Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Polpolion on June 18, 2006, 03:18:01 pm
-
What/how much ships did they produce before being exploded/captured up?
-
Dunno.
-
They must have been working overtime to keep up the NTF fleets resupplied