana's engines, and stick behind it, and that'd likely be one dead Ravana no matter how superior Shivan tech is. (A good use for a TAG missile, to increase the precision of subspace jumps so that the cruisers could reliably come in on the enemy destroyer's rear.)
As for the "ridiculously large hitpoints" comment, bear in mind the Aeolus has 38000 (IIRC). And it's quite compact. So it's not much of a stretch to have a slightly larger, dedicated anti-cap cruiser with maybe 40k hitpoints. Or a dropship-style cruiser (which, admittedly, could only MAYBE carry four fighters, but still quite versatile.)
About the carrier thingy, do you even know if a corvette has the space to launch, recall, repair and refit fighters?
You again assume I am talking about the Deimos and Sobek. I am not.
The GTVA would need to deploy a new class of ships that size in order to get fighterbays onto such midsize ships. But, barring all that, yes. Yes they would. Just not in the numbers that a destroyer has. (2-2.5 Escort carriers, 'vette sized, would ~= 1 destroyer, for fighterbay number purposes, depending on whether we're talking Orion or Hecate.)
The SCv Moloch actually occupies less volume than the Deimos, and it has a fighterbay... while the Deimos and Sobek admittedly do not have carrying capability, it doesn't mean future generations of corvettes can't or won't.
I could especially see the Vasudans, who generally have very compact fighter designs (see Seth and Thoth), making a carrier-equipped hybrid corvette capable of supplying and deploying 3 wings or so. More dedicated designs would show up later on, methinks.
You miss one point, though seven cruisers may equal a destroyer in firepower, you need all seven of them in the same place to do that. One their own, in or lesser numbers, a Destroyer could destroy them one by one, repair, and then continue killing them.
Point conceded. But supposedly, smaller ships can recharge their jump drives faster, so if the cruiser captains are smart and have fighter escort, they can be slippery little bastards.
And again, consolidating their attacks on a destroyer's weak point(s) and covering each other against enemy fighters (imagine trying to attack seven Aeoluses at once! :shaking:) could work fairly well.
Newer destroyers like the Hecate have very few weak points and redundant systems, making them resistant to such tactics. But the cruiser group would at least have a fighting chance, especially if they resorted to harassment techniques, and left fairly quickly.
-
Don't know if a Moloch actually repairs & resupplies fighters, rather than simply ferrying them into & back from battle dropship-stylee, though. Seeing as the Shivans seem to have high attrition rates, it raises the question whether/why they even bother having repair facilities?
EDIT; and yet FS1 had to recoving a Dragon being repaired at a cargo dump, IIRC.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
aldo_14, with that scenario it is impossible to come through the node with or without destroyers (unless you are shivan, in which case you deploy Sathanas which would either ram the RBC or at least create a protected "box" around the node, a Ravana would jump and then jump again to another part of the system, another Ravana would jump in or a Demon, etc... the Deimos would be powerless against at least 2 Ravanas possibly, maybe 3 Ravanas because of the 5th so they can beat them with minimal damage).
Actually, you'd deploy RBCs in a roughly circular way round the node, to prevent ramming tactics (plus Mjolnirs are small targets). Plus almost certainly set up a good number to fire at the rear of ships to disable them (roadblock). The Deimos is essentially for AAAf / flak cover against fighters or bombers.
Basically, if you can get enough mjolnirs (and not considering mines, of course), you should be able to get sufficient firepower to kill or cripple any large ship in the node. But you need to have fighter or AAAf cover to protect these RBCs, both from enemy fighters or from high-yield explosives sent through the node. It's these which are tircky (and the bit you work on for missions...either clearing a path or stopping the enemy doing it).
EDIT: if you're talking about uncharted nodes, it's a whole other issue. FS2 does raise questions over why the Shivans didn't use these (the most obvious answer being that they weren't interested in attacking the GTVA, another possibility being that the Great War nodes no longer led to Shivan space/were now totally unstable).... the 'safe' option would be to fire a meson bomb down these and collapse them, if such a thing would work.
-
A ravana will only fight if it has a chance to use it's front arc or at least part of it. I give you that Cruiser are not stupid enough to stay in front of a Ravana, but no destroyer is going to be stupid enough to have it's engines disabled. The precision of subspace jumps is unknown, although it is known that a 5000km miscalculation is a very serious mistake. TAG missiles don't increase precision of subspace jumps, but the precision of readings of that ship. If you want to say increase the precision about the position of that ship is ok, but nano jumps such as those are not known in the FS universe, which could have saved millions of lives once and once again. Seeing that that doesn't happen one must think if either they can be done or not.
Go check the size of a destroyer, go check it's volume against a corvette, then go see the tech description.
Destroyer Volume =+\- 6!!! corvettes' volume
If you think a corvette has the ability to use 3 wings of fighters/bombers, even 4 if you wish, a simple Orion:
's cavernous hanger bays easily accommodate more[/B] than two dozen fighter or bomber wings.
which kind of agreed when I said the volume of a destroyer was +\- 6 times that of a corvette, except as you see, a corvette to be able to support a fighter complement such as that would need to take most of it's heavy weaponry. The Moloch, as you said, the only corvette that has a fighterbay, is easily dealt with in spite of it's much advanced tech, by a Deimos or Sobek. Destroyers are cost effective for the task they do: carry fighters and fight against other capital ships, and they do it superbly. A ravana (even taking it's advance tech into account) is the perfect example of this. A perfect killing machine with a fighterbay. Any ship below a destroyer that has a fighterbay will have a weakness against other ships of the same size that don't.
Another point, by pitting cruisers against a destroyer, you must take into account that destroyers HAVE fighterbays, so if you want to have fighters you would also need a destroyer (or your corvette designed carriers) which would in turn leave you with a fleet with "double" the size of what it is to do the same job.
Aldo, what about the part about creating a protected box around the node with the Sathanas?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Aldo, what about the part about creating a protected box around the node with the Sathanas?
Not sure what you mean. unless you mean putting a perimeter of ships in which basically act as bodyguards.... in which case there's an issue of collision damage and blocking of the node, depending on the perimeter size.... i.e. if the enemy manages to get quite a lot of ships in very fast, then there's an issue of them overwhelming the defenses. But, IMO, if you have enough firepower, close enough in, you can turn this to your advantage and use the shockwaves and debris to damage the enemy craft coming in. Ideally, you actually want a few ships to be disabled rather than destroyed, to create a good killzone or simply act as a blockade.
-
I mean Sathanas jumping one by one in different directions so that they form a "box" so that they stop any beam cannons from firing at the proximitty of the node. IIRC the Sathanas has a very long jump, so it might ram a few RBC or not, but the thing is that it would serve as an obstacle in front of many RBC. Once many of these are out of doing their job of firing at anything that comes through the node it is a simple matter of bringing a Ravana and escaping with it out of the area. And Sathanas have fighterbays, so with 6 engine subsystems and a fighterbay it "might" be destroyed, but it would put a hell of a fight.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I mean Sathanas jumping one by one in different directions so that they form a "box" so that they stop any beam cannons from firing at the proximitty of the node. IIRC the Sathanas has a very long jump, so it might ram a few RBC or not, but the thing is that it would serve as an obstacle in front of many RBC. Once many of these are out of doing their job of firing at anything that comes through the node it is a simple matter of bringing a Ravana and escaping with it out of the area. And Sathanas have fighterbays, so with 6 engine subsystems and a fighterbay it "might" be destroyed, but it would put a hell of a fight.
I don't believe a Sath would be able to jump quickly enough to avoid a well-aimed barrage at its engines. Quickest we've seen a Sath jump was something like 5-10 minutes in 'Bearbaiting' IIRC, if you have a very large number of RBCs you could probably disable it. Also an issue as to how many Sathani could arrive at once.
I think it's possibly to lock down a node, it's just a question of getting the firepower organised to do so (not possible in FS2 due to the NTf in particular). I don't think you could blockade it indefinately, but long enough for, for example, storyline purposes.
-
It's not a question of either the Sathanas will survive or not, but a question of will they provide enough distraction for a Ravana to slip by
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If you want to say increase the precision about the position of that ship is ok, but nano jumps such as those are not known in the FS universe, which could have saved millions of lives once and once again. Seeing that that doesn't happen one must think if either they can be done or not.
[/b]
Who said anything about nanojumps? :confused:
I was talking about coming in on the Ravana's backside and disabling it with a well-placed beam salvo.
Go check the size of a destroyer, go check it's volume against a corvette, then go see the tech description.
Destroyer Volume =+\- 6!!! corvettes' volume
If you think a corvette has the ability to use 3 wings of fighters/bombers, even 4 if you wish, a simple Orion:
which kind of agreed when I said the volume of a destroyer was +\- 6 times that of a corvette, except as you see, a corvette to be able to support a fighter complement such as that would need to take most of it's heavy weaponry. The Moloch, as you said, the only corvette that has a fighterbay, is easily dealt with in spite of it's much advanced tech, by a Deimos or Sobek. Destroyers are cost effective for the task they do: carry fighters and fight against other capital ships, and they do it superbly. A ravana (even taking it's advance tech into account) is the perfect example of this. A perfect killing machine with a fighterbay. Any ship below a destroyer that has a fighterbay will have a weakness against other ships of the same size that don't.
Another point, by pitting cruisers against a destroyer, you must take into account that destroyers HAVE fighterbays, so if you want to have fighters you would also need a destroyer (or your corvette designed carriers) which would in turn leave you with a fleet with "double" the size of what it is to do the same job.
[/b]
You misunderstand. There are corvette-sized carriers (Escort Carriers) which can carry about 10-12 wings, depending on size. They would be rather lacking in weaponry but would be cheaper to deploy than destroyers. Ideally they'd stay back from combat and let their fighters do the work. In terms of volume they would likely be larger and wider than other 'vettes, to allow for fighterbay space.
And then there are hybrid corvettes, like the 3-wing Vasudan thing I mentioned, and the Moloch. Again, slightly less direct firepower than normal 'vettes, but more fighter support.
Destroyers still have a very important role, don't get me wrong, but I'm just saying that the "bigger is better" mentality could be de-emphasized. Better tactics can make up for the reduction in muscle.
-
er... please don't compare navy with space... space fighters in FS are enormous, the smallest has 15m...
If you want to come "in on the Ravana's backside and disabling it with a well-placed beam salvo" why cannot the Ravana "come in and blow the entire fleet with a well placed beam salvo? (Especially with the fighter support from it's own fighterbay which the cruisers don't have) :p
-
*sigh* you're really not getting my point.
I'm not suggesting that destroyers be abandoned altogether. They still have a very important role.
What I am suggesting is to have a higher cruiser/corvette-to-destroyer ratio in each fleet, and that to compensate, some of the 'vettes could be light carriers. I'm also completely ignoring the old, useless classes of cruiser (Fenris, Leviathan) for the purposes of the argument.
More tactical flexibility (you can be in more places at once), and no loss of fighter coverage.
Understand now?
-
I agree with all that but I think that anything below destroyer class is useless as a carrier because it's just a waste of space, while anything destroyer or above can have the same or better cargo by volume ratio while keeping it's current weapons without becoming a specialised carrier. Think of this. Instead of having the fleet to carry what a destroyer is capable (or a bit less) you have that AND the firepower of a destroyer. Yes I agree corvette is the way of the future, but as carriers? No...
-
Mad Bomber : I think you're forgetting that the Aeolus was discontinued because it was too expensive to be worth making. It was more cost effective for the GTVA to build corvettes instead. No doubt the war cruiser idea would suffer from the same high expense.
-
Corvettes would definately appear to be the replacement for the cruiser class altogether.
One other thing RE: fighter coverage - Arcadias also have multiple fighter wings on board. That would likely provide a great deal of your fighter coverage in-system, especially if you work on the (fairly likely) assumption that there is at least one and (probably more) installation in a colonised GTVA system. Destroyers would generally be used to bolster that and to provide roving security for uncolonised systems with no local coverage.... remember that range / time isn't an issue for fighter bases thanks to intrasystem jump drives.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Corvettes would definately appear to be the replacement for the cruiser class altogether.
...
Corvettes are more expenses. One or another situation might demand that cheaper warships should be built quickly.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
Corvettes are more expenses. One or another situation might demand that cheaper warships should be built quickly.
Corvettes are better. Simple upgrading - by FS2 time cruisers are essentially ineffective cannon-fodder, even a fighter can take them down. FS1 they were useful as there were (initially) no shields, lighter bombing weapons and no beams.
With multiple flak & AAAf weapons, plus slash beams (which should be used for disabling), a corvette is a far more effective combat ship than a cruiser. Despite an increased cost, the combat effectiveness of a corvette should more than compensate. Additionally, the shipyards will be geared up towards rapid manufacture of these vessels as they take over wholesale from cruisers, and manufacturing refinement will reduce the cost.
It's essentially equivalent to a new cruiser class replacing the Fenris / Leviathan. The only difference is that the class has changed because the ship is so much more powerful.
-
Cruisers are hardly useless; it depends on how they're handled, much like corvettes and even destroyers. However, I do think that cruisers ought to be removed from a main offensive role and rather serve as installation defenders or escorts.
Again it comes back to how the ships are deployed. They come in ones and twos, which is practically a death sentence. A lone Leviathan is bomber-fodder, but a group of three or four is a formidible force.
What's the greatest number of large combatants we've ever seen deployed together? Two? (Either the NTC Majestic and NTC Refute or the GTCvs Actium and Lysander. The Actium and Lysander were deployed too far away from each other to really be mutually supporting, though.)
-
It's not a case of having less cruisers, it's a question of completely replacing them, one-for-one (or more likely in a 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio) with corvettes.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
Corvettes are more expenses. ....
What the hell did I write? EXPENSIVE! :D
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's not a case of having less cruisers, it's a question of completely replacing them, one-for-one (or more likely in a 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio) with corvettes.
The Corvettisation era.
-
You need to make cruisers much more agile to keep their usefullness...
Comeon, with jugs going at 25 why a cruiser should go only marginally faster (newer ones) or even slower?
I'd say to give them a 20% speed increase and that way you will have a convoy killing vessel and some quick anticap power when needed...
On the other side you may take the Lilith way... an overgunned vessel of mayem...
-
Agility? For a >200m long ship?
'sides which, the more you pump into engines the more you lose for weaponry.... not exactly ideal to have a convoy killing cruiser with about 3 working laser turrets.
Cruisers don't have a single practical advantage over corvettes.
-
Strip down all those useless plasma turrets, replace it with flak and you will have extra power for the engines...
Besides that, with a next gen ship you can retain the current firepower and use a more efficent reactor for the engines...
The Aeolus and Mentu were both faster and with better weapons/armor than their predecessors...
Set a cruiser speed to 40/45 and you will obtain something much deadlier, and an harder target for many turrets FOV...
-
Corvettes are better. Simple upgrading - by FS2 time cruisers are essentially ineffective cannon-fodder, even a fighter can take them down. FS1 they were useful as there were (initially) no shields, lighter bombing weapons and no beams.
I hear a lot (or maybe just one person a lot of times) saying that FS2 cruisers can be taken down by "a fighter". Am I the only person that played Feint! Parry! Riposte! were the player is in a Perseus and has to lure fighters from a pair of Fenris back to his own Leviathan. I'm not sure about anyone else, but if I got too close to those Cruisers I got cut apart. Even an Aten with its two AAAfs is going to be a hard nut for a single fighter to crack (unless you have broken Trebuchets).
A lot of people probably rather remember the first mission with the Colossus where a Leviathan was attacking an Arcadia and it was essentially fodder because its four AAAfs were beam-locked. If those beams weren't locked, Alpha 1 would be the only survivor (if that).
Despite their relative fragility, Cruisers can be very effective Anti-fighter elements (especially the Aeolus). Shivan Cruisers even can be very effective anti-ship elements . . . hell a Lilith can rip through a Deimos with ease.
And not every battle is the Colossus versus the Shivan armada. When the Shivans aren't threatening extinction, there are pirates and other small battles were cruisers guarding convoys and the like are very effective. Whose going to get a Corvette to guard a couple of freighters? But a Cruiser, sure sounds good.
As for expense, there is no clear explanation in FS2 as to what is more expensive or not. Any ship mass produced will be less expensive than a ship on a limited run like the Aeolus. Its also why the Iceni was probably several times more expensive than a Deimos.
