Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: Corhellion on May 07, 2005, 11:17:01 pm
-
Well, a few of you here might remember me telling you lot about me making renders of ships from a book series...
Well...He liked them so much...he hired me to do cover art ;7
And I'd just like to shove this in front of every one of those peoples faces who dissed the ships...I'm being paid...fairly well I might add...
...and did I mention that I'm not out of highschool yet?
(http://www.maj.com/gallery/Corhellion/Renders/the_tae_tre_bookcovers.jpg)
Those are direct scans from the pocket-paperbacks. (Order of the books go from right to left: The Human Equation(Blue), The Alien Equation(Green), and The Renegade Equation(Brown) )
More info can be found here: //www.earther.net
Feedback? Questions? Comments?
(BTW: I'm Wes Prewer, Ship Artist)
-
Congrats on the job.
I still don't really go for the flying cube look, but it's probably more realistic than super-smoothed/bloated fighter jets. If this is going for realism, nice work.
-
Oh...my bad...Forgot one thing...
...
...
...
Buy the books! They Rule! It's a mix between history (old style naval tactics...broadsides and such...*points to the massive broadsides on the ships* ) And space battles...huge...space battles...each side has atleast 2,000 ships in most of the battles (first battle was a 1,800 vs 2,300 ship battle) And has a plot that would rival any other sci-fi story out there. Ands with the new pocket-paperbacks, you can get them easier :)
Just get the first one...you won't regret it :)
*End blantent pimpin'*
-
I still say those ships look funky, but good work :)
If I see these books around, I'll be sure to pick one up.
-
Congrats mate. :)
Though I would of expected a warship to have a bit more variety. You seem to have the basics down pat, why not give some more advanced techniques a go for your next project. :)
-
Congrats on getting paid & published, but they're still bloody boxes.
-
Congrats...but those ships are blocks. Sorry, I just don't go for the flying blocks :)
But still, congrats.
-
...I'm sorry, but those don't deserve to be called renders. They're far too basic. I could do something like that in Cinema 4D within 30 minutes. There's just no detail whatsoever.
-
The story looks interesting, is The Human Equation out in the UK? I cant seem to find it on amazon (the UK amazon that is)
-
This is so unfair :p
-
How's the french render artist job market looking these days venom?
-
Everyone saying that they're just boxes: Ever seen a Stardestroyer/Flying Arrow? Or maybe a flying vacum cleaner? Or a flying Rifle?
Different authors/designers come up with different ways to make things work. The design for the Earther Warships work for them. Fairly well. So sod off from the slacking, you want to voice your opinion, you can email the author...it's on the website :)
As for the availability in the UK...I'm not sure...once again...email the author for more information.
-
But the Star Destroyer and the like have a lot of detail and greebling and specific points on them. Those are literally just flying boxes.
-
...I had a feeling this was going to be reduced to a blantent bashing of the ships...
So...Here's a scan from the inside cover, these are what the ships originally look like...
(http://www.maj.com/gallery/Corhellion/Stuff/tre_ships.jpg)
@ngt: Show me what you can do in C4D...Trust me...I've got a few things that could beat it...The Sulaco render for starters...
-
Just me or does that Krogg Dreadnought vaguely resemble an SD Demon?
-
...Holy ****e...Cannikin...Strangely enough I doubt the creator of the Kroggs and their ships (another guy) has ever played FS1 or FS2
...it's probably an extremely huge coincidence...
...I've been reading the books for a while and...I didn't even catch it!
...only difference between the SD Demon and the Krogg Dread, is that the Krogg Dread is a Living warship...it's an animal...and...well...the battles with them can get...gorey...literally...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Congrats on getting paid & published, but they're still bloody boxes.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Congrats on getting paid & published, but they're still bloody boxes.