-
People tend to forget how deadly a leviathan with beams-free can be cause you rarely (or never) meet one in the main campaign.
In a mission I was making I made the mistake of having two leviathan's next to each other and beam unlocked. They kicked the **** out of me. While one was knocking me about with AAAf the other recharged.
-
Yep, a beam freed Leviathan can be a total pain especially for lighter fighters...
-
Maxims rule?
Fenris and Leviathans when in close proximity seem to beat the crap out of each other when a fighter goes between them... hehehe...:D They might make me lose a bit of shields or 5% or so of hull if they are lucky, but they finish each other off if they are not careful :drevil:
-
They do, but they are not always available. They are like Trebuchets. If all the GTVA fighters were compatible with the Trebs or Maxims, the AAAfs would make no sense.
-
But that's not the point, the point is a wing of Enr... er... those fighters that have 8 gunpoints which can load maxims... can blow a cruiser in seconds... with ease.
-
And how many pilots throught the GTVA are authorized to fly them(GTF Erinyes, by the way)? At most 50, the elites.
-
And how much time until it starts to get mass produced? :drevil:
-
It depends how quickly a newer version is developed. If there were a better fighter than the Erinyes, the Erinyes would be available for less experienced pilots.
-
Actually, if there were a better version of a ship as rare as the Erinyes, they'd stop making it. So no one would get to fly it. Each fighter class serves a purpose; they won't stop flying Herc II's just because they can produce vastly more expensive Erinyes fighters for less than the top of the line duties. You'd see a complete halt of production of the older models.
-
They would be making a milked version, with cheaper components for standard use...
Anyways, that problem is what fighter cover is needed all the time...
No matter how powerful your ship is without air (space) superiority you're going to have your fleet crippled...
A fighter cannot destroy a sath but a wing of them can disable and disarm it (although you need really skilled pilots for that job and a strong luck)...
-
Actually, i think the wisest strategy to follow would be to invest only on big carriers and lots of bombers and fighters. With the advent of subspace, you can just as easely get in the frey as you can get out. So, instead of spending billions in destroyers, you can build a few wings of bombers that will do the job of a destroyer for a fraction of the price. Plus, they are faster, more mobile, and more versatile. You can split your bomber wings into smaller pieces.
If by any chance the carrier in in risk of being attacked by a destroyer, it can just jump out, or out run it. And with a large number of fighters, you make sure the enemy bombers stay away of your carrier and don´t disable it´s jump drive.
It´s like the navy of today. Sure they have more ship types, but the carrier reigns supreme. The battleship no longer rules the seas, as it´s easy prey to a couple of strike bomber wings.
Just imagine how many bombers can you build with the resources used to build a Colossus... It´s thousands!!! And thousands of bombers and fighters can wipe out a fleet of Sathnii in minutes.
I say dump the cap ships, keep and build only big carriers, give them a good early warning AWACS system, a good fast engine, and load it up with Medusas and Erinyies! ;7
-
For the last time, can you really put more fighters and bombers unto the hull of a destroyer class ship?
-
Uh?? :confused: :confused: :confused:
-
I see a lot of people using the idea that current FS destroyers could hold a much larger fighter complement, yet, they don't say why. In the tech room they already say that the Orion's (for example) fighterbays, etc are enormous. Yet people continue to say that they could house much more.
-
I hope that wasn´t for me, then. Because i was talking of carriers, not destroyers that carry fighters. They might seem the same but they are not. :D
-
I was talking about destroyers... there is no such thing as carriers in FS, Destroyer sized hull if you wish.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I was talking about destroyers... there is no such thing as carriers in FS,
I never said there were. I said it would be the best strategy to follow. I´m talkinf future here, not present or past. Take the big hulled ships, hollow them out, take out all the destroyer tipical stuff and turn them into carriers. And build only big carriers, not destroyers or corvetes.
If an Orion´s fighterbay holds a lot of fighters and bombers, then imagine how many would fit in a real carrier!
Besides, they are cheaper, and resources are everything in war.
:nod:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I see a lot of people using the idea that current FS destroyers could hold a much larger fighter complement, yet, they don't say why. In the tech room they already say that the Orion's (for example) fighterbays, etc are enormous. Yet people continue to say that they could house much more.
... :mad:
1) What makes you think that destroyers have much space occupied by weapon related things?
My list of things:
1.1 - Beam Weapons
Pre-FS2 capital ships don't have beam weapons, and when they started getting beam weapons there wasn't much change (no change at all) in the quantities fighters could be housed within them which leads to one of the following conclusions:
a) Beam weapons energy reactors don't require much space at all
b) They use the same energy reactor as the previous weapons
c) They use a new type of reactor that occupies the same space
If you use the first option, that means that the large power consumption that a beam weapon has, is nothing to modern FS2 reactors which are small. If you choose the second one, seeing that in spite of this "radical" change in weapon configuration, the Destroyer still functions as it functioned, only much better. I don't see much issue.
The first option clearly states that if there is a new reactor, it is really small. The second option requires you to think a bit. Think about how many weapons an average destroyer has, and think of the energy it requires to fire... say... a huge turret. Think of the damage it does and try to make a fighter equivalent to it. Seeing that fighters aren't cruiser sized, it is safe to admit that such reactors are not huge (probably the size of 2 small fighters, maybe less). Of course they take up space, but such a reactor would probably be needed to use the subspace drive.
Then there is the issue about how large are beam weapons, seeing that fighter housing issue is out of the way, I'd say they don't occupy that much space too and occupy as much as the previous weapons.
1.2 - The weapons size
How large can a turret be if it's stiking out of the side of a destroyer instead of being inside of it? How large can those lasers be if the Erinyes has 8 gun points while being aproximatly the same size as most fighters?
1.3 - Crew
Even if what you were saying was true about destroyer sized hulls carrying more fighters, how much more crew would be needed to operate them? Pilots, larger maitenance crew, etc... Which in turn leads to more bedrooms, larger R&R center/room(if there is such a thing) bigger "cafeteria" (galley?), larger storage rooms (for more food, fighter related stuff, etc...) How much larger would they need to be?
2. There is a thing where there are too many fighters in a fight and missiles like piranhas take fighters by the dozen.
3. Same scenario as above but friendly fire, a lot of it.
4. Same scenario as these two above but a capital ship fires a beam which intercepts many fighters.
5. Flak guns suddently become fighter killer extreme!
I think that is all for now, I exausted myself in 1.... :sigh:
-
Ok, so everybody decides to build carriers and lots of fighters and bombers.
Then some genius invents a cruiser that warps in, fires off beam salvos, and then jumps out. Well, the fighters and bombers would take care of it right? The fighters and bombers have to be launched first, which takes some time.
Once the fighters and bombers are out there, the cruiser's fighter escort has fun.
EDIT: and then somebody loads up a cruiser with flak cannons as well. Like shooting a hose at a swarm of bees, you're going to hit something.
-
Ghostavo, you forgot a lot of things there. A whole lot of them, infact.
Since you are gung-ho on this, i will ask a simple question.
Take a battleship and a carrier. Say, the USS Missouri and the Kitty hawk. Both are of similar sizes.
The Missouri represents a Hecate, the Kitty Hawk represents a future carrier class, non existant in FS today.
Wich one will win the battle?
Well, the Missouri needs to be atleast at 30km of the carrier to hit it. The carrier can launch from 1000 km away.
Now we take them up to space, ok? The destroyer has heavy armour (takes a whole lot of space), it´s not meant to be fast, it´s meant to be tough.
The carrier is faster, it has no armour, no big beam guns, no huge reactors to power them. All it has is a fast engine and a hull filled with fighters and bombers.
The destroyer tries to get close to fire, but the faster carrier illudes him and out runs him, and launches it´s bombers. While the destroyer has AAA weapons, they aren´t neally enough or accurate enough to stop a wing of bombers of launching torps.
It has fighters a few of them, but they are readilly overpowered by the carrier´s fighters, in greater numbers.
So, wich ship survives the encounter?
-
Originally posted by Solatar
OkEDIT: and then somebody loads up a cruiser with flak cannons as well. Like shooting a hose at a swarm of bees, you're going to hit something.
When was the last time you were shot down by the flak?
If you were, you need to improve your pilot skills!! :D
-
Let me correct your path of thought,
1 - Subspace drives
2 - Kitty Hawk wouldn't have more fighters than the Missouri and even if it had (very big if), it would only have about 8 more fighters/bombers MAXIMUM
3 - Missouri would have weaponry capable of obliderating the Kitty Hawk should it be in range (see point 1)
4 - read my previous post
-
The only problem with the fighter/bomber based fleet is the lack of strong armor - area wepons could devastate such a navy.
Said weapons wouldn't put a single dent in a cruiser or corvette, but would devastate smalller ships.
Moreover it is subspace that grants big ships their validity - the ability to jump instantly makes them feasable once again, since the reason battleships aren't built anymore is their lack of range and mobility compared to a carrier.
However the fast fleet idea does have merit - such ships could do true flanking manourvers.
These Lightning ships could rush in and give the old pounders a taste of the new weaponry suited to this warfare - fast torpedoes, and bay weapons.
I have had a campaign idea centered on two such prototype battle-cruisers/battle-corvettes for quite some time.
I will try to demonstrate the posibilities through the description of these ships:
The GTVBc Hector and GTVBc Achilles are both lightning ships - they are the first capships to use pure skeletal frame - no outer frame elements.
This allows the ship to use extreme thrust since the frame can dynamically take the stress. The downside is since there is no outer exo-shell to mount the armor onto.
The ship has a lot weaker armor compared to more convetional designs.
The Sobek and Deimos also had skeletal frames, but combined it with an exo-frame to mount armor. This reduced the effectiveness of the skeleton, but it still allowed a more secure mounting of internal components including reactors and engines.
Moreover the frame couldn't take the stress of such thrust without irrevocable damage.
The Hector and Achilles prototypes take the concept further: the engines and the reactor are handles as a sigle unit with a direct plasma feed from the high-pressure reaction chamber. The design gives an unprecedented ammount of thrust but destabilizes the reactor in turn.
At ordinary thrust strain - comparable to older designs - the design gives of 60-120% more power, while in its own full potential 200-300% more.
Such drain however takes a master helmsman and engineer to operate and careless manuvering can snap the ship's own backbone. Moreover the reactor is in an increasingly instabile state during these manuevers.
With the new frame and integrated thrust systems comes a new reactor concept - the dynamic reaction based over-sized explosive reactor.
Instead a closely-knitted control present in convetional reactor, this design allows the reaction to operate in a looser more rampant manner. Such operation was termed extremely hazardeus in the past, but recent studies of fusion reaction and plasma dynamics allow a finer reaction control - the pontential for reactor breach and meltdown is still a lot greater than on other ships
.
The reactor is still too powerfull for the a ship of corvette size and is possible only thanks to the frame's ability to bend and take greater strains.
The weaponry designed for such a powersource is equally powerhungry:
This is where the ships differ
Achilles
The Achilles uses a beam array, that uses a great plasma capacitor running the lenght of the ship's backbone.
The ship has two huge emmiter arrays on its port and starboard fashioned in a vedge form to fire the immense ammount of plasma from the huge capacitor.
Unlike convetional beams, the ships uses the sheer pressure from the fusion reaction instead linear accelators to propell the beam. Though linear accelators are still present in the array-vedge for aiming and focusing the beam array.
The array can focus the plasma into small fields and windows for anti capships engagements with devastating piercing abilities.
The greatest potentioal of the array however is the loose open focused firing technique - intead beams or beam blocks, whole areas of space can be irradiated wiping out entire bomber/fighter wings and devatate the whole turret system of a capship.
The downside of the design is its hunger for abundant plasma - the extreme plasma capacitor solves it, but recharging takes some time even with the powefull reactor, so firing is reduced to 3-4 salvos per engagment unless the ship gives up its mobility to just recharge the main capacitor.
When the capacitor is exhausted, plasma can be directly shunted into the array, but with such feed it can only operate at lower output comparable to standard beam emplacements.
Complementing the complicated and by many critics termed too unstable beam array is another revolutionary desig: the high-speed torpedo laucher system.
Convetional missile design allow the ordenance to leave with its own engine, or help it with some limited linear acceleration.
The Achilles however utilises its complex plasma venting system for an unconventional purpose - steam catalysation. The torpedoes are fired with a lot greater initial speed thanks to this catapult system.
Hector
Whereas the Achilles focuses entierly on utilising beam technology, the weapon designers of the Hector tried a different approach. Instead mounting a massivly powerfull weapon, they tried to come up with a CIC system capable of handling a previously unprecendented ammount of weapons.
The result was the weapon bay - it mount a devastating array of conventional guns, with a limited aiming ability compared to turrets, but an awsome mass firepower in return.
Each bay can holds 20-to-100 conventional weapons and all are handled by a single fire-control station.
By concentrating firepower the bays proved to be superior over convenional design, even if somwhat maintinance intensive, morevover their anti-fighter capabilities were lacking.
To counter this the Hector also mounted conventional AAF turreting.
Beside its 4 bays on both port and starboard, the Hector recieved another weapon system that draws on pre-beam design: the ship has a spinal railgun in the same place where the Achilles has its main capacitor.
The ammunition was nicked by technicians crowbar thanks to its I-shape and the name has stuck ever since.
The power spared by the lack of beam weaponry is most needed for the huge linear accelerator - it has piercing abilities to cripple capships even when most of the armor still present.
It was only during the testruns when a welcome suprise was found on both ships - the capacitors for the railgun as well as the plasma-less array could hold enough energy for 2 more imminent subspace jumps.
However to do so the ship has to sacrifice 1 or 2 salvos of its maingun and only a single salvo will be availibel after jump.
With this development in mind both ships role were immediately redevised - originaly they were to perform suicide runs and emergency fleet support during a Shivan invasion.
That role was switched for a harrassing a blitkrieg tactics that took use of the battle-corvettes extreme manueveribility.
-
RE: Is there more space on a Destroyer for fighters
Sure there is!! Just look at your main area pic! Look at all that empty space, big empty hall with little shelves for fighters on the sides. If it had shelves all the way across we'd get many more fighters in!
Look at the Psamtik, there's a huge amount of space in there for more fighters. The fighters aren't even stored onscreen.
And beyond that, who cares about the inside of the ship, what about the outside! Just put docking clamps up and down the hull, have a hatch to get in the fighter and pop off and hit your engines. Yeehaw. You only have to go back inside for regular maintenance.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
On the other side you may take the Lilith way... an overgunned vessel of mayem...
With crappy AAA protection. I think that was the Shivan cruisers biggest weakness, too many anti-capital ship cannons and too few AAA guns.
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
RE: Is there more space on a Destroyer for fighters
Sure there is!! Just look at your main area pic! Look at all that empty space, big empty hall with little shelves for fighters on the sides. If it had shelves all the way across we'd get many more fighters in!
Look at the Psamtik, there's a huge amount of space in there for more fighters. The fighters aren't even stored onscreen.
And beyond that, who cares about the inside of the ship, what about the outside! Just put docking clamps up and down the hull, have a hatch to get in the fighter and pop off and hit your engines. Yeehaw. You only have to go back inside for regular maintenance.
What about the storage space for those fighters supplies & living space for their pilots? (and the supplies to keep those pilots fed & watered)
Also where does maintenance take place? What happens if a damaged fighter crash-lands on the flight deck?
And wouldn't slapping mini-airlocks onto the exterior hull be adding structural weakpoints? (not to mention explosion damage from fighters blown up on the hull surface). How would those fighters / bombers be armed? (and isn;t strapping a helios-laden Boanerges onto the side of the hull asking for trouble?)
-
Actually if it wasn't apparent I was being mostly sarcastic :)
But to answer your first question, we put all of the pilots in light cryosleep and only wake 'em up to fight. Just like the Zentraedi!
-
'Cause that wouldn't be Terran :p
And it still doesn't resolve the issue of launch time. My "Carrier" types I've made (and yes, I have made them) usually have more launch ramps/tubes than your average destroyer to be able to launch more fighters in less time. Doesn't make them invulnerable by any means, but it's better than just cramming more hanger space into a destroyer.
-
To be honest, I consider the Hecate to be the FS equivalent of a carrier. With 150 combat spacecraft (read that: fighters/bombers), the truth is a Hecate ought to be able to mount a strike capable of killing several Sathani.
Only, for some odd reason, we never see anywhere near the total number of fighters one destroyer can carry. Heck, we've never seen an Orion launch all twenty of its wings either, have we? Twenty wings of fighters will make short work of just about anything. You could disable and disarm a Sathanas with twenty wings of PVF Anubis, for God's sake, or GTF Apollo. Then just send a Fenris to poke at the Sathanas until it dies.
That's why people insist that they can carry more fighters: they aren't launching their full complements. The only time you even get a hint a destroyer is launching its full fighter complement is in the briefing for "Their Finest Hour", when the briefing officer lists the squadrons the GTD Aquitane is detailing to certain tasks. There are at least four squadrons mentioned (oddly, none of which save the Blue Lions were ones you served in).
-
That's the one element I always hated about Freespace. Command had absolutely no tactical clue when it came to utilizing fighter/bomber squadrons. Take Bearbaiting, for example. Why send in one or two dinky wings of bombers when you can send in twenty? With that many ships, you could have destroyed the Sathanas without the Colossus's help. I've always dreamed of a scenario like that portrayed in the FS1 animation that plays at the beginning of "The Aftermath." It shows dozens of Scorpions pouring out of the Lucifer's fighterbays. Picture 50 ship on 50 ship dogfighting action...pure chaos :D.
Edit: Now that I think about it, if you sent in enough bomber wings with fighter cover, you might be able to do something about that uber-Sathanas fleet. The Sathanes didn't seem to have anything in the way of an escort, i.e. cruisers and corvettes. Just get a bunch of fighter wings clustered around the jump node to Gamma Draconis and order them to start disarming. Have the rest of the fleet as backup, so that once a Sathanas is disarmed, they can easily finish it off. I don't think this tactic could have worked for 80+ Sathanes, but at least it could have put a dent in them. Of course, this infers that your wingmen have some semblance of intelligence, which we all know they do not :p.
-
Edit: Now that I think about it, if you sent in enough bomber wings with fighter cover, you might be able to do something about that uber-Sathanas fleet. The Sathanes didn't seem to have anything in the way of an escort, i.e. cruisers and corvettes. Just get a bunch of fighter wings clustered around the jump node to Gamma Draconis and order them to start disarming. Have the rest of the fleet as backup, so that once a Sathanas is disarmed, they can easily finish it off. I don't think this tactic could have worked for 80+ Sathanes, but at least it could have put a dent in them. Of course, this infers that your wingmen have some semblance of intelligence, which we all know they do not
It also infers that the Shivans will not launch any fighters of their own, which we know to be false. As each Sathanas should have at least the compliment of the Colossus if the aforementioned FS1 animation is taken into account.
GTVA launches a thousand fighters from four destroyers and the Shivans launch thirty-thousand fighters from eighty Sathanas. Who do you think is going to win?
-
Actually, if all of those pilots were Alpha 1, the odds might not be so bad :p. Plus, there's a limit as to how quickly the Sathanes could launch their fighters. If the GTVA had enough fighters in the area already, they might be able to stay ahead of the Shivan launches.
-
you have to think, even if the Orion can cary 20 fighter and bomber wings 1) it may not have 20 wings for some reason and 2) not all of the wings will be usefull and 3) sending all the ships to one place leaves the destroyer venerable and other places undefended. It's safe to assume that less than half of the craft on a ship are bombers, it's also safe to assume that a ship isn't going tto send all it's fighters to cover it's bombers, think about it.
An orion will probably have 4+ fighter wings for cover, that leaves around 16 wings, odds are that around 4 of those wings are going to be "not flying" down to 12, and odds are that "deployed fighters" are going to be in several groups, assuming 4 groups that leaves 3 wings per group, mabye one of these missions doesnt need bombers, then mabye it only has 2 wings. These things add up fast.
-
my version:
fighters/bombers
gunships
cruisers
corvettes
frigates
destroyers
super destroyers
dreadnauts (and yes, it is a type of warship in Sci-Fi stuffs)
carriers
juggernauts
super juggernauts
warships that pwn joo
And what I don't understand is why today, destroyers are weaker than cruisers. You know, it sounds like destroyers were meant to, well, destroy things, while cruisers were meant to, well, cruise around... I like [V]'s idea much better.
-
What I've always wanted to know is why we never see them launch their full fighter complement when under attack. Like the Aquitane in the nebula during "Proving Grounds". Imagine if it had recalled its patrols and launched everything had that could fly.
That's probably more then a hundred fighters and bombers flying around out there. Shivans? What Shivans? Moloch-class corvette called Tiamat? What're you talking about? Oh, you mean that stuff we vaped in under twenty seconds.
-
In Rise of GCA it will be fixed...
Now the destroyers launches fighters until their bays are empty...
-
What I've always wanted to know is why we never see them launch their full fighter complement when under attack
Because Alpha 1 is defending it, so they don't need anymore. :p Either that or high gas prices.....
-
As has been said repeatedly, you can't launch fighters in rapid succession. It takes time to get them readied and lined up on the launch ramp. If it takes 15 minutes to prep a fighter for launch, how can you dump everything into a battle that lasts 5?
-
Any ship should have at least a minimal complement always ready... Heck, even today's carriers do...
And who said a battle couldn't last for 15 minutes or more?
-
They will typically have close to as many ready as they can fit in the launch bay, meaning, maybe 2 or 3 wings. Destroyers under fire in FS typically do scramble about that many fighters. As for battle time, how many missions did you play in FS that were more than 15 minutes long?
-
Can't remember, but who forbids to make some that long?
That's what modding is for...
And Q2: Why then the enemy (be shivan or NTF) seems to always be capable to launch a nearly unlimited number of ships?
-
In a combat zone, it generally behooves you to have several fighters ready for immeditate launch, fully loaded with weapons and fuel, pilots sitting in the cockpits, spotted for launch. That's your ready group, and probably the 3 or 4 wings we see launch in defense of a destroyer under attack are the ready group.
The majority of what's left would be on Alert 5 status (can be launched in five minutes or less; most often less) with full loads of weapons and fuel but the pilots off sleeping or whatever. The name is misleading; generally you can get them off much faster then that, five minutes represents the absolute slowest-case scenario. Then you'd have some on Alert 15 status (being reloaded or refueled, or having minor maintance done, but if needed they can be launched relatively quickly), and finally those which are downgrudged and unfit for flight ops without major maintance.
Depending on just how good the destroyer's deck crew is, you might be able to launch a four-fighter wing every thirty seconds after you've launched the ready group.
In fact, if you consider how a lot of the time they seem to be able to launch a bomber wing the moment somebody sends a cruiser or corvette after them, one might think that they could be launching more fighters, they just don't.
-
And i seem to remember there is a mission where a NTF carrier (Feint! Parry! Reposte! maybe?) launched wing after wing of fighter from it's bay...
So we can assume that would be canon too...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
And i seem to remember there is a mission where a NTF carrier (Feint! Parry! Reposte! maybe?) launched wing after wing of fighter from it's bay...
So we can assume that would be canon too...
It wasn't that mission. Admiral Koth's Orion, the Repulse, launches just one or two wings of Lokis. I think there may be another mission with multiple launches, though.
-
fighters wouldnt be stored readily armed, warheads for "alert 15" ships would probably be stored in a seperate warhead room while "alert 5" ships would probably not be armed either (remember the wing of thoths in the second last FS1 mission). pilots would'nt be waiting in fighters, probably a nearby waiting room.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
And who said a battle couldn't last for 15 minutes or more?
Mwahaha, a cunning plan emerges for a mission.
-
Originally posted by Fergus
Mwahaha, a cunning plan emerges for a mission.
not if i can finish it first :drevil:
-
Not if it's well planned ;)
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Bah, no offense to the Inferno crew, but R1 v1 was the uncanon of the uncanon. And with a new version coming, anything from the old R1 is questionable.
Remaining true to canon has never been even a slightest consideration for us, IMO there's so little backstory to FS2 that it wouldn't be worth sticking to in any case just for the sake of it.
Regarding fighter launches, my vision of Inferno's carriers was one where the internals of the warship were dedicated to storing large amounts of fighters, typically 200-300 fighters, bombers and support craft. These craft would be brought to the launch bay as necessary, hopefully inside one minute, to be armed and crewed (in about another minute) before take-off. Whereas destroyers of the past could accomplish the same thing, it would take much longer because the systems for storing and arming ships were largely manual and improvised as opposed to automatic and modular. New destroyers in the Inferno timeframe would still have a small fighter complement of 1 or 2 fighter wings on permanent standby to provide some flexibility should the warship enter an unknown situation. This arrangement would still leave the internal space inside the ship free for large reactors, heavy weaponry, massive armour plating, redundant systems and bulkeads, and extensive damage control, etc.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Can't remember, but who forbids to make some that long?
That's what modding is for...
And Q2: Why then the enemy (be shivan or NTF) seems to always be capable to launch a nearly unlimited number of ships?
A >15 minute mission is a monumental pain in the tits if you die near the end. Simple gameplay issue.......
-
Clever mission balancing can solve it. Otherwise ignore any missions which take more than 10-12 minutes to complete, You are not used to flying for that great amount of time. After 8-9 minutes, you inpatiently start glancing at the time indicator.
This is my own opinion, I know that some people like extremel long missions when the greatest chance of dying or losing the whole mission is at the end. Take any of the Derelict missions.
-
10 - 15 minutes are fine for some types of missions. In my campaign there's some boring cargo scanning missions and they last about 15 minutes, but the player should only have to play them once (unless they really, really suck) so it should be okay.
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
10 - 15 minutes are fine for some types of missions. In my campaign there's some boring cargo scanning missions and they last about 15 minutes, but the player should only have to play them once (unless they really, really suck) so it should be okay.
No offense but I honestly don't think that putting in a cargo scan mission of more that 5 mins is a good idea (I personally find them incredibly infuriating "Why do I have to scan it? I want to SHOOT it!"-not that I'm prone to much rage) especially if it is boring as you say.
-
Well, that's initially the player's job, scanning. Because it's a time of peace and they got little else to do. I've got lots of chatter between the wingmen to keep the player interested. It's more of a character-building bit, than a real mission. Introduce the player to the characters + factions in the story with a few smugglers or some other action along the way.
Sometimes I also have a scan mission turn into a red alert mission where they go bust up some pirates or something more fun like that :)
-
Well, that's true if you only have to scan stuff... But think about FS2 mission 2...
It starts with a cargo raid/inspection but evolves into something much more interesting ;)
-
Maybe have a pirate raid? or Alpha and cruiser jumping into pirate den and chat between enemy craft arriving.
-
There is plenty of room for many mission types... Just add some imagination and you're ready for that ;)
-
Well when I'm designing my mission, it has to have one purpose for certain, that being it advances the story. If the mission does nothing but is just some self-contained scanjob then there's little point for its existance. Now some missions may advance the story more than others, but that's the way it goes.
-
Themain use, IMO, of missions like scanning ones is to either build up to/contrast with the impending 'action', or to allow further exposition of the plot (i.e. more room for wingman chatter)
-
And more likely that wingmen will actually be alive. Long missions can be ok as long as the ending isn't easy to fail, otherwise you really should be using a red alert mission so that the player can pick back up after the chatter rather than sitting through it again.
-
The problem with long missions is - and with most space shooters so far - is that you can't just bog out when you've taken too much beating or retreat to a carrier for a spare ship.
In WWII some pilots (during the airwar for England) got shot down multiple times, only to take-off for the fray once again.
A long (quite long) mission is far from impossible if ejecting and/or switchin ships/emergency repairs are a possibility.
That way engagements can take a lot longer, and succesfull completeion of all objectives - and staying there all the time - are not necessary to pull it off as a victory.
-
Well... Disregarding canon a bit now it is possible to do battlefield repairs...
-
The support ship? That solution never made sense to me, as you'd need to overhaul the fighter in a lot of cases to repair major hull damage. It also makes the mission as easy as the player wants to make it, since all he has to do to get a new lease on life is to call in support. Flying over to your carrier and docking with it for repairs and having your fighter launch back out again, on the other hand, is much more plausible. Flaser makes a good point, but it doesn't resolve the issue with the way Freespace is structured.
-
I never said full or major repairs... The support ship should only be able to jury-rig stuff and sealing a few scratches... There are veichles capable of that today, so why not in the future?
So, the player can call a support ship, but it won't grant him a new lease of life rather than just a few extra points to keep the ship from getting into pieces...
-
Except that currently, vechicles that can do that are slow in getting the job done and have manipulators that can actually work on the damaged areas. The support ships don't; I've always assumed that Freespace fighters use modular subsystems so that if one is destroyed the support ship just drops another one in. It may have a manipulator arm that comes out of the bottom when it docks, but that wouldn't do much on the outside of the ship. And lets face it, what's that 10% hull integrity going to do in a 15 minute battle anyway?
-
Support ships use nano-bots as far as I know. Not modular replacements.
-
10% can help you to withstand a few more hits that makes the difference when needed...
Anyways it's up to the designers to make interesting missions... If they happen to be 20 minutes long and be well done at the same time it's fine for me...
-
I don't think FS tech is to the nanobots level, as there are far too many uses for them where they are most certainly not being applied. They'd make an unbelievable weapon, for instance. Or capship repair. Or in building the Colossus.
-
Maybe that's what the Auriga had in Derelict, with its self-repairing hull...
-
Hey ngtm1r, I haven't seen you before. Welcome to HLP. :)
:welcome:
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I don't think FS tech is to the nanobots level, as there are far too many uses for them where they are most certainly not being applied. They'd make an unbelievable weapon, for instance. Or capship repair. Or in building the Colossus.
They could use directed electro-graviton energy platelet therapy* for in-situ repairs.
*No, I don't know what the **** that's meant to mean either :D
-
I think people falsely believe that the GTA/GTVA has artificial gravity either. Reason? It could be used for tons of other things if they had it including prolusion, weapons (a rocket that actually tears/smashes its opponent to tiny bits and pieces), storage, reactors - you name it people.
Of course you'll go off: they had been sitting/walking in the mainhalls // FS is just another space-opera disregarding physics.
I don't want to really bother with the later part - it could be, but it's fun to make a plausible explanation.
For the first part: that's why I though up warpspace.
What the knut is that? An offspring technology of subspace engines.
Big ships needed subspace resonance conducts to make a seemless transition. (It is canon that a ship travels in the n-th dimensions through subspace.)
The sheer size of the ship makes using a single subspace engine incapable of covering it with a single field, while using multiple engines would be a waste - so they distort a single field with the conducts to cover the whole ship, but without the energy demands of covering an entire ship without the distortion.
Warpspace was discovered by incident - the subspace conducts were misaligned, creating a very weak subspace current between them. People suddenly saw object gravitating toward the conducts that had a weaker output. The conducts also serve as the ship's energy grid so they are always somewhat electrified/under power.
What's the difference between gravity and warpspace: warpspace is a current with a constant velocity, while gravity produces acceleration.
Object in warpspace will start to accelerate with a decreasing degree since they catch up with the current. In practice this means that once an object reached the velocity of the current it won't accelerate any more.
When inside a warpfield a person won't realise the difference between gravity and the warpfield, since both produce a similar initial acceleration.
Warpfields are beneficially safe since it's impossible to fall to your death unless the field was calibrated to a too high maximum velocity (most fields have 2-4 m/s setting).
Since their invention they have become the standard method to simulate gravity aboard starships and stations.
Space colonies and some cargo haulers though still use centrifugal simulation since it's more economic or can't mount a big enough subspace conduct array to create a sufficiently fluid warpfield. (It is among nasty pranks to miscalibrate one resulting in a stomechwrenching experience).
-
Sorry. Don't believe you. Everything we see in FS2 points to them having anti-grav or some tech like it. The cutscenes, the ship design, everything.
Saying that there is no AG because there are no AG weapons is about as sensible as saying that cause Capella is a quaternary star system the Shivans must have hidden the other 3 stars somehow. The stars are missing cause [V] are crap at astronomy. The AG weapons are missiing because [V] didn't see any sci-fi which included AG based weapons (No big surprise. There aren't that many on TV)
As a result we need to fanwank explainations for their lack. Quite frankly I find the simpler explainations much better. e.g The GTVA have never figured out how to get it above 1-2 gravities (i.e nothing at all useful as a weapon). I don't see the need to invent some hideously complex Warpspace explaination when you can explain it in a single line.