Indeed. I stand by what I said about these things last time. Look at the Borg cubes - same basic concept, seven tonnes more detail. Look at a space shuttle - relatively simple shape, real space craft, still detailed. I mean... you could have at least put some noticable metal plate textures on there. There's no real sense of scale without it, and noi sense that these were built of metal rather than modelled in a computer. They look like plastic.
I'm sorry to say it, but, were I just wandering through a bookstore with no prior knowledge of the author (Who is, by the looks, a relative unknown coming out of a small publishing house run by his parents), the stories, or the universe, I'd have no incentive to pick up the books. And that's how you sell - getting people to pick up the book and impulse buy. Once you've got a few thousand copies under your belt, word of mouth, reviews, libraries - these are what boost your sales, not what start them off - For that you need flashy cover and fancy ships - as it stands, being brutally honest, I'd dismiss these books based on those ship designs. It might be shallow, and it might not be fair, but that's the reality of breaking into the modern market.
-
...and this is why I seldom come here anymore...
L8er all!
*goes to Warpstorm...indefinately*
-
http://www.wluexposed.org/index.php?option=articles&task=viewarticle&artid=10
http://www.wluexposed.org/index.php?option=articles&task=viewarticle&artid=12
Found some reviews of the first books, for those interested, though they never mention the ship designs.
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
...and this is why I seldom come here anymore...
L8er all!
*goes to Warpstorm...indefinately*
...Wah?
It's called constructive criticism. Seriously, weak, man.
-
yup, looks like boxes, but they're boxes with _style_, man, _style_.
-
Cool, it's a dream of many to be employed to do stuff like this. Personally, I think it'd drive me nuts being forced to do what I enjoy according to someone else's demands and upon their whims; but all power to you, I think they came out great. :)
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
...Wah?
It's called constructive criticism. Seriously, weak, man.
-
...Constructive criticism...That I can't work on...That's how they appear in the books.
Atleast someone here likes them...
*shrugs*
Can't please 'em all
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
...Constructive criticism...That I can't work on...That's how they appear in the books.
Atleast someone here likes them...
*shrugs*
Can't please 'em all
Indeed. I stand by what I said about these things last time. Look at the Borg cubes - same basic concept, seven tonnes more detail. Look at a space shuttle - relatively simple shape, real space craft, still detailed. I mean... you could have at least put some noticable metal plate textures on there.
There's no real sense of scale without it, and noi sense that these were built of metal rather than modelled in a computer. They look like plastic.
I'm sorry to say it, but, were I just wandering through a bookstore with no prior knowledge of the author (Who is, by the looks, a relative unknown coming out of a small publishing house run by his parents), the stories, or the universe, I'd have no incentive to pick up the books. And that's how you sell - getting people to pick up the book and impulse buy. Once you've got a few thousand copies under your belt, word of mouth, reviews, libraries - these are what boost your sales, not what start them off - For that you need flashy cover and fancy ships - as it stands, being brutally honest, I'd dismiss these books based on those ship designs. It might be shallow, and it might not be fair, but that's the reality of breaking into the modern market.
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
Everyone saying that they're just boxes: Ever seen a Stardestroyer/Flying Arrow? Or maybe a flying vacum cleaner? Or a flying Rifle?
Different authors/designers come up with different ways to make things work. The design for the Earther Warships work for them. Fairly well. So sod off from the slacking, you want to voice your opinion, you can email the author...it's on the website :)
As for the availability in the UK...I'm not sure...once again...email the author for more information.
I'm sorry, but.... these things don't exist in reality either. All this... sci-fi, it's just the extrapolation of a wild idea. sometimes founded, and sometimes pulled out of the air.
So I don't see any excuse for not using artistry to make something look good. Look at the Wright brothers flyer, and compare it to a Concorde or an F-15.... how similar are they really? People can't even predict 20 years into the future, so don't throw out the 'it's artistically dull but it's realistic' excuse.