-
RE: Nanobots
Hmmn, I could've sworn I read that somewhere in the game saying that the ship used nanobots. Maybe not . . .
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
RE: Nanobots
Hmmn, I could've sworn I read that somewhere in the game saying that the ship used nanobots. Maybe not . . .
I've never seen anything like that myself. Are you sure it wasn't a mod?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Sorry. Don't believe you. Everything we see in FS2 points to them having anti-grav or some tech like it. The cutscenes, the ship design, everything.
Saying that there is no AG because there are no AG weapons is about as sensible as saying that cause Capella is a quaternary star system the Shivans must have hidden the other 3 stars somehow. The stars are missing cause [V] are crap at astronomy. The AG weapons are missiing because [V] didn't see any sci-fi which included AG based weapons (No big surprise. There aren't that many on TV)
As a result we need to fanwank explainations for their lack. Quite frankly I find the simpler explainations much better. e.g The GTVA have never figured out how to get it above 1-2 gravities (i.e nothing at all useful as a weapon). I don't see the need to invent some hideously complex Warpspace explaination when you can explain it in a single line.
You hadn't got me either - I didn't speak of weapons purely. Artificial gravity could have so many uses that I can't think of it all. It's like you finally gain control of all particles and can build indestructible stuff - BTW if they had AG they would have made some kind of shields on their own.
A subspace application on the other hand that's simulating gravity doesn't imply such plotholes.
BTW warpspace isn't complicated at all - instead a gravitic field you have a current that tends to pick up things.
-
I get you. I just don't agree with you at all.
-
First, gravity doesn't work that way; you feel weightless at constant velocity with no force applied. Artificial gravity isn't even the same as anti-gravity. It is nothing more than generating a force field, which is essentially what you're describing (except that velocity is not bound by force, at least not on the Newtonian level). There could be any number of ways to generate said force field, none of which has any basis in what we see in the mainhalls.
I've got to agree with kara on this one; the whole "warpspace" issue not only is needlessly complicated, it's also fairly plainly not the case. If it were, you'd have your fighters tending towards the bottom of a capital ship when you were close to it or between structural elements, which you can easily be with the Hecate, Hades, Hatshepsut, Colossus, or any of the Shivan destroyers. If a you've got two competing explanations, the simpler of the two is probably the correct one.
-
They all use grav boots! What´s simpler than that? :D
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
They all use grav boots! What´s simpler than that? :D
no, grav floors, normal boots. Only grav boots when grav floors arent available (boarding the shivan transport and other craft, new under construction stations, etc...)
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
They all use grav boots! What´s simpler than that? :D
Watch the sparks in the FS1 mainhall. Are they putting grav boots on them too? :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Watch the sparks in the FS1 mainhall. Are they putting grav boots on them too? :D
Or even just the loose, hanging cables.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
First, gravity doesn't work that way; you feel weightless at constant velocity with no force applied. Artificial gravity isn't even the same as anti-gravity. It is nothing more than generating a force field, which is essentially what you're describing (except that velocity is not bound by force, at least not on the Newtonian level). There could be any number of ways to generate said force field, none of which has any basis in what we see in the mainhalls.
I've got to agree with kara on this one; the whole "warpspace" issue not only is needlessly complicated, it's also fairly plainly not the case. If it were, you'd have your fighters tending towards the bottom of a capital ship when you were close to it or between structural elements, which you can easily be with the Hecate, Hades, Hatshepsut, Colossus, or any of the Shivan destroyers. If a you've got two competing explanations, the simpler of the two is probably the correct one.
Gravity does work exactly like that - whem you're falling you don't feel anything.
To be more exact you can't feel gravity since it a volumetric force - so each cm^3 of your body will accelerate the same (unless you're a 1.5km long dragon out of some fairytale), so you can't feel gravity itself.
Gravity doesn't lend weight to stuff - support and suspension does.
It is the rope you're hanging from or the floor beneath your feet that you can feel since those are pressure forces (they take effect on a plane force/plane = pressure).
Initially warpspace feels exactly the same as gravity - it tries to pull you with its flow so your suspension/support exerts force on you.
The difference is that if you jump of a ledge you will decreasingly reach a topspeed and don't accelerate anymore. - Such a field would be good for transportation too since you can easly predict the way stuff goes around.
Gundam also had a sort of semi-gravity they explained with Minovsky particles, but it is still a crucial point that it's not actual gravity they can create.
What I try to get through simply is that even if there is an AG system, we should try to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't involve true artificial gravity. The reason is that the GTA/GTVA doesn't seem to posses such advanced technology.
As for the force field thing - it is easier said than done. All the spaceoperas (at least any that's derived from ST) had them, but they are all stupid!
Why? What kind of field can exert force on a particle?
Electro-Magnetic, Gravitic - I keep blabbering that possesing the later would solve a tons of issues the GTVA seems to have with its weaponry/prolusion/reactor systems.
Electro-Magnetic Fields on the other hand can only interact with charged particles. So unless everyone wears an electrified vest/boots or wears a lot of metal a conventional forcefield explainable by our current science would be problematic.
That's why I came up with a field that's based on subspace, since the only other such magical forcefield - shields - also seem to be based on subspace technology.
...and please don't come with ST/SW terms like tachions and whatsoever imaginary particles said things probably wouldn't produce any visible effect in interaction with common matter since we don't see them doing so...if tachions exist they are probably ghost particles that we can only get very faint glimse of even fainter than neutrinos.
On the other hand I am open to any plausible explanation of the GTA/GTVA AG technology that doesn't involve the common - it's sci-fi magic/xxxx-field + zzzz-particle.
-
How can this "Warpspace" work if it isn't an acceleration?
I too don't "buy it". Each movement we make in order to walk, run, etc requires a constant force pulling us down. This force provides with acceleration so we do the stuff we do. What you are giving the FS universe is a speed. speed is not a force, and speed is impossible to provide without a force/acceleration. Such an acceleration should be constant or else such speed wouldn't exist and wouldn't make sense and with a constant acceleration the speed cannot be "capped". Therefore Warspace is quite improbable because in reality it would be artificial gravity.
That's why I came up with a field that's based on subspace, since the only other such magical forcefield - shields - also seem to be based on subspace technology.
Shields are not based on subspace technology or at least if it is one cannot see it. Just because it doesn't work in subspace doesn't mean it's based on it. If you put a normal car in the ocean it won't work. Does it mean it is based in "marine" technology? Also, the Reference Bible says that shields won't work because of the energy needed to enter subspace.
-
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
So, the GTVA obviously use a posi-hyperdrive-particle-director-HMSTR-drive to generate graviton beams that polarise the atomic structure of,er, people and depolarise the deck to create an inverse quantum mega-pull on the subatomic scale.
:)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Watch the sparks in the FS1 mainhall. Are they putting grav boots on them too? :D
What?? You didn´t see it? Those sparks are carried away by a swarm of robotical worker bees! If you zoom in close enough, you will see them! And the cables? Haa! They are just coloured pixels, they don´t really exist! :D
Common people, we are arguing about something that exists only in the minds of the designers. And as such, we can invent any possible and concevable explanation for it. If i say they are all little angels, with little wings that allows them to float around without weight, can you really argue against it?
So, the GTVA obviously use a posi-hyperdrive-particle-director-HMSTR-drive to generate graviton beams that polarise the atomic structure of,er, people and depolarise the deck to create an inverse quantum mega-pull on the subatomic scale.
I´ll go along with this explanation, whatever it means.
:drevil:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
How can this "Warpspace" work if it isn't an acceleration?
I too don't "buy it". Each movement we make in order to walk, run, etc requires a constant force pulling us down. This force provides with acceleration so we do the stuff we do. What you are giving the FS universe is a speed. speed is not a force, and speed is impossible to provide without a force/acceleration. Such an acceleration should be constant or else such speed wouldn't exist and wouldn't make sense and with a constant acceleration the speed cannot be "capped". Therefore Warspace is quite improbable because in reality it would be artificial gravity.
Shields are not based on subspace technology or at least if it is one cannot see it. Just because it doesn't work in subspace doesn't mean it's based on it. If you put a normal car in the ocean it won't work. Does it mean it is based in "marine" technology? Also, the Reference Bible says that shields won't work because of the energy needed to enter subspace.
Meh...no one seems to get it.
Warpfield is not a conventional field that exerts power on smg. it actually is a clever use of an old theory: ETHER
Before Einsteam and Relativistic physics were created it was thought that all EM-Waves travel in a substance called ether in a similar manner how waves travel in water.
Off course the ether theory was proven to be false since there is no such thing as a distinguishable intertial system.
I tried to circumvent the whole unknown magic parciles/force fields problem with a phenomenon that would produce the quasi same effect as gravity, but with a not so imaginary explanation.
Warpfield should be in fact called Warp Current - it is a ripple in the fabric of space, a wave that tries to push things in a direction.
If the wave pushes constatly you won't be able to tell the difference wheter its a constant force (a field) or something bumping into you (an object). The only indication that you're riding a wave is that once you've caught up with it you won't accelerate any more.
So warpfield/warpripple does provide acceleration, but not constant acceleration.
This wave is created by a potential differnce in the subspace field -which is the result of an asymetrically distorted field- ergo it is also false that it will draw everything.
The wave will only exist between two points with a different potential - so only between two subspace conducts with a different subspace potential. Anything outside that area won't be affected.
I hoped I could clear it up. IMHO warpfield/warpcurrent is simpler than some imaginary interaction that would simulate gravity.
-
Wouldn't a not constant (like you said) acceleration cause health problems?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Wouldn't a not constant (like you said) acceleration cause health problems?
Does being inside a car cause heart problems?
If you're standing or hanging or just staying put the current will wash over you, creating the illusion of gravity and will have a constant acceleration. The reason it's not a constant acceleration the same way as gravity is that the faster you move the less it will accelerate, while gravity always accelerates regardless the speed.
BTW a well degined warp field is homogenous, so it provides the same current in all the space it covers - of course some warpfields can be designed to actually bend and change the direction of the wave so you can move people and equipment more efficiently. - Though I wouldn't use it for moving ships since a several hundred tons fighter is not something I would just let go with the flow.
-
Double post
-
Seems fair, but still presents one problem...
How many pilots will get space (as in sea) sick? :lol: j/k
Actually, wouldn't such a technology be used for something much more useful like perpectual energy? If you've got a field that can literaly lift people in low currents and still isn't "all that powerful"... well...
-
But you can't use ether as a theory to build from. Ever. Under any circumstances.
The other problem is that this theory relies more on magic and conjecture than simply saying the GTVA can produce roughly 1g artificial gravity (Which, in fact, is all you're saying; a velocity-limiting field is, as I will continue to maintain, a complete logical fallacy, but it's achieving the same goals). Doesn't require explanation. Also, you keep refering to this thing as a derivative of subspace drives, with some kind of fluid/plasma acting as the driver for the force field, but the tech room description of subspace drives cleary shows that they are a mechanical device devoid of any kind of circulating fluid. It breaks too many laws of physics (even by freespace standards) to be a useful theory.
-
Originally posted by Hellbender
Being overlooked is the fact that ship classifications have been designated and changed (roles and size vessel) several times over the last number of centuries as the current naval ships have evolved from oar-power to sail to modern propulsion. The classifications changed as was convenient for each seperate navy. They continue to change. Ask any naval service people you know. Pick a country's naval forces.
What was considered a destroyer during the 1st World War was considerably changed by the time the end of World War 2 came about. Side by side vessels from each era, though designated the same would look and be fought in rather different ways.
Point is, V was pretty much justified for not using current class designations for their fictional space warships - by the time of the FS Great War era, the classifications would almost certainly have changed completely several times anyway. Sounding cool is just icing on the cake... though I still like "Dreadnoght" as the coolest sounding large ship class.
Not quite. The ship class designation haven't changed for a long time. Battleship designated the mightiest ship in the fleet 400 years ago, and it still does now. It doesn't sound old at all..
Besides, before the world wasn't so connected and there wasn't a general classification method that now exists, so ships have been re-named again and again. Now that one accepted and functioning classification exists, I fail to see why it would change in the future. It's not like the interceptor, scout and bomber are gonan change now, is it?
I fail to see why there is some logic in the Destroyer destroys, thus it soundscool. ALL warships destroy. Cruisers purpose is not to cruise, but to destroy. Cruise generaly means slow moving on the sea, and only big, heavy ships move slow. Destroyers were numerous and they had powerfull AA weaponry.
I'm for a more navy classification - I mean, the current military knows what it's doing and it has all these shipclasses for a reason:
fighter/bomber
gunboat
Destroyer (fs2 cruiser)
Corvette
Frigate/Escort Carrier
Cruiser/Carrier
BatleCruiser/Heavy Carrier
BattleShip
and I do belive that every ship class has it uses and having both carriers and normal Fs2 destroyers isn't really a problem
-
No it's not. The problem comes up when people get their own ideas on what a "carrier" means. There are about 3 distinct classes of ships that can be considered carriers; the strike carriers, which are essentially corvettes with fighterbays instead of weapons, or small weaponless destroyers more than anything else, small and largely defenseless; there are the destroyers that someone wants to call a carrier (still has firepower equal to that of a destroyer, and simply a larger hanger opening), and there are the "supercarriers" which, more often than not, are misnamed juggernauts and mission-balancing nightmares. In a modern navy, a carrier and a cruiser are not equal; carriers are the largest ships in the fleet by far, launch fighters, but generally have little in the way of their own defenses. Some point-defense systems, yes, but not like a primary warship.
And besides, we're not talking about a wet navy here. Space navies don't necessarily need the same distinctions that a surface navy does. If we wanted to line up the ship size/role list, then it would actually be (WARNING: MASSIVE ABUSE OF CODE TAGS :D):
FS2 Modern Navy
Fighter Fighter
Bomber n/a (bombers don't land/take off from surface ships anymore)
PT-boat/gunboat
Corvette
Frigate
Cruiser Destroyer
Corvette Cruiser
Carrier
Destroyer n/a (Battleship/Carrier hybrid)
You don't have battlehips anymore, they are too big of a target for too little range to be effective. Find reference to an active-duty battleship in any navy and I'll take that back, but you won't. You also don't have battlecruisers as a seperate class either (technically never did, since they were a subclass of cruiser for the 30 or so years they existed) Carriers also don't fit the conventional warship role; they don't engage the enemy directly if at all possible, rather launching aircraft to do the dirty work for them. If a carrier's guns ever come on line, it's in deep crap already. If they didn't pack so much firepower in their fighters, they would be considered a support ship rather than a warship. If you want to relate the FS-bomber to something in a wet navy, it's the gunboat/PT-boat.
-
I know very well what a carrier means, but since we are taalking FS2 sized ships (thousands of meter long ships), then size is questionable. A Space carrier doesn't have to be larger than a space battleship. It can be, but doesn't have to.. besides, I was just putting general ideas.
Yes, I'm aware that BatteCruiser is a Cruiser sub-class, but I wrote that list the way I see it it should be - not a 100% accurate navy listing..
And yes, today battleships are only on stand-by, but in the future, with realyl big guns and shields and the jumping ability, I guess they would be very important once again..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Cruise generaly means slow moving on the sea, and only big, heavy ships move slow
Sorry, but that is wrong. Cruisers are fast, not slow. A cruiser has a top speed of 30+ knots, while a battleship can reach 25, tops. The "cruiser" expression was first made to represent a fast moving vessel, that could "cruise" the oceans stalking its prey, usually heavier and slower battleships.
Destroyers are even faster, with speeds of up to 35 knots or more (the navy never discloses their top speed).
Generally speaking, "cruise" means the average or usual speed at wich a vessel travels, i.e "cruise control", "cruising speed".
It is usually wrongly associated to the expression "cruise liner", wich is a heavy, slow moving passenger ship. There is nothing slow about a navy cruiser, it´s built for speed and firepower.
With the advent of rockets and guided missiles, the cruiser was set aside, and the new type of cruiser/destroyer emerged, the Aegis cruiser. It´s the size of a destroyer, but carries the punch of a cruiser. It is also more focused as an anti-aircraft triple-A platform for aerial warfare, while the destroyer is more focused in submarine warfare.