To me, art is about ideas; a box doesn't have any impact...any scale....any sense of purpose, of ideas, of humanity or otherwise. It's a box; I look at that cover, and I can't imagine anything like dynamic action, or a fleet of these things in massive battle, or performing heroics, etc. I imagine a box of tissues, same as the box sitting 2 feet away from me right now.
So I don't like it.
And I'm sorry if that offends you, but that's my opinion as someone who also does these things - even if only for a hobby - is that if I made that, I wouldn't consider it worth showing, and that's how I judge stuff. You got paid to do it - well done & good job. But don't expect it to exempt you from criticism; if anything it opens the floodgates because you're able to call yourself professional now.
Incidentally - Krogg destroyer also looks a lot like Battlefleet Gothic models IIRC.
-
Well, you know, truth is the Orion is essentially a big armored box too. But it's an interesting armored box.
I can think of several things that could be done to improve the models. These ships don't look particularly capable of atmospheric reentry: how about a launch-landing bay, a well deck, something like that? At least the hint of one, like a pair of armored doors or something. These things have got to take on supplies and personnel somehow while in deep space. If one of those big broadside guns breaks down, you've got to get parts for it inside and do the work there, because somehow I don't think they're going to drydock and tear the armor belt open just to fix one gun.
Those small craft...what happens when a few thousand swarm at you and get too close for the broadside armament to track effectively? Add some little turret thingies for that circumstance. They don't have to be big, or particularly detailed; hell, you could probably just have a bunch of little barely visible bumps on the hull and call them turrets.
I won't ask for a bridge, since a bridge is really something of a throwback. External communications equipment, however, would be good. A few antennae or something. Actually, probably a lot of antennae so it's hard to eliminate them all.
-
*head smashes into keyboard*
...Ok...Nightmare...Ima show you this...and this should clear up everything...
(http://www.maj.com/gallery/Corhellion/Renders/ens_150gun2_0000.jpg)
1: There are two landing bays, primary and secondary
2: Fighters are not strictly used in the first 4 book series. It's not like Freespace, most of the small ships are either shuttles or dropships...think Star Trek...more big ships than small fighters, but there will be more fighters in the later books, and we'll see how they fair in the grand scheme of things.
2 and a half: As for countering the fighters and other things...there are smaller turrets (I didn't model them cause they're too small) that act as point defence guns, they're ussually located at the corners of the "top box" and on the top and bottem.
3: there is a bridge...are you blind...
4: This isn't Freespace...there's a whole different doctrine to these ships...they don't follow normal spaceship designs cause they're alien.
And another note...There isn't any greebling because all of the "subsystems" are insulted/in the hull...to keep them from being destroyed easily.
Hope that cleared up a few things.
-
Ummm, I don't want to make you mad, but it looks like a vault a coffin goes in.:blah: And it needs turrets you can see very, very, very bad to make it look nearly good.
-
*points to the Gun Hatches On the sides, front and back of the ships*
Think of old Sailing ships with broadsides...k?
-
its pretty good if you're going for a 50s sci-fi look.
-
Make the hull rougher. You know: micrometeor impacts, previous battle damage, that sort of thing. Right now it looks a bit too pristine.
I take those little yellow rectangles on the dorsal 'steps' are windows? They could use a bit of work. Not quite sure what, but even on the book cover they look... depthless and especially non-luminescent.
-
The funny thing is that they match up pretty well with one of the two best designed military starships I've ever read. The Neutronium Alchemist books (Nights Dawn?) had giant spherical ships, and the Honor Harrington had ships more like Corhellion's design here. I think he did a damned good job. Certainly, more detail would be nice, but they don't need to be greebled to hell and back.
-
*cough*
None of that detail was visible in the other renders. (In fact, the texturing was different too...or completely washed out.) I'm trying to work with you here, okay?
I wasn't referring to the fighters...in fact I figured this series didn't have fighters until you said otherwise. I meant the Gunboat in the pictures from the books you posted recently.
One of the reasons subsystems are generally vunerable is that they don't work so well behind a meter of armorplate...but I digress.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
best designed military starships I've ever read.
Honor Harrington
*starts coughing uncontrollably*
Honorverse ships are silly with sillytech. Nothing that's Napoleonic warfare in space is remotely realistic.
Anyhow, it looks like the author said 'I like honorverse ships' and then thought of a way to copy them without copying them. :p
Given the source materiel they look ok, but the source materiel isn't providing a terribly interesting design.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
*starts coughing uncontrollably*
Honorverse ships are silly with sillytech. Nothing that's Napoleonic warfare in space is remotely realistic.
Tonnes of universes are full of sillytech. At least Honorverse dumped the ships engaging at pointblank range when capable of FTL travel aspect that you see in so much sci-fi.
Still think Larry Niven's Protector is much closer to a real battle in space. Fire at your enemy. Wait three weeks to find out if you hit them or not :D
-
sheesh, leave the guy alone. obviously someone liked them enough to buy them from him. constructive criticism is where you say, yes, that's good, but this could be better. it's not where you say, that sucks, and that sucks worse, and everything could be better. which is what i've been reading from you lot. so lay off him. you've all made your point.
-
I haven't been doing any ragging on him. A few posts (like hte one I quoted) ARE constructive criticism. Is it my fault some of hte others mix in "sucks" and such into the comments?
In any case, I think Cor's doing a very good job, but yes, the ships are rather dull to look at.
The covers are rather unexciting. What would be really neat, is if he had some ships actually FIGHTING. This could offset the dullness of the designs (not like thats Cor's fault either. IIRC, he was working of someone elses instructions). Cor made mention of that Krogg Battleship getting "Gorey." How bout that ;)
The Textures onf the ship could use slight reworking, to make them look more like battle-worn armor, less like factory-fresh plastic :).
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
In any case, I think Cor's doing a very good job, but yes, the ships are rather dull to look at.
The covers are rather unexciting.
That's really the crux of the matter. The ships are fairly simplistic which means they really don't look terribly good in visual terms. It's not that the models are bad, it's that the ship design doesn't have much in the way of aesthetics.
Now, I do have a few questions. What sort of technology do they use? Is there an abbreviated (or not) tech bible available? I'm curious why they have such a broadside styling when, as we know, space is a 3D environment. Even if they go into battle to deliver broadsides, wouldn't dorsal and ventral turrets be a good addition? Or even casemates? And what do the, er, biotech dudes use for tech and weapons? Why do their ships look so different?
Maybe you can talk to the author and try to get him to add in some more visually distinctive designs. Turrets always look sexy.
-
I can answer two of those questions easily.
The Krogg ships look different strictly because their ships are alive. They're animals, controlled by a central Krogg Telepath in the "brain" of the creature. They fire spines with ultra concentrated acid in them as well as "Neuro-pulses"...Think something like that of an eels electric shock..only...much more powerful and more lightning like.
And there are turreted ships, but strictly for the sake of the arguement. Actual Turreted ships won't come into play until the far future.
also: http://www.icebergpublishing.com/equations/warspace.asp
That's straight from the author. Alot of your doubts and questions will be answered on that page.
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
(http://www.maj.com/gallery/Corhellion/Renders/ens_150gun2_0000.jpg)
Aren't there absolutely sodding massive weapons coverage gaps on the front, top and bottom there?
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
Ialso: http://www.icebergpublishing.com/equations/warspace.asp
That's straight from the author. Alot of your doubts and questions will be answered on that page.
I did flip through that, and as someone who's written (on an amateur basis, but that's irrelevant) everything from far-future space combat to age of steam ironclads to some outright ahistorical stuff (technomagic, etc) it's all stuff that I know on pretty much an instinctive level now. There was a few errors in it as well, like the comment about US carriers versus UK carriers - The US carriers were better at dealing with kamikazes not due to their design but because they carried a whole ton more planes than the UK designs. I believe he also exaggerates ramming tactics WRT to late 19th century ironships.