The battleship itself hasn´t disappeared yet, from modern navy. Allthough the US scuttled its big battleships in exchange for carriers, there are still other countries that maintain them in active duty. Not for much longer, i´ll grant you that...
The carrier is the wave of the future. One carrier can obliterate an entire fleet of battleships, without even setting eyes on them.
The same would and will happen in space.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
But you can't use ether as a theory to build from. Ever. Under any circumstances.
The other problem is that this theory relies more on magic and conjecture than simply saying the GTVA can produce roughly 1g artificial gravity (Which, in fact, is all you're saying; a velocity-limiting field is, as I will continue to maintain, a complete logical fallacy, but it's achieving the same goals). Doesn't require explanation. Also, you keep refering to this thing as a derivative of subspace drives, with some kind of fluid/plasma acting as the driver for the force field, but the tech room description of subspace drives cleary shows that they are a mechanical device devoid of any kind of circulating fluid. It breaks too many laws of physics (even by freespace standards) to be a useful theory.
Now, excuse me but where the **** did fluid/plasma stuff come from?
You must have watched way too much Star Trek with their blabber about plasma ducts and such flashing gizmo.
BTW does a river or an air current break physics?
Saying that the GTVA can create a 1g artificial gravity is simply put NO WHATSOEVER EXPLANATION.
Moreover if they could do a real 1g strong gravity field wouldn't need any whatsoever engines or lasers...
I never said a subspace engine is a fluid/plasma thingy...
AFAIK subspace is made of the 10-25 dimensions all particles reside in of what only 4 create a continous environment known as space-time, the rest are in dissarray.
Hawking used the orange parallel - an orange is more or less a perfect sphere - but if you look close you realise it's full of small ridges and bumps.
Gravity affects subspace jumps and it is admitedly easier to jump in a gravity field - hence the presense of only intra-system capable jump drives.
IMHO a jumpdrive either alignes a corridor into/through which the ship can travel or what's more likely it forces the particles in the ship to vibrate on the same frequency (the whole source of loop theory treated particles as miniature oscillators) as subspace which forms a more or less cohesive space from points of space that are close only on a different set of oscillatons.
This forced oscillation on along the n-th dimensions is what a jumpdrive should create. I don't know how this is possible - it probably uses a variant of quantum phenomenons that seem to duplicate particles and/or make pairs that seem to "know" of each other.
This resonating phenomenon passes though the whole ship (probably at the speed of light) in repeated waves until the whole ship is aligned with subspace, then transition can occur and a portion of subspace itself is aligned with normal space resulting in the trademark warp.
The resonance probably travels in all direction and covers a globe of space effecting everything inside - this is the reason that you can still hurt a ship while in transition, since your bullets entering the resonance field recieve the same treatment and/or get aligned enough to still cause some damage.
Most capships don't have a globular design, so most of the field is lost, but you still use tons of energy to align empty space.
What I proposed was that big ships can't create a big enough resonance that could cover the entire ship on its own without a needlessly big ammount of power.
Using multiple jumpdrives would be wastefull and too expensive and difficult to synhronise (it is also possible that even too ships jumping into subspace from the same point won't end up in subspace at the same place since their drives were a tad different - the whole subspace tracking technology could be about dealing with this).
So instead building damn big jump drive they distot the field of the existing one, using methods similar to how one would distort a wave inside a pool.
The subspace conducts are actually these resonators and dampers that shape the resonance field best to cover the ship as accuratly as possible.
Warpfield actually uses the resonance wave created by the subspace drive/aparatus. It aligns space to an extent where it can't be used for jump, but does in an assymetrical manner that result in a bend of space-time very similar to gravity.
The problem is that you can't continously do that and a distortion with potent power would probably tear everything aparat. So instead one big distorion, several waves of them are continously passed through the field to result in a constant average distortion field. The reason a person won't accelerate any more in a warpfield once he reached a speed is that he reached the speed with whic the waves are traveling (not the resonance itself which travels at the speed of light just like gravity, but the speed at which the intervining distortions go).
-
The Aegis is not the size of a destroyer. While the Ticonderoga-class cruiser is based on the hull of the Spruance-class destroyers, the Spruances are in fact the size of a WW2 light cruiser.
Also, the US is the only country in the world to maintain battleships in even mothballed status. There are two reasons for that. One, the have been refitted with a plethora of surface-to-surface missile systems, so they make excellent centerpieces to a Surface Action Group, and battleship armor plating will laugh off any missile in the world today short of a nuke. Two, these are the only ships capable of providing creditible support to an amphibous landing, and so the only possible way to conduct an opposed landing is with the battleships backing you up.
Carriers are powerful, but they are also hideously vunerable. Go read up on the Battle of Samar some time. As long as a carrier can keep its opponents at arms' length, it has the advantage. But because of Freespace ships' ability to subspace jump, they cannot keep people away. And once you've closed with a carrier, it's essentially a large target.
-
RE: artificial gravity - who gives a ****?
I mean, really, is this worth spending the next 5 days arguing about?
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
The Aegis is not the size of a destroyer. While the Ticonderoga-class cruiser is based on the hull of the Spruance-class destroyers, the Spruances are in fact the size of a WW2 light cruiser.
Do you realize you just contradicted yourself in that sentence?
Carriers are powerful, but they are also hideously vunerable. Go read up on the Battle of Samar some time. As long as a carrier can keep its opponents at arms' length, it has the advantage. But because of Freespace ships' ability to subspace jump, they cannot keep people away. And once you've closed with a carrier, it's essentially a large target.
Ah yes, but that´s why you have AWACS, isn´t it? If you detect something that can harm your carrier coming through subspace, what´s to stop you from jumping away, instead of just waiting for it? I guess you are assuming the strategist in charge would be of similar inteligence as the GTVA command, but in real life that doesn´t happen. If the carrier gets in any danger, the same mechanisms that allow it to be attacked also allow it to escape. So why would it ever let itself to be trapped? And besides, carriers have escorts, and anything short of a fleet of destroyers would get pulverized the minute it jumped in.
-
No he didn't, he's stating that the "destroyer" that the Aegis is similar in size to is actually cruiser-sized in the first place.
And does the inability of your FS carriers to hang around in a fight (or the necessity of fleeing, in this case) not compromise their ability to defend a strategic location? As important as holding nodes seems to be, I'd think the GTVA would never abandon the ultra-heavy hitting power of a Destroyer. Why would they do that and then to replace it with a ship that could not participate in a blockade? And besides, if you're going to give command some brains, then there's no reason that destroyers shouldn't have escorts as well. It's engine limitations that prevents you from seeing that. As for the escorts ripping anything that tries attacking to shreads, I'll remind you that if you've got a fleet of escorts hanging around a valuable fleet asset, your opponent won't show up with one ship.
-
I'd think the GTVA would never abandon the ultra-heavy hitting power of a Destroyer. Why would they do that and then to replace it with a ship that could not participate in a blockade?
Of course they wouldn't. They didn't in Inferno. All the carrier does is move the fleet CNC away from the front lines and provide dedicated fighter launching abilities. The second part is good because it allows you to make destroyers even more lethal towards enemy capital ships.
-
Of course, how many times in Inferno R1 was the Independence sent to do a destroyer-like job...ALONE...
I suppose I should take some comfort in the fact it generally barely escaped from those missions.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
No he didn't, he's stating that the "destroyer" that the Aegis is similar in size to is actually cruiser-sized in the first place.
Yes he did. Read my post, to wich he answered. Even if cruiser sized, as you put it, it is still a destroyer. And what i said was that the new cruisers were smaller, destroyer sized. Of course, destroyers come in many sizes, but all it takes is one for my statement to be correct.
And does the inability of your FS carriers to hang around in a fight (or the necessity of fleeing, in this case) not compromise their ability to defend a strategic location? As important as holding nodes seems to be, I'd think the GTVA would never abandon the ultra-heavy hitting power of a Destroyer. Why would they do that and then to replace it with a ship that could not participate in a blockade? And besides, if you're going to give command some brains, then there's no reason that destroyers shouldn't have escorts as well. It's engine limitations that prevents you from seeing that. As for the escorts ripping anything that tries attacking to shreads, I'll remind you that if you've got a fleet of escorts hanging around a valuable fleet asset, your opponent won't show up with one ship. [/B]
First of all, i am not a node blockade apologist. I don´t think wars are won by sitting still at the local bottleneck and wait for the enemy to possibly come through there.
Second, the load of bombers a carrier takes along, is more than enough to take out a destroyer, with minimun losses to the bomber wings. If the destroyer launches his fighters, the carrier has much more fighters of its own to counter that pseudo-threat.
Third, you missread what i intented to say back there. I wasn´t saying the escort alone would deal with the threat, i said the escort AND the fighter-bomber complement. Big diference. The escort ships can buy the carrier time to jump out if needed.
Fourth, i am a fierce apologist of "attack is the best defense". The carrier would never get caught in a defensive situation, because it would be used ofensively. It would detect any possible targets, launch the fighters and bombers wich in turn would make a small in-system jump, and take on the destroyer.
The numbers are simple to evaluate:
You place a destroyer against just a carrier, and the carrier looses. But place the destroyer against a carrier and íts immense complemente of fighters and bombers, and the destroyer looses. The carrier might take damage, but it comes out on top.
Besides, a carrier is faster than the heavy destroyer. It can simply stay out of range of the destroyer´s beams, and still kick it in the ass.
Anyone who doesn´t see the clear advantage of the carrier is a poor strategist to begin with.
The only two things that can take out a carrier are:
1º A poor carrier captain;
2º Another carrier.
-
Again, I advise you to read up on the Battle of Samar. Leyte Gulf. Quite instructive. However, substitue Halsey's mistake for a subspace jump, and you'll see where I'm going.
The advantage of the carrier lies in long-range striking power. The problem with this in FreeSpace is that, essentially, every ship is a fighter in terms of its striking distance. Whether a fighter or a destroyer, it can jump halfway across the system and arrive in maybe a minute. This also invalidates the theory of seeing the destroyer coming, because your amount of warning is simply not sufficent to react...and also I could point out that never in FS2 canon is there the slightest hint an AWACs can see into subspace. In all the nebular missions involving an AWACs, you'll notice the Shivan ships arrive without warping in, implying they just entered the AWAC's sensor range, not came out of subspace. In no non-nebular mission does an AWACs forewarn of enemies arriving.
So, the destroyer arrives, with perhaps a minute of warning if any, right next to your carrier, and opens fire. The carrier simply cannot get out of range quickly enough to avoid. Maybe it is faster; that's debatable, but any case it's not fast enough. The escorts will be hesitant to fire at a target so close to the carrier; the carrier's own weapons will be insufficent to deal with the threat. The destroyer's first beam volley is targeted on the carrier's fighterbays. The majority of the carrier's fighters and bombers are now either ashes or trapped in the hanger deck unable to launch.
Meanwhile, the carrier's escorts manuver to attack, only to be met by the destroyer's escorts. The same happens to the combat aerospace patrol the carrier has up. The smaller number of fighters the destroyer has, overall, is not so important here, because it has all its fighters deployed and the carrier has only a fraction of its fighter complement deployed. In all likelyhood, the destroyer's fighters will outnumber the carrier's CAP.
The destroyer fires it's second beam volley. This one is targeted on the carrier's engines. The destroyer will have suffered some damage by this point, certainly, but nowhere near enough to slow it down: destroyers are difficult to kill, and in the face of the an attack from the destroyer's escorts and their being unready for its arrival, it is unlikely the carrier's escorts will have been able to muster a creditable attack on the destroyer.
Even in the best-case scenario, with the destroyer and its escorts driven off or destroyed, your carrier is now severely damaged, dead in space, and unable to launch or recover fighters. What fighters it already has deployed have suffered losses and depleted their available munitions. They aren't getting more: the support ships have to come from a carrier too. The carrier's escorts are also damaged.
This is effectively a death sentence. A carrier without an aerospace group is in extreme danger, and this one can't even run. It's remaining CAP and escort craft are damaged. A mid-size bomber strike could leave no survivours. And, because the carrier represents such a high-value target in a fleet built on your scheme, you can be almost certain that strike will arrive.
Or maybe another destroyer will, along with its escorts and fighters.
-
Unless the defensive ring is deployed in a way that jumping in beam range is an extremely risky affair (IE collisions)...
That way the carrier will have the time to deploy a sizeable force while the destroyer tries to close...
Of course you can just sacrifice a couple pf cruisers to do the work on the fighterbay before the whole group jumps... But it's not really an easy work that way too...
-
So, the destroyer arrives, with perhaps a minute of warning if any, right next to your carrier, and opens fire. The carrier simply cannot get out of range quickly enough to avoid. Maybe it is faster; that's debatable, but any case it's not fast enough. The escorts will be hesitant to fire at a target so close to the carrier; the carrier's own weapons will be insufficent to deal with the threat. The destroyer's first beam volley is targeted on the carrier's fighterbays. The majority of the carrier's fighters and bombers are now either ashes or trapped in the hanger deck unable to launch.
Meanwhile, the carrier's escorts manuver to attack, only to be met by the destroyer's escorts. The same happens to the combat aerospace patrol the carrier has up. The smaller number of fighters the destroyer has, overall, is not so important here, because it has all its fighters deployed and the carrier has only a fraction of its fighter complement deployed. In all likelyhood, the destroyer's fighters will outnumber the carrier's CAP.
I really don't know why you're all arguing the benefits of carriers vs non-carriers. The fact of the matter is, that who wins the battle is _NOT_ dependant on the type of ship, but rather on the quality of intelligence.
In your example you have a destroyer-lead force jumping in, disabling a carrier and generally surprising the fleet. The problem is, how do you know the carrier is there? Especially given your The escorts will be hesitant to fire at a target so close to the carrier idea. How does it jump so close if it doesn't know where it is? The fact is, it has to KNOW where it is first. And in order to know, it has to scout the enemy fleet, and unless they have superior stealth technology the enemy fleet will know they've been scouted and will be put on alert. A precise jump like that will require up-to-the-minute information, something which requires a forward observor probably with advanced telemetry gathering capabilities (ie not just a simple fighter).
And the example itself is flawed. The core of your point is that the destroyer will cripple the carrier's fighters bays before they can retaliate. Well, conversely one can say that a Destroyer or a bomber-strike could cripple an enemy destroyer's engines with the first strike, therefore making it unable to manoeuvre and bring it's primary guns to bear. Making it one big, useless target in exactly the same way. Or hell, why not just use a cruiser to come out of subspace right on top of the Destroyer and rip it apart that way like they use jump-points in Babylon 5. It'd probably work.
A carrier and destroyer both have their uses regardless of the ability of an individual ship to move through a system at fighter-speeds. The most important thing is who knows more, you or the enemy. The more prepared fleet will have the advantage.
-
Not necessarily. The Shivans, you'll notice, do it all the time and pretty much without warning.
The jump doesn't really have to be that close, either. With 1 kilometer will do nicely. Even 2km will be close enough. And the mass of the carrier itself will screen you from a significant portion of the escorts.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Fourth, i am a fierce apologist of "attack is the best defense". The carrier would never get caught in a defensive situation, because it would be used ofensively. It would detect any possible targets, launch the fighters and bombers wich in turn would make a small in-system jump, and take on the destroyer
This is laughable. How are you going to attack other systems which are being sensible enough to blockade the node? Your carrier fleet would be ripped apart if they tried it. You simply can't launch enough ships with intersystem jump drives to exert the one advantage a carrier does have over the enemy.
-
unless you launched them in subspace and had them pop out ahead of ya.
Seriously though; Destroyers have their uses, and are ub3r under certain circumstances, and the same goes for Carriers. No need to keep on arguing about it ya know :P
-
Nodes are FS choke points. Choke points are where the targets are. Aside from the ease of defending that lone point in space rather then multiple targets spread across a system, you can be assured that you will have something to shoot at when blockading a node, instead of having to cruise around for hours trying to find a target.
-
Originally posted by Singh
unless you launched them in subspace and had them pop out ahead of ya.
Wouldn't work. They still wouldn't be able to jump out of the subspace corridor. All you'd have succeeded in doing is leaving your fighters behind when you jumped into the system :D
Originally posted by Singh
Seriously though; Destroyers have their uses, and are ub3r under certain circumstances, and the same goes for Carriers. No need to keep on arguing about it ya know :P
Exactly. I've never said carriers are bad. They are very useful in the right circumstances but they are not a replacement for the destroyer and I'm getting sick of seeing people use wet navy logic to justify that they are.