Anyhow, that's not important. What's important and always damaging to suspension of disbelief is why technologies that exist today don't exist in the future. Like the aforementioned turrets; why don't these ships have them? Is there some technical issue involved with not putting some weapons in turrets? What kind of weapons are they? The same can be seen in the Honor Harrington books. Only recently has the ability to fire guided missile off-bore been developed. It's rather silly that a common technology nowadays would not be available in the future.
-
*removed*
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
...Alright...Shrike...The guns the Earthers use are ****ing huge Energy Cannons...20 metres in diameter, and they need a crew of 4-5 *each* to properly man.
Well, 4-5 people each isn't much. WWII battleship main turrets had 30-odd guys.
Anyhow, not important.
The Humans use guided missiles that are fixed in a forward position...they don't have turrets cause they don't have them! [/B]
I believe you meant to say they don't need them. ;)
The reason being is that if you put guns in turrets, you can only fit a few on the top, bottem, and sides, with AA guns in various places. Compare about 20 turrets of 3 guns each overall (60 guns) then compare that to a 175 gun warship...two broadsides of 75, fore with 15 and aft with 10 with alot more coverage.[/B]
Except you can have those 60 guns firing in addition to your broadsides. Plus said guns will have significantly superior arc of fire.
Is it that hard to just say: "**** it! It's not real life, it works for the story, that's good enough."[/B]
Well yes. Suspension of disbelief requires a reason to suspend disbelief. Even if it's as simple as 'The guns are a hundred meters long and can't be mounted in turrets due to their size'. (well, if they have 20 meter bores these ships are obviously ****ing huge, far larger than I had guessed and a hundred meter turret would hardly be 'too big', but you know what I mean)
-
Well, congrats on getting published, exposure is teh good.
I'm not a massive Sci-Fi fan, being more into the Mythical Fantasy, possibly because it is a ot more possible to make the leap into believing things without question, I've actually seen glaring tactical mistakes about the role of Pikemen (who get referred to as Spearmen far too often and both played completely different roles in combat) etc, but when you're reading fantasy, that's just decoration.
I suppose the important part is that you got your pictures on the front of a book which is being published. And the ships you made are from those books, so you are kind of obliged and constrained.
My own personal advice would be to leave defending the book to the author, and work on your portfolio if you plan to do something like this reguarly.
-
Congrats on the publishing.
Those ships remind me vaguely of the Khar-Toba ships from Homeworld, oddly enough...
-
Originally posted by Shrike
*starts coughing uncontrollably*
Honorverse ships are silly with sillytech. Nothing that's Napoleonic warfare in space is remotely realistic.
Anyhow, it looks like the author said 'I like honorverse ships' and then thought of a way to copy them without copying them. :p
Given the source materiel they look ok, but the source materiel isn't providing a terribly interesting design.
Need something for the cough?
Of course its sillytech and the ships are silly. ALL scifi ships are silly. There hasn't been one single non-silly scifi ship every created. They all depend on silly tech. What's your point?
Science fiction is as much about gee-whiz as it is about 'realistic'. And that's just silly.
-
Bah. Science fiction isn't about being 'realistic'. It's about being plausible. You can throw as much magical gee-whiz tech into the mix as you want. But if you don't use the tech logically and appreciate its implications, then it's no longer sci-fi... it's fantasy.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Need something for the cough?
Of course its sillytech and the ships are silly. ALL scifi ships are silly. There hasn't been one single non-silly scifi ship every created. They all depend on silly tech. What's your point?
Science fiction is as much about gee-whiz as it is about 'realistic'. And that's just silly.
Please. :rolleyes:
There's nothing 'well designed' about Honorverse ships. They use broadsides in space - broadsides having gone completely out of style a century before we even reached the moon. Only recently have they figured out that guided missiles can make 90 degree turns. They still haven't figured out the 'turret'. There's few things worse for suspension of disbelief in military scifi (or almost any scific, really) than the omission of extremely common, fairly simple technologies.