-
If you need to breach a blockade a carrier is the last thing that should enter...
Carriers are meant for fleet support duties rather than direct fighting... You would at least need to send the whole escort fleet ahead if you hope to breach a blockade...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
If you need to breach a blockade a carrier is the last thing that should enter...
Carriers are meant for fleet support duties rather than direct fighting... You would at least need to send the whole escort fleet ahead if you hope to breach a blockade...
Even doing that you'd have the entire escort fleet fighting a similar or larger enemy force with limited fighter support.
Storming an enemy node is very hard but to attempt to do it without enough fighter support is just suicide.
-
Well, that tactic would at least give the carrier a chance to jump in and launch a sizeable number of fighters...
And of course siege rules are always valid...
If you are attacking a fortified position with similar tech you need numerical superiority...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Well, that tactic would at least give the carrier a chance to jump in and launch a sizeable number of fighters...
I agree that if you're going to attack a node using a carrier this is probably the best tactic.
Doesn't change the fact that the whole idea of attacking a blockade with a carrier based fleet instead of a destroyer based one is a stupid idea in the first place :D
-
I'm a simple pilot, i do not question Command decisions ;)
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Sorry, but that is wrong. Cruisers are fast, not slow. A cruiser has a top speed of 30+ knots, while a battleship can reach 25, tops. The "cruiser" expression was first made to represent a fast moving vessel, that could "cruise" the oceans stalking its prey, usually heavier and slower battleships.
Destroyers are even faster, with speeds of up to 35 knots or more (the navy never discloses their top speed).
Generally speaking, "cruise" means the average or usual speed at wich a vessel travels, i.e "cruise control", "cruising speed".
It is usually wrongly associated to the expression "cruise liner", wich is a heavy, slow moving passenger ship. There is nothing slow about a navy cruiser, it´s built for speed and firepower.
With the advent of rockets and guided missiles, the cruiser was set aside, and the new type of cruiser/destroyer emerged, the Aegis cruiser. It´s the size of a destroyer, but carries the punch of a cruiser. It is also more focused as an anti-aircraft triple-A platform for aerial warfare, while the destroyer is more focused in submarine warfare.
The battleship itself hasn´t disappeared yet, from modern navy. Allthough the US scuttled its big battleships in exchange for carriers, there are still other countries that maintain them in active duty. Not for much longer, i´ll grant you that...
The carrier is the wave of the future. One carrier can obliterate an entire fleet of battleships, without even setting eyes on them.
The same would and will happen in space.
Well yes, cruise isn't really slow. Cruiser were actually fast for their size, and they combined speed with firepower, alltough they really couldn't counter a battleship.
In Fs2 terms, no ship calss is obsolete - the FS2 destroyer, a carrier or a battleship. They would just have different duties.
Carriers would have a freaking huge number of fighter/bombers - surely twice that of a destroyer. Given the power of fighter/bombers in FS2, that is a power indeed. However, it's weak hull and shielding and low firepower would limit it to support roles, acting more as mobile fighterbases and less as front-line warships. Thus they wouldn't be used for blockades or direct assault, but would be kept in the rear to swarm the enemy.
they would be very usefull in guarding home systems, since their speed and large number of wings can cover a lot of are for partoling.
Battleship would be all armor and firepower - no fightercapacity whatsoever. Since no other warship can match it's abitiy to dish out and take punishment, it would allways be in the front lines. Naturaly, given the fact that it is designed to stand alone, it AA armament would be terifiyng indeed, alltough it would still require help from smaller warship dedicated to fighterdefense in case of a large assault.
FS2 Destroyers (Cruisers by my book) are a blend of those two. They can't matck a battleship in armor or firepowr, nor can they match the carrier in fightercapacity, but they would still be a valubale unit. Having the power to defend themselves and beeing resilliant, while still carrying enough bombers/fighters to cause havoc if used correctly, they would also be in the fron lines and would be very usefull at blockading nodes.
Naturally ships should move in battlegroups. No stupid missions in which a single(important) warship is sent to dangerous missions. There should allways be escorts.
Naturally, such a fleet setup creates a interesting battlefield. A constant game of cat and mouse where the hunter and the hunted constantly change, depending on the fleets.
-
*sighs*
I've already proven that a carrier the same size of a destroyer would not carry ub3r m1ll10ns fighters/bombers... meh... :sigh:
-
It's all sodding arbitray anyways. I could build a carrier 2km long that had 5 bfgreens and 2000 fighters, and use some techno-babble-****e to explain it. And it'd be no less valid than this 'ere thread.
-
...like storing the fighters in Plothole-space?
-
No, just use onboard replicators... Unfortunately they does not work on Alpha1...
-
That'd be fortunately.
Otherwise, the GTVA would have laughed at the Sathanas fleet and blown them all away. Then hunted down what's left of the Shivans and had a pool party to celebrated the annihilation of the Shivan race.
-
Well, with the promising breakthroughs in nanotechnology that wouldn't be unrealistic...
You use zillions of nanobots to build fleets, with crews and raw materials being the only limit...
Hey, that would be a good explanation for Shivan numerical superiority too (nanotech + large scale cloning/eugenetics)...
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
...like storing the fighters in Plothole-space?
and powered by a Technobabble reactor
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
and powered by a Technobabble reactor
No, by an Improbability Drive! :p
-
The GTCa Heart of Gold?
-
With Utopia Engines of course...
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
*sighs*
I've already proven that a carrier the same size of a destroyer would not carry ub3r m1ll10ns fighters/bombers... meh... :sigh:
No you didn't. Fighters (and everything need for them - from pilot bunks to storage space, etc. ) require LOTS and LOTS of room.
Everything would have to be bigger - bigger mess hall, bigger kitchen, bigger hangars, bigger crew quaters, bigger storage areas (food, fuel , ammo, replacement parts).
Naturraly, that would result in the rmovla of most heavy weapons to clear the space, and smaller reacotr (not needed noew the big guns are mostly gone) to clear up the space.
And besides, no one said ub3r m1ll10ns fighters/bombers, but lots more than a destroyer can...
Weather you admitt it or not, a carrier would still have a important role - it would be cheaper to produce than a destroyer, it would (probably) be more mobile, and it can cover larger areas due to the larger fighternumber.
-
:sigh:
Give it up already. Every concievable argument on that has already been made. Some think that a carrier would be more effective than a destroyer, others less. This is going the way of a political debate rather quickly, and has far less ramifications. Freespace is a game, and a game that, like it or not, relies fairly heavily on scripting. So if you build your "ultra carrier-o-doom" and I use it in a campaign, I can make it as strong or as weak as I want to. So please. stop. arguing.
-
Talking about Uber Capships Of Mayem +3, how is your new vasudan model going?
-
@KARAJORMA
If i had just said i was totally opposed at node blockades, what makes you think i would even consider sending a carrier to storm it??
@ngtm1r
The FS universe does have awacs. If anyone remembers their campaign, we get early warning of impending jump. Command always informs Alpha 1 that an enemy ship is about to come out of subspace, before we even see it. Wich means they have some way of seeing into subspace. Look at the node blockade missions.
So, imagine you are the captain of a carrier. A huge force is detected coming at you. Would you just sit there in wait for it???
The smaller number of fighters the destroyer has, overall, is not so important here, because it has all its fighters deployed and the carrier has only a fraction of its fighter complement deployed. In all likelyhood, the destroyer's fighters will outnumber the carrier's CAP.
What??? Why on earth would the carrier, wich is a dedicated platform for launching fighters, would get less fighters up in the air than a destroyer, a non-dedicated platform???
-
Originally posted by StratComm
:sigh:
Give it up already. Every concievable argument on that has already been made. Some think that a carrier would be more effective than a destroyer, others less. This is going the way of a political debate rather quickly, and has far less ramifications. Freespace is a game, and a game that, like it or not, relies fairly heavily on scripting. So if you build your "ultra carrier-o-doom" and I use it in a campaign, I can make it as strong or as weak as I want to. So please. stop. arguing.
Zigackly. There is not even a canon carrier size let alone class description. You might as well argue over whether the coin I just tossed was heads or tails.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Talking about Uber Capships Of Mayem +3, how is your new vasudan model going?
It's not making tons of progress at the moment, Max->pof doesn't like me. It's getting there though. I actually have about a dozen models that I'd really like to get out. Soon enough, though :)
Originally posted by aldo_14
Zigackly. There is not even a canon carrier size let alone class description. You might as well argue over whether the coin I just tossed was heads or tails.
I say it was heads :p
-
TrashMan, prove that a FS destroyer sized hull can support more fighters than any FS destroyer.
Also, disprove my previous arguments that destroyer weaponry don't take much energy or space.
You people won't listen. FS destroyers cannot carry more fighters because there isn't any more space INSIDE THEIR HULLS!!! Unless you are talking about carriers attaching their fighter complements in their hull... Look at the size of a fighter. The smallest has 15m, the largest bomber has something like 45m unless I'm mistaken...
EDIT:
Sorry about this, lately I've been pissed at somethings that have been happening around me. Anyway, let me try to say this in a different way.
Imagine your carrier. Armor is required because of radiation, protection, etc... (unless you want a single hornet to blow the crap out of anything in the hull) Now imagine that you can put weapons all over the hull without taking much space... That is a FS Destroyer... If there is any fighter carrying diference it would be 1 or 2 small fighters probably...
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
If i had just said i was totally opposed at node blockades, what makes you think i would even consider sending a carrier to storm it??
:lol: This is just too funny.
Just cause you're opposed to node blockades doesn't mean your opponents have to be. :D
Let me give you a real FS2 situation. The NTF captured the three systems of Polaris, Regulus and Sirius. How the f**k do you think they'd defend them? Do you really think Bosch would be so stupid as to not defend the nodes heavily? Do you really think that if the GTVA forces had carriers he'd piss away his advantage by allowing those carriers to enter his systems, deploy their fighters and only then engage them? Do you think he'd do that just cause you don't like node blockades?
Ghostavo : I'm with you. What little evidence there is points to the fact that if you tried to develop a carrier you'd probably end up with something pretty much like an FS destroyer. The only reason for not putting more beams on is if the power requirements are high (The orion did have a lot of power after all).
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
TrashMan, prove that a FS destroyer sized hull can support more fighters than any FS destroyer.
Also, disprove my previous arguments that destroyer weaponry don't take much energy or space.
You people won't listen. FS destroyers cannot carry more fighters because there isn't any more space INSIDE THEIR HULLS!!! Unless you are talking about carriers attaching their fighter complements in their hull... Look at the size of a fighter. The smallest has 15m, the largest bomber has something like 45m unless I'm mistaken...
EDIT:
Sorry about this, lately I've been pissed at somethings that have been happening around me. Anyway, let me try to say this in a different way.
Imagine your carrier. Armor is required because of radiation, protection, etc... (unless you want a single hornet to blow the crap out of anything in the hull) Now imagine that you can put weapons all over the hull without taking much space... That is a FS Destroyer... If there is any fighter carrying diference it would be 1 or 2 small fighters probably...
ERm...I don't recall the size of heavy weapons or there energy requirements ever being mentioned as small.
In the Colossus cutscene we can see the beam cannon is far larger than it seems, and the thing on the hull is jsut the small top. It is allso logical that they require large ammounts of power, since they take long to power up/down and they are powerfull weapons.
A dedicated carrier would have 3-4 fighterbays in opposed to a destroyer. It will certanly be able to launch fighter more quickly and in greater numbers that destroyer.
And I'm not saying a carrier is better than a destroyer - I'm only saying that is a completely plausable craft that has it's own strenght and weaknesses.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I say it was heads :p
Say what was heads?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
1.1 - Beam Weapons
Pre-FS2 capital ships don't have beam weapons, and when they started getting beam weapons there wasn't much change (no change at all) in the quantities fighters could be housed within them which leads to one of the following conclusions:
a) Beam weapons energy reactors don't require much space at all
b) They use the same energy reactor as the previous weapons
c) They use a new type of reactor that occupies the same space
If you use the first option, that means that the large power consumption that a beam weapon has, is nothing to modern FS2 reactors which are small. If you choose the second one, seeing that in spite of this "radical" change in weapon configuration, the Destroyer still functions as it functioned, only much better. I don't see much issue.
The first option clearly states that if there is a new reactor, it is really small. The second option requires you to think a bit. Think about how many weapons an average destroyer has, and think of the energy it requires to fire... say... a huge turret. Think of the damage it does and try to make a fighter equivalent to it. Seeing that fighters aren't cruiser sized, it is safe to admit that such reactors are not huge (probably the size of 2 small fighters, maybe less). Of course they take up space, but such a reactor would probably be needed to use the subspace drive.
Then there is the issue about how large are beam weapons, seeing that fighter housing issue is out of the way, I'd say they don't occupy that much space too and occupy as much as the previous weapons.
I'm not saying that a destroyer is better than a carrier either because there is no carrier or destroyer (pure destroyer that is) destroyer sized hull ship in FS. A Orion is both a carrier and a destroyer because there is nothing left for it to do. If you want more fighterbays that's fine. It's probably what the tendency is in the future. But weapons are not being disproved (can find better words) either. Even the Hecate, which is a sucky thing carries beam weaponry. The Ravana, also a carrier possesses massive firepower. They are merely named destroyers because it was a)cool b)better description seeing that it names their own fuction in the battle. Like karajorma said, no matter how much you try to build a carrier, you will always have about the same thing as a FS "Destroyer".
-
Worth emphasising that even Volition describe the Orion as a carrier.
-
Swamp-Thing:
Command tells you. But how does Command know? We don't know. You can say it's an AWACS, but it might be a gigantic fixed sensor array somewhere, on an Arcadia probably. There are also quite a few times when Command DOESN'T warn you. In fact, in the times Command warns you in advance, the vessel was almost certainly observed to be entering subspace by another GTVA ship, which noted its vector and passed that on to Command, which figured out where it was going.
And you still can't get away quickly enough. Subspace jumps are used because they're very fast. Even if you were tracking the other guy from halfway across the system, when he enters subspace he's going to be on top of you in very little time. A minute, maybe less. A capship can't get all that far in sixty seconds. You could try to jump out yourself; odds are you'd probably manage it in two minutes or so, so the destroyer would get off at least one volley.
As to the fighters: It's really quite simple. Take an Orion. It can deploy twenty wings of fighters.
Would you really have twenty wings out for Combat Aerospace Patrol? No. Maybe ten or fifteen at most. Probably a lot less.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
:lol: This is just too funny.
Yes it is, and i am laughing my behind off with it!!
Just cause you're opposed to node blockades doesn't mean your opponents have to be. :D
Sure, but i am not forced to storm them, am i? Besides, haven´t you ever heard of mines? You know, those little things that go boom when you step on them? Why should i spend my valuable ships protecting a node (and risk loosing them), if i can just assign a couple of minelayers to swamp the place with the stuff?
And also, what good is a blockade, if your target jumps away 5 seconds after coming through the node? We´ve seen it happen many times, a huge fleet just waiting for the enemy, and then they just let them slip by... It´s not like there is some sort of gentlemen´s pact that forbides your enemy of escaping your little trap, is there?
There are lots of ways to skin a rabbit, you know?
Let me give you a real FS2 situation. The NTF captured the three systems of Polaris, Regulus and Sirius. How the f**k do you think they'd defend them? Do you really think Bosch would be so stupid as to not defend the nodes heavily? Do you really think that if the GTVA forces had carriers he'd piss away his advantage by allowing those carriers to enter his systems, deploy their fighters and only then engage them? Do you think he'd do that just cause you don't like node blockades?
I don´t give a damn to how Bosch would defend anything. I only giv a damn to how I would. You understand? No one said carriers should be the only ship available to any given fleet, it´s you and others who assumed it by yourselfs. All we are saying is that a dedicated carrier is stronger than a destroyer, and that´s all.
Destroyers have their place, but so should carriers. Otherwise, why would they even bother to have fighterbays in a destroyer??
Remember this little rule of thumb: You can only win a war if you kill your opponent. Waiting in a node for him to POSSIBLY come
through there, is a bad policy. While you station your fleet in one node, i could be attacking your supply routes in another.
Also, a node blockade only works if your enemy is on another system. If they are already inside the system, what good is a blockade?
And you realize how many nodes there are in the FS universe? Are you gonna station a fleet in each one of them? Somehow i don´t think you would have enough ships...
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Swamp-Thing:
As to the fighters: It's really quite simple. Take an Orion. It can deploy twenty wings of fighters.
Would you really have twenty wings out for Combat Aerospace Patrol? No. Maybe ten or fifteen at most. Probably a lot less.
Are you serious? You really think a destroyer is capable of putting up more fighters than a dedicated carrier, with 3+ times more fighterbays? Do you understand what you are implying?
If an Orion is capable of fast launching its 20 wings, through one fighterbay alone, don´t you think a carrier with many more fighterbays, and with many more launching ports would be a tad faster?
Don´t you think a carrier would have some advantage in its launching speed, over a destroyer? Launching fighters and bombers is what it is focused to do. The destroyer is not. It can launch fighters, sure. But at a much lesser rate than a carrier.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Remember this little rule of thumb: You can only win a war if you kill your opponent. Waiting in a node for him to POSSIBLY come
through there, is a bad policy.
Ok, there's a lot in there that is highly debatable, so don't flame people from holding differing ideas. But the line I quoted is a serious problem. The best way to win a war is not to kill your enemy, it is to render your enemy incapable of continuing to fight. If isolating them in a region with insufficient resources, or keeping them from harming your region, suits those aims, then blockading the only way in or out is a perfectly viable solution.
In FS, nodes aren't all that common; all that the NTF had connecting its systems to GTVA space was 3 nodes, so either side could at least mount enough defenses to keep raiding parties from slipping through. Sure, ships can run a blockade. But the losses they suffer in doing so is prohibitive to them doing it very often. (King's Gambit). The stationary defender has the upper hand in that scenario if there is enough available firepower to crack any ship within a minute, since jump drives seem to take about that long to charge.
-
:wtf:
You again miss the point. All fighters have intra-system jump drives. Therefore the Orion deploys its fighters before it jumps to engage the carrier, and the fighters all jump with it.
Because of the fact the Orion has fried the launch bays on the carrier with its opening volley, the carrier has only the fighters already deployed available to it.
This is a much smaller number the carrier's full complement. Even giving you the minute's warning, you still could not put up enough fighters to significantly outnumber those twenty wings.
Nodes are the choke points. Your targets must pass through the choke points. They do not necessarily have to go through any other spot in the entire system, but they MUST use at least one of the nodes.
And, to borrow a quote, "Space is big. Really, really big." You could cruise around for literally DAYS and not sight an enemy even inside a hostile-controlled system. Or you could park yourself on the node, where you know there will be, and MUST BE, traffic. It's just that simple. The targets will come to you, rather then you having to go find them.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
All we are saying is that a dedicated carrier is stronger than a destroyer, and that´s all.
And I'm giving you a situation where a dedicated carrier is so much weaker than a destroyer that it's laughable. Sure given the right conditions a carrier would be stronger but the same is true for a destroyer. Both ships have their strengths and weaknesses and it's foolish to make blanket claims that a carrier is always better than a destroyer.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Destroyers have their place, but so should carriers. Otherwise, why would they even bother to have fighterbays in a destroyer??
Of course they both have their place. I said exactly that earlier. I was taking exception to your tactics. Not blockading the nodes is foolish.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Sure, but i am not forced to storm them, am i?
Yes you are. That's why I gave the example. If you aren't going to storm the node then you've basically handed Bosch control of the three systems he controlled. Remember that at the time the GTVA believed that to be his goal. If you're not prepared to attack a blockaded node you've basically lost the war already.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
And also, what good is a blockade, if your target jumps away 5 seconds after coming through the node? We´ve seen it happen many times, a huge fleet just waiting for the enemy, and then they just let them slip by... It´s not like there is some sort of gentlemen´s pact that forbides your enemy of escaping your little trap, is there?
Have you even played Kings Gambit? :confused: It's pretty obvious that ships can't jump out 5 seconds after coming through a node.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Besides, haven´t you ever heard of mines? You know, those little things that go boom when you step on them? Why should i spend my valuable ships protecting a node (and risk loosing them), if i can just assign a couple of minelayers to swamp the place with the stuff?
Mines take time to deploy for a start which means that in many cases they'd be too slow to be of any use. Secondly deploying simple mines means that you've now blockaded the node against your own useage. If you use more complex mines with a IFF system you run the risk that espionage could lead to those nodes being used against you.
Mines have their uses but they're not the catch all solution you seem to be thinking that they are.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Remember this little rule of thumb: You can only win a war if you kill your opponent. Waiting in a node for him to POSSIBLY come
through there, is a bad policy.
Completely wrong. As I stated above Bosch could easily have won the war the GTVA thought he was fighting by simply reinforcing his systems to the point where the GTVA would rather talk peace than attack the systems. With only three entry points that is a much better solution than going out and trying to kill all the GTVA forces you can.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
While you station your fleet in one node, i could be attacking your supply routes in another.
Did you even look at the example I gave you? How are you planning to attack supply routes in Polaris or Sirius without getting through the node? :wtf:
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Also, a node blockade only works if your enemy is on another system. If they are already inside the system, what good is a blockade?
When did I say that node blockades were the only tactic that should ever be applied? They are one tactic amongst many. I'm mearly laughing at your poor grasp of tactics to ignore them.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
And you realize how many nodes there are in the FS universe? Are you gonna station a fleet in each one of them? Somehow i don´t think you would have enough ships...
:wtf:
You telling me that I was thinking that the GTVA was bloacking the Delta-serpentis to Ross 128 node during the NTF war or something? You blockade the nodes of strategic importance. There are lots of examples of this tactic being used in FS 1 & 2.
-
Good to see what a loving and accepting community we are.
It seems the carrier debate is a bit silly for a number of reasons.
First: The Destroyer class vessel covers all of the GTVA fighter and bomber support needs (and they have Alpha 1 which makes the rest pointless). Also you never see the GTVA just deploying hundreds of fighter wings to get a task done.
Second: A Dedicated carrier would be a waste of resources, a Colossus without guns basically, and we all know how much the famous ships always seem to be the ones that get it first. Galatea, Psamtik, Colossus.
Third: Any dedicated carrier would require escort-not including its fighter protection- the escort would need to consist of several ships. All hypothetical, it would need cruiser and corvette escort from enemy capital ships-no amount of bombers can stop an enemy capital ship coming in from long range and pummelling the ship. And of course the most critical escort vessel-the destroyer, because only the Destroyer has enough firepower to quickly resolve capital ship engagements. A large part of this escort would have to stay close to the carrier at all times, and would likely never see any action, a bigger waste of resources than the carrier.
This is just my logical thinking of the dedicated carrier idea (GTCa I blame the Parents?).
As for blockading, it makes perfect strategic sense.
I sense the flamethrowers approaching
-
*Looking under his seat*
Personally i think that GTVA does not use dedicated carriers because they can always call extra wings from in system Arcadia stations...
Since every system has at least one of them it seems logical that they can be used to house a sizeable force (around 10 wings IIRC) deployable in case of need...
-
Node blockades = trench warfare.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I'm not saying that a destroyer is better than a carrier either because there is no carrier or destroyer (pure destroyer that is) destroyer sized hull ship in FS. A Orion is both a carrier and a destroyer because there is nothing left for it to do. If you want more fighterbays that's fine. It's probably what the tendency is in the future. But weapons are not being disproved (can find better words) either. Even the Hecate, which is a sucky thing carries beam weaponry. The Ravana, also a carrier possesses massive firepower. They are merely named destroyers because it was a)cool b)better description seeing that it names their own fuction in the battle. Like karajorma said, no matter how much you try to build a carrier, you will always have about the same thing as a FS "Destroyer".
So? Just becoause the [V] dev's probably made a mistake and they can change everything on the ship without impacting it's size/speed/space doesn't mean I have to stick to that like a Holy Grail.
It only makes sense to me that BIG THINGS take up SPACE. Hell..why not have on Orion with 1000000000 fighters?
-
heretic? :D
Because if an Orion had 1000000000 fighters you would experience lag beyond this world when the Orion tried to launch all it's fighters. :p
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
So? Just becoause the [V] dev's probably made a mistake and they can change everything on the ship without impacting it's size/speed/space doesn't mean I have to stick to that like a Holy Grail.
No but it does mean that your assumption is non-canon because the Orion, Typhon, Fenris and Leviathan were all retrofitted with beams without it having any effect on the ship (In fact the number of fighters the Orion carries increased between FS1 and FS2).
Personally I'm of the opinion that the number of beams on a ship hits the limit caused by available reactor power before it hits any limit caused by the size of the weapons.
Originally posted by TrashMan
It only makes sense to me that BIG THINGS take up SPACE. Hell..why not have on Orion with 1000000000 fighters?
Where does it say that beam cannons have to be big? That's your assumption.
-
I always got the idea that beam cannons are small but the heat sinks are large- again hypothetical.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
No but it does mean that your assumption is non-canon because the Orion, Typhon, Fenris and Leviathan were all retrofitted with beams without it having any effect on the ship (In fact the number of fighters the Orion carries increased between FS1 and FS2).
Duh. So what? Every campaign out there is non-canon so I can very well try to put some common sense in one.
-
Colossus cutscene has a good image of a beam cannon turret, IIRC it's about the same size as the blister firing point, but buried somewhat deep(er) into the hull.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Duh. So what? Every campaign out there is non-canon so I can very well try to put some common sense in one.
I meant non-canon in the sense that you're deliberately making **** up that isn't canon and actually goes against canon.
I personally don't do that. I try to follow canon as much as I can. If you want to do that in your own campaigns that's fine. I've never been the sort to say that you can't reinvent stuff in your own campaigns but don't even think of saying it's common sense cause there is no rule that says beam cannons have to be large.
You want them to be large so you say they are. That's not common sense. That's an assertion you're basing your theory on. You want to do that in your own universe that's fine but if you come and tell me that my logic is incorrect cause I'm not following your complete dismissal of canon then I'll call you on it.
-
I allways follow canon as long as it makes sense.
And it makes sense that if I use less armor and fewer weapons I can clear up more room.
It doesn't make sense that if I add aditional stuff into a destroyer I magicly free up more room for fighters.
And beam cannon according to the Colossus cutscene take up as much space as an Ursa..
-
You removed stuff also to have those beams... what might have been magically introduced is Flak ammo because I don't know where they get that stuff... maybe flak is really energy based? :wtf:
EDIT:
How do I convert .MVE into .AVI or any other format?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I allways follow canon as long as it makes sense.
And it makes sense that if I use less armor and fewer weapons I can clear up more room.
It doesn't make sense that if I add aditional stuff into a destroyer I magicly free up more room for fighters.
And beam cannon according to the Colossus cutscene take up as much space as an Ursa..
In what sense? If you're simply scaling them based on the size of the blisters on the Colossus, remember that those are exceptionally large and powerful beams. I'm talking about relative scaling of the exterior blister vs the internal components, BTW.
-
So am I ...according to what I've seen, AT LEAST 3/4 of the beam cannon is inside the ship...
And the power requirement have to be big - it only makes sense. Seing that it's a energy weapon you do damage by directing energy trough that cannon. And seing that it does LLOT'S more damage than the Terran Huge Turret it stands to reason that it requires more juice..
-
And it charges how much times slower? And how about the tech room stating problems with the reactors of Typhons? etc... etc... etc...
-
..Which means it does require far more power than any pre-beam weapons.
-
So why do you still argue about this? It needs more power, it charges slowly... is there some form of hidden logic you are not telling us? :wtf:
Beams didn't exist... beams were invented... probably more powerful reactors were invented... ships were retrofited... typhons encountered problems... few typhons were retrofited...
-
No, lots of Typhons were retrofitted, they just started getting rid of them as quickly as they could build Haptshuets (can't spell, I know) because the retrofitted Typhons had issues.
The thingie says "few remain in service" not "few were retrofitted".
-
The only point is was trying to make is this:
I allways follow canon as long as it makes sense.
And it makes sense that if I use less armor and fewer weapons I can clear up more room.
It doesn't make sense that if I add aditional stuff into a destroyer I magicly free up more room for fighters.
And this is something you can't disprove...
-
Unless you're replacing stuff with more compact & efficient replacements, ala the Orions' beam cannon.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I allways follow canon as long as it makes sense.
And it makes sense that if I use less armor and fewer weapons I can clear up more room.
It doesn't make sense that if I add aditional stuff into a destroyer I magicly free up more room for fighters.
It's not a case of the beams magically providing space. The increased fighter complement is probably due to other changes but it shows that you don't have to reduce the complement of a ship in order to add beams to it.
Canon shows that beam cannons don't take up as much space as you claim. The fact that the FS1 era destroyers could be retrofitted with beams without sacrificing fighters proves it. The fact that tiny ships like the Fenris could be retrofitted with them proves it.
You can go on about making sense all you like Trashman but the fact is that your claim that beam cannons are big is an assertion. You like big beam cannons. Their is no rule that says that they do have to be big. It's not simply common sense as you claim it is.
Originally posted by TrashMan
And beam cannon according to the Colossus cutscene take up as much space as an Ursa..
As Aldo says those were big beam cannons. In addition to that you've got no proof that the beam cannons on the smaller capships work the same way. Maybe the Colossus was big enough that each cannon could have its own reactor while smaller ships feed off of the main reactors.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
As Aldo says those were big beam cannons. In addition to that you've got no proof that the beam cannons on the smaller capships work the same way. Maybe the Colossus was big enough that each cannon could have its own reactor while smaller ships feed off of the main reactors.
That's a good point. :) Also the magnitude of the BFGreen on the colossus could make it necessary for safety reasons.... if the action of firing the beam continuously can nearly melt it (the turret), a centralised power source might be simply too dangerous... the power drain could mean any overload or even just the heat generated would be catastrophic.
Possibly worth noting the only other comparable weapons - the Shivan BFRed and flux cannons - were located (in the latter case based upon FS1, not the FS2 intro) on exterior 'arms', where presumably any overload and explosion would be most isolated from the bulk of the ship.
-
Ahem.. I never said bam cannons specificly..I said STUFF... any equpment
The more stuff I remove, the more space I have....
Yes, older eqipment can be replaced by newer, smaller ones, but if I after that remove more eqipment I'll have even more room...
-
I think people are taking the canon parameters of FS way too serious. The game itself is in total and complete disrespect with the simplest laws of physics, so why should anyone take the ships proportions serious?? Like the main hall of the Galatea...
Ships in space have no weight, so a big ship is just as capable of going fast as any fighter. Then why would a big ship, with engines 100 times bigger and more powerfull, would move slower than a fighter with a pea-shooter for engine?
It is virtually impossible to house 30 wings of fighters in a destroyer hull, and include all the machinery and open spaces needed to make it a real common-sense space-ship. The simple fact is, [V] did it because it was cool, not because it was phisically possible. Wich it wasn´t, may i add.
Or claiming a ship could house 10 huge beam cannons, along with a paraphernalia of other weapons, and not taking up any space... It´s sheer madness.
So bear all this in mind the next time you all start defending FS as the ultimate truth in space warfare. Use common-sense more, and [V] canon less.
-
You forgot about inertia... (mass related to acceleration or something... don't recall the formula...)...
-
Like "a body at rest stays at rest, a body in motion remains in motion"?
-
This is a FREESPACE forum. We deal in the reality of FREESPACE.
'Nuff said.
-
Regarding T-V war ships, any rationalisation is difficult. The GTC is utterly, totally, useless - largely because of the lameness of the Terran Turret. Thing about it; a GTC can bear maybe 4 TTs on a target, for a GRAND TOTAL of 140 damage a second, if they hit. Which they WON'T, because they're slow as all ****. Even if they DO hit, to kill something crap (say 8000), it takes a full minute to destroy the target. I don't count the mortar because the AI never rolls the ship to bring it to bear ;)
You can't even state that cruisers are for area defence; their weapons are useless against fighters (unless those fighters are attacking it). It has no ability to assault installations or destroyers. The only cruisers that are any good are the 'wow we just gave cruisers 40k hp, we rule' cruisers, and they're so dumb it boggles the mind. ALMOST as bad as the 80k Cv/100k D thing. Whatever fighters you send to escort a GTC will be MORE EFFECTIVE than the ship they're escorting, which is stupid. Cruisers are only good for fighting other cruisers, and with ridiculous 8k bombs that role is basically meaningless.
In FS2 time they're useful as AAA units, since those beams are nasty; but simply increasing the velocity of the Terran Turret to 500 makes it actually able to hit ships that aren't flying straight at it. This makes the ship useful for something pre-beam.
T-V era destroyers are also stupid, with their Heavy Terrans with a LOWER time-average firepower than TTs. And slower, so they're even LESS likely to hit anything. I know the game is fighter-biased, but really a five minute table hack makes caps actually able to hit and kill things occasionally without fighter assistance. But hey, this is the world of Deimos 80k/Colossus 1,000k, so things like scale, or common sense obviously aren't big :)
I mean I like FS and all, but their pre-beam caps are just laughable. The fleet doesn't make sense; noone knows why cap guns are so lame compared to fighter guns. No one knows why there are no classes between the bottom-of-the-barrel cruiser and the tech-limit destroyers. No one knows why cruiser captains don't know about the mortar. No one knows why the Heavy Turrets, almost cruiser size themselves, do less damage than the dinner-plate sized ports on a cruiser. Oh well.
-
I mean I like FS and all, but their pre-beam caps are just laughable. The fleet doesn't make sense; noone knows why cap guns are so lame compared to fighter guns. No one knows why there are no classes between the bottom-of-the-barrel cruiser and the tech-limit destroyers. No one knows why cruiser captains don't know about the mortar. No one knows why the Heavy Turrets, almost cruiser size themselves, do less damage than the dinner-plate sized ports on a cruiser. Oh well.
Actually if you compare the Cap Guns to the M-16 Laser I'd say its not really that big of a problem. Go against a Fenris in an Apollo or something without shields with an ML-16 laser for firepower and see how well you fare.
When people say FS1's era sucked, and the fighters were all powerful, the fact is the gameplay in FS1 is vastly different than what we see in the T-V War. Because the main gun, the Avenger, and 60% of the fighters aren't around in the T-V (not to mention SHIELDS).
Hell even with shields, some of the missions are damn hard. Try taking the Valkyrie into that mission with the Taranis. A couple Satis freighters and an Aten are damned dangerous even to the shielded fighter.
Now why ship turrets weren't upgraded to something better (other than flak which causes more fear of damage than damage itself) from FS1 to FS2 is beyond me. I imagine it's for the sake of the player, the same way that Shivan fighter weapons do less damage than the terran ones.
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
Actually if you compare the Cap Guns to the M-16 Laser I'd say its not really that big of a problem. Go against a Fenris in an Apollo or something without shields with an ML-16 laser for firepower and see how well you fare.
When people say FS1's era sucked, and the fighters were all powerful, the fact is the gameplay in FS1 is vastly different than what we see in the T-V War. Because the main gun, the Avenger, and 60% of the fighters aren't around in the T-V (not to mention SHIELDS).
Hell even with shields, some of the missions are damn hard. Try taking the Valkyrie into that mission with the Taranis. A couple Satis freighters and an Aten are damned dangerous even to the shielded fighter.
Now why ship turrets weren't upgraded to something better (other than flak which causes more fear of damage than damage itself) from FS1 to FS2 is beyond me. I imagine it's for the sake of the player, the same way that Shivan fighter weapons do less damage than the terran ones. [/B]
My comments are more directed towards cap-on-cap action; the only possible advantage the cruisers have over a group of Apollos is that it'll hang in battle longer. I agree to a point vis the TT/M-16, but the ludicrious slowness of the projectiles combined with the slow ROF means an Apollo firelinked has about the SAME output as the Fenris, and that's stupid. Again, specifically because you'd never send in a Fenris, but an equal amount of resources invested in fighters. Also, even with all 8 turrets working, would you feel safe on a Fenris under attack by 8 unshielded Apollos? I wouldn't, even though they've got no bombs, no shields, etc... because I know unless the Apollos fly straight at the Fenris the Fenris will *never* EVER hit them, because of the low velocity of its fire.
I agree with the difficulty of many missions (disabling a Dragon is ridiculous), but I guess I assume the weapons on a lone cruiser should be able to stave off attack from a couple of bombers, which is unlikely. Actually, in SCP the turrets seem to be alot better at shooting down bombs; in FS2 Their Finest Hour II, Bastion was doing a great job defending itself, and I don't remember it that way from vanilla, back in the day. Groups of cruisers are indeed effective, even with their FS1 loadouts.
This isn't even getting into the farce with the heavy turret, the poor scaling of weapons with increasing size (since the cruisers actually have the best ratio of size/gun ports), the fact that the AAA demonstrates that [V] changed from 'caps have no credible AAA assets at all' to 'caps pwnzor fighters within 1500m with their lazor b34ms', etc. An FS2-era Fenris with beams-free is a horrible thing to be near, but an FS1-era Fenris is just a joke. And even the developers noticed and changed it.
As an aside, even tho most people seem to think its crap I always had problems attacking Cains/Liliths. Their weapons seemed much better laid out vs frontal or ventral attacks. Actually, you're probably onto something when you point out the difficult missions; the easy cruiser kills usually come from bombers with the ridiculous 8000-point bombs, not from repeated fighter attack, simply because it takes too long. So much of it may be merely subjective given game experience, where the constantly respawning bombers always get the cruiser in the end, however lame that is from a story/mission creation perspective.
-
Beams represent the first, and so far as I've seen only, effective way to make capships more then fighterbait in a space sim...
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Beams represent the first, and so far as I've seen only, effective way to make capships more then fighterbait in a space sim...
Stop me if you've heard this before.
...
...
...
Its called 'weapon scaling'.
If there were no 8000pt bombs, and destroyers didn't have the ridiculously low hp of 100k (compare to Deimos for a good laugh), and if the destroyers weren't armed with an extremely low density of extremely ineffective weapons, then it wouldn't be easy.
I mean, even throwing in decent missile batteries(ie not cluster) would make it easy to die near caps. But ask yourself; Colossus has what, 60ish turrets? Is that good? Does that make sense? Didn't WW2 battleships have hundreds of light AA guns alone?
Never forget - caps are fighterbait in space sims BECAUSE THE DEVS WANT IT THAT WAY. Who built capships with flak guns unable to fire from one end of the ship to the other? Who designed large ships with the lowest overall weapon density? Who made all their weapons slow firing and low velocity? THE DEVS!!!! :) I've hacked my weapon tables to increase shot velocity (and add impact explosions, because HTT fire just disappearing on impact is lame) and it makes even cruisers able to defend themselves. Much more satisfying.
-
As an aside, even tho most people seem to think its crap I always had problems attacking Cains/Liliths. Their weapons seemed much better laid out vs frontal or ventral attacks. Actually, you're probably onto something when you point out the difficult missions; the easy cruiser kills usually come from bombers with the ridiculous 8000-point bombs, not from repeated fighter attack, simply because it takes too long. So much of it may be merely subjective given game experience, where the constantly respawning bombers always get the cruiser in the end, however lame that is from a story/mission creation perspective.
The Cain and Lilith are difficult to attack in FS1 for two different reasons. The Cain is difficult because it uses higher velocity fighter weapons which will hit the player a lot. And the Lilith is difficult because it has cluster bombs (though the Clusterbomb is a hell of a lot more dangerous in FS2).
In my campaign I've introduced a new Terran Turret with slightly higher damage and a higher velocity, but on the whole the player should be able to still dodge it pretty easy :). I'm not going for any drastic changes in gameplay.
-
I'd rather replace the smaller turrets with fighter weapons, and pretty much improve the rest... Heck, even putting flak makes a big difference there...
-
True evil is replacing all Terran Turrets with AAAf. Which I have done. Meet the GTC FighterDoom (http://www.deviantart.com/view/9160782/)
Not-quite-true evil is replacing all Terran Turrets with long-range flak and Heavy Terran Turrets with heavy flak.
And partial evil is replacing Terran Turrets with UD-8 Kaysers. Or, for ships with twin banks in their turrets (read that: Zephyrus/Charybdis), UD-8 Kayser/Morningstar and Circe/Maxim combinations. It's pretty funny to me when I see a Zephyrus blowing away a Shivan fighter wing.
Edit: *shakes fist at image tag*
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
So bear all this in mind the next time you all start defending FS as the ultimate truth in space warfare. Use common-sense more, and [V] canon less.
Common sense for who though? Let me put it this way. If carriers were feasable wouldn't it be common sense that the GTVA would already have them?
Surely it's common sense that they built carriers found they could arm and armour them with minimal loss of space and the Freespace destroyer class was the result.
Anything else assumes that the Shivans, Terrans AND Vasudans were all too stupid to see that carriers were a good idea. Now surely there must be a more common sense answer than that?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I prefer FS2 types to the proper naval ones.... 'destroyer' just sounds better than 'cruiser' IMO - as many have pointed out. Dreadnaught, however, is the best name. Cos it sounds really ****ing menacing :D
Nah, nothing can beat "battlecruiser".:D
Anyway, I like mods (like the next version of Inferno and my own Starforce mod), where caps can really dish out some hurt. In Starforce, entering weapons range of a corvette or even a heavy cruiser will result in instant death if you don't have backup, as numerous rapid-fire turrets (they have a fire wait of 0.3 and are intended to fire full speed) and VERY powerfuk AAA beams (they'll kill almost any fighter in one or two good hits) rip your ship a few new exhaust nozzles. Hammering on helpless cap ships just doesn't do it for me.
-
Except a proper battleship :).
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
I think people are taking the canon parameters of FS way too serious. The game itself is in total and complete disrespect with the simplest laws of physics, so why should anyone take the ships proportions serious?? Like the main hall of the Galatea...
Ships in space have no weight, so a big ship is just as capable of going fast as any fighter. Then why would a big ship, with engines 100 times bigger and more powerfull, would move slower than a fighter with a pea-shooter for engine?
It is virtually impossible to house 30 wings of fighters in a destroyer hull, and include all the machinery and open spaces needed to make it a real common-sense space-ship. The simple fact is, [V] did it because it was cool, not because it was phisically possible. Wich it wasn´t, may i add.
Or claiming a ship could house 10 huge beam cannons, along with a paraphernalia of other weapons, and not taking up any space... It´s sheer madness.
So bear all this in mind the next time you all start defending FS as the ultimate truth in space warfare. Use common-sense more, and [V] canon less.
Well, a 340m long carrier can carry 80 fighters, so I think a 2100m long FS2 destroyer should be able to carry 120..
On all other stuff you are correct..
@Pnakotus - editing turrets is the only way to fix the gross injustice done by [V]... I did mine and the games is far more intense and interesting..
@Woolie Wool - LOL.. I too want to see menacing capships, but I haven't gone quite into that extreeme.
-
Capships should be difficult to attack...not suicidal.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, a 340m long carrier can carry 80 fighters
and how exactly do we know that?
-
71-series CVN, a.k.a. the Nimitz-class.
-
Er... FS Destroyers carry about double the people than a real carrier? :lol:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_super.htm#nim-cl
-
Advanced technology=fewer necessary crew.
-
spacefighters are bigger and need more equipment than groundfighters
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
71-series CVN, a.k.a. the Nimitz-class.
and this is capable of interstellar travel, is it?
-
Dammit, the internet ate my post.
I made a cogent, well-argued series of statements about FS2 game elements, and the space combat dichotomy of WW2 fighters and highly advanced guided missiles coexisting. I referenced the difficulty of assaulting a modern carrier group, the complex planning involved and the largely boring 'lob Harpoon 30nm' nature of the attack. I asked rhetorical questions about WW2 naval battles refought with planes carrying Harpoons, to illustrate my point on the problems with FS2 space combat and capship design.
I mentioned my own modifications to the turrets, making the damage higher and the bolts travel faster, and demonstrated that even such small changes make the battles significantly harder.
I closed with a short rant about the nerfed-ness of caps and shivans, and how such things have no place in 'hard' or 'very hard' difficulty, because real men can handle AAA.
And the internet ate it! :(
-
Does it need to be? Most of the fighters aren't all that much larger.
-
And guys, we should shy away from commenting on the requirements for fictional technology, because we don't know what they are. Sure, Orions fighterbay area is about Nimitiz-size, but we don't know anything about her design. Talking about FTL travel just makes it worse. Stick to asking 'why isn't the Orion armoured properaly' instead of 'spacefighters require more maintenance.... uhm... because!'. We've seen it, and they sit on racks and a dude welds them :D
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Does it need to be? Most of the fighters aren't all that much larger.
Life support, reactor/s for turrets (with widespread coverage), no big-arse flight deck on top, subspace drive & sublight engines, extremely long range sensor arrays (system wide rather than local area), possibly larger supply storage requirements (not sure on a naval carriers deployment time, but an Orion crew serves 3 years and it's unclear how frequently it resupplies), anti-gravity equipment, leisure facilities (probaly a long deployment with less R&R opportunities), emergency repair equipment (logistical issues of getting repair vessels across space), escape pods (which are larger than naval life raft for obvious reasons), transport vessels....
Etc.
-
Stil...2100m long and a boxy dsign - that's a LOT of volume..
-
So long as you don't justify it with a modern day naval carrier, I have no quiblles with the 120-ship figure for the Orion, etc. If you had been referring to an FS2 340m long ship having 80 fighters, that would be complete and utter bollocks, of course.
(But that doesn't imply it is possible to simply strip down a ships turrets in order to fit more fighters in)
Actually, if you look at the length, it gets interesting
120 25m long ships (minimal size, really too small for a good estimate) would require 3000m length of ship. Far too big, especially if you look at where the Aquitane fighterbay is (it's likely to be the same area where the bulk of supplies and fighters are kept, for logistical reasons).
In a 1000m space, assuming 20m wide vessels (ignoring spaces), you could fit 50. With seperation, and structure, you;re probably looking at 20-25. Which means, in reality, you could proably stack, pack & rack 'em in the space the Hecate has in its front nose
So.... if you look at it, it actually fits in quite well in terms of fighter volume.
-
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. An Orion compared against 25 Ursas
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/freespace/Misc-Pics/Ursa-Orion%20Comparison.jpg)
Remember that the Ursa is huge and that you could fit at least 50 fighters into the same space those 25 take up.
-
The Ursa's what...45m? Apollo is like 15m?
-
The Ursa is 54m long. The Apollo is 28m. It's also thinner.
Modelview is useful for getting the length of a ship as you can look through an entire vp file with it.
-
still you can see in the FS2 main hall the ships are stored on platforms a large distance apart.
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
still you can see in the FS2 main hall the ships are stored on platforms a large distance apart.
I doubt that is the main hanger. Probably just a storage facility elsewhere in the ship. Besides, we're talking about the Orion here. :p
-
The Cain and Lilith are difficult to attack in FS1 for two different reasons. The Cain is difficult because it uses higher velocity fighter weapons which will hit the player a lot. And the Lilith is difficult because it has cluster bombs (though the Clusterbomb is a hell of a lot more dangerous in FS2).
I thought that the Lilith was challanging because of its incredibly thick armor and the clusterbomb. I thought the Cain was just fighterbait (except for the Taranis). It's turrets are easily disabled and it has relativly thin armor. A Wing of Hercs or Athenas can take one down without much trouble, even without the Pheonix 5 or Trebuchet.
[
-
:eek2:
I need to check this forum more often.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I thought that the Lilith was challanging because of its incredibly thick armor and the clusterbomb. I thought the Cain was just fighterbait (except for the Taranis). It's turrets are easily disabled and it has relativly thin armor. A Wing of Hercs or Athenas can take one down without much trouble, even without the Pheonix 5 or Trebuchet.
[
Liliths are the bain of my existance:shaking:
-
liliths are hard to attack from the front becasue the rear anti fighter beam has an uncanny habbit of hitting you at the precisse right angle to land you between the lilith and it's intended target....
...while the main beam is firing.
-
haha yeah Ive had that happen a couple times too.....
-
That's never happened to me...in fact most of the time the anti-fighter beam will actually open fire on me and fail to hit, because I'm still above the plane of fire and it can't (well, most of the time it can't) shoot through the hull to get me.
Liliths have well-sited turrets...which shoot through the forward arms a lot, but that's another issue.