If you're going to go napoleonic in space, at least go for the Lt Leary series, which does a far better job of achieving the feel without needless dumbing down whoever designed the ships. (Guided missiles and turrets . . . but the ships have actual sails, which are the FTL system)
Originally posted by kv1at3485
Bah. Science fiction isn't about being 'realistic'. It's about being plausible. You can throw as much magical gee-whiz tech into the mix as you want. But if you don't use the tech logically and appreciate its implications, then it's no longer sci-fi... it's fantasy.
And napoleonic warfare in space is plausible?
I have nothing against Napoleon In Space per se (although it's very rapidly becoming a cliche in North American scifi, much to my annoyance - I'm not that fond of it) but HH strives to combine that with scifi futuretech and IMO fails. As I said the lack of all-aspect engagement abilities is the biggest, one that is hardly an insurmountable problem even with wedges. Don't try and make space warfare into napoleonic naval warfare, the paradigms are just too dissimilar to work. Aim for the feel, not the specifics.
My opinion is that Weber in achieving the specifics completely missed the feel.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
And napoleonic warfare in space is plausible?
Perhaps. It could happen if a design uses phased array emitters. Although I would suspect that such emitters would primarily be used as point defence against nuclear missiles. No need to train the weapon. The short range of a beam fired at a horrendously oblique angle is acceptable. It's difficult to disable the entire emitter short of burning it completely off the hull by a near nuclear explosion.
(I guess you could have small multi-faceted 'radome turrets' if you wanted, but I always thought having a large area emitter surface would be superior.)
But assuming two opposing ships got 'close enough' (depending on relative velocity and all), then yes: broadside.
-
A broadside that happens by chance is not the same as a deliberate attempt to generate such an engagement. Nor is extremely oblique angles of fire generated by large phased-array laser systems going to give you a very 'Napoleonic' technology, which is characterized by a large number of individual weapons (cannons) of which larger ships tend to carry both a larger number and larger caliber of, furthermore, said weapons tend to have extremely poor fire arcs. A phased-array laser system is quite the opposite, really, and a far better solution.
Honestly I never understood why nobody ever stuck a giant bloody laser down the spine of destroyers and used them to blow away enemy DDs at extreme range. :p
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Please. :rolleyes:
There's nothing 'well designed' about Honorverse ships. They use broadsides in space - broadsides having gone completely out of style a century before we even reached the moon. Only recently have they figured out that guided missiles can make 90 degree turns. They still haven't figured out the 'turret'. There's few things worse for suspension of disbelief in military scifi (or almost any scific, really) than the omission of extremely common, fairly simple technologies.
If you're going to go napoleonic in space, at least go for the Lt Leary series, which does a far better job of achieving the feel without needless dumbing down whoever designed the ships. (Guided missiles and turrets . . . but the ships have actual sails, which are the FTL system)
[edit]Oh never mind. Shrike, you continually remind me of why I don't come here very often anymore.[/edit]
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Honestly I never understood why nobody ever stuck a giant bloody laser down the spine of destroyers and used them to blow away enemy DDs at extreme range. :p
Depends on your version of FTL travel and how it works, don't it? Plausible for FS, not so workable for most other things.
What I never understood is why nobody has grasped the essential advantage of the design popularized by the Star Destroyer. You can fire all your guns forward because of the angled hull...not that anyone ever seems to figure that out...
-
Originally posted by mikhael
[edit]Oh never mind. Shrike, you continually remind me of why I don't come here very often anymore.[/edit]
Shame, I was actually hoping for some sort of reply as to why you see them as particularly well-designed warships. Oh well, bye.
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Depends on your version of FTL travel and how it works, don't it? Plausible for FS, not so workable for most other things.
What I never understood is why nobody has grasped the essential advantage of the design popularized by the Star Destroyer. You can fire all your guns forward because of the angled hull...not that anyone ever seems to figure that out...
Honorverse ships are designed with 'chaser' mounts, weapons that fire fore and aft. These tend to be heavier than those mounted broadsides, but I still don't see why they couldn't make exceptionally heavy chasers on smaller ships - history has proven (and physics supports it) that one large weapon is typically better than multiple small weapons when it comes to punching through armor.
Anyhow, Star Destroyers have a good design if you want massive forward firepower. The weakness with that of course is that you have to be facing towards your enemy to shoot them - which typically means closing. A design that emphasises one arc will obviously be weak in others. There's no one ideal design, it is far too dependent on the technology and tactics used. Personally I don't like the ISD design because the design is too focussed on forward fire and insufficiently so on all-axis engagements. I'd prefer a design with a row of dorsal and ventral turrets - it wouldn't be as powerful while closing, but at almost any oblique angle the entire firepower could be brought to bear, ie, it has much more available firepower while maneuvering.
This ignores the aesthetics of course, I think ISDs look awesome. :cool:
-
Broadsides are silly at the core. A good captain will want to expose the least ammount of surface to his enemy´s fire. So front mounted weapons make sense, because the ammount of hull surface you expose is much smaller than a broadside, where you basically paint a large target on your ship and pray they miss.
Although a broadside is good offensive strategy, a war is not exclusivelly made of offensive moves. One needs to consider that they can fire back, and as such you should make yourself the smallest target possible. The saying "a good defense is a strong offense" is a myth.
If anyone wishes to see a good example of where broadsides lost to front fighting, they need only read about the spanish Great Armada and Nelson´s tactics. The spanish ships were heavy broadsiders, while Nelson used speed and manouvering to always keep either his bow or his stern towards enemy fire, thus making his ships much harder to hit.
Having good old english oak built ships also helped, but that´s another story. :D
-
@ shrike:
...
and fix your avatar(s).
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Broadsides are silly at the core. A good captain will want to expose the least ammount of surface to his enemy´s fire. So front mounted weapons make sense, because the ammount of hull surface you expose is much smaller than a broadside, where you basically paint a large target on your ship and pray they miss.
Although a broadside is good offensive strategy, a war is not exclusivelly made of offensive moves. One needs to consider that they can fire back, and as such you should make yourself the smallest target possible. The saying "a good defense is a strong offense" is a myth.
If anyone wishes to see a good example of where broadsides lost to front fighting, they need only read about the spanish Great Armada and Nelson´s tactics. The spanish ships were heavy broadsiders, while Nelson used speed and manouvering to always keep either his bow or his stern towards enemy fire, thus making his ships much harder to hit.
Having good old english oak built ships also helped, but that´s another story. :D
Wasn't it that Nelson repeatedly crossed their T? I know little about that engagement though, but what I envision is much more akin to 1910s+ centreline turreted ships.
Either way, large weapon arcs are a must-have. They allow more maneuver options while fighting. The ideal of course is a ship with the equivalent of modern VLS which has in effect total hemispherical engagement abilities (It's more complex than this in practice, of course). This would give a ship the ability to maneuver freely while engaging the enemy with all its weapons, the ideal situation.
Originally posted by Anaz
@ shrike:
...
and fix your avatar(s).
What? It's something I have a certain passion for, don't you like my little dissertations? :(
And what's wrong with my avatars anyhow?
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
The saying "a good defense is a strong offense" is a myth.
...coming from you, that's friggin' hilarous.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
If anyone wishes to see a good example of where broadsides lost to front fighting, they need only read about the spanish Great Armada and Nelson´s tactics. The spanish ships were heavy broadsiders, while Nelson used speed and manouvering to always keep either his bow or his stern towards enemy fire, thus making his ships much harder to hit.
You earn a D- in Naval History. Nelson's brilliance lay in how his broadsides were employed. With smaller, faster ships, but less well-armed, he could not form battle line and defeat the Armada. What he could do was appear to form battle line, then, once combat was imminent, have his ships break formation and turn directly into the Spanish line, moving into the spaces between ships in battle line so that the English could bring broadside guns to bear while the Spanish could only reply with a handful of stern or bow guns.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
What? It's something I have a certain passion for, don't you like my little dissertations? :(
And what's wrong with my avatars anyhow?
out of curiosity, how many of the HH books have you read?
and this is what is wrong with your avatars:
(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/aotd/Anaz/fixyouravatars.JPG)
They're next to each other, and that bothers me for some reason. Why not just put your catgirl on top of an HLP logo like the other admins did with their space ships...
-
About, um..... four, maybe five plus one of the anthologies?
-
Ah. You haven't seen them play with the LACs yet.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Shame, I was actually hoping for some sort of reply as to why you see them as particularly well-designed warships. Oh well, bye.
Meh. I've been advised by my doctor to stop arguing on the Internet. Your opinion is firm, I can't change your mind and I'm too damned lazy to do it.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
You earn a D- in Naval History. Nelson's brilliance lay in how his broadsides were employed. With smaller, faster ships, but less well-armed, he could not form battle line and defeat the Armada. What he could do was appear to form battle line, then, once combat was imminent, have his ships break formation and turn directly into the Spanish line, moving into the spaces between ships in battle line so that the English could bring broadside guns to bear while the Spanish could only reply with a handful of stern or bow guns.
Excuse me while i ask, but just what part of the ship is turned to the enemy, when you sail directly towards them? Perhaps the bow, no?
Also, excuse me while i don´t waste half a page mentioning all the details, on a thread that bares no relevence to that subject.
So, in all honesty, you get an F- in compreention.
...coming from you, that's friggin' hilarous.
What is that supposed to mean?? Or were you just running short of ammo, and decided to use pot shots instead?
:doubt:
-
......back to topic.
Congrats on getting paid. Good job on getting someone to pay you for them.
They're not my thing but :yes: to you.
-
Originally posted by Anaz
Ah. You haven't seen them play with the LACs yet.
Actually I have. I've read the first, a couple in the middle and a couple at the end.
The whole 'We're developing all this cool new technology' is partially what set me off with the honorverse. :p
-
because, heaven forbid, new technology is developed? :wtf:
Explain thineself.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Excuse me while i ask, but just what part of the ship is turned to the enemy, when you sail directly towards them? Perhaps the bow, no?
Also, excuse me while i don´t waste half a page mentioning all the details, on a thread that bares no relevence to that subject.
So, in all honesty, you get an F- in compreention.
Actually, your comprehension is what's failing, because you still don't get it.
A graphical representation for you, then.
I <---Spanish ship
_ <---English ship
I <---Spanish ship
That's how Nelson won it. He got between them.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
What is that supposed to mean?? Or were you just running short of ammo, and decided to use pot shots instead?
:doubt:
Perhaps you've forgotten that discussion...let me refresh your memory. You were arguing with myself and Karajorma.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Also I am a fierce apologist of "the best defense is a good offense"
-
Originally posted by Anaz
because, heaven forbid, new technology is developed? :wtf:
Explain thineself.
A) It's all developed by Manticore.
B) It gets completely overwank - 'Podnaughts and LACs rule the skies!'
-
OK, I feel I must point out something rather important here:
Spanish Armada: 1588.
Battle of Trafalgar: 1805.
The Armada was beaten by a combination of Francis Drake and (in the main) a big storm. Two hundred years later, the larger French fleet was taken apart by Nelson, using new tactics that the French couldn't deal with. Rather than fighting a traditional "line" battle, where the two fleets sail in a line past each other and fire broadsides, he split his fleet into two columns, which then sailed through the French line. This meant the French couldn't get clean broadsides off, while the RN could fire right down the decks of the French ships as they "crossed the T", as ngtm1r said.
As for the original topic - congrats to Corhellion for getting published, though I too don't really like the designs of the ships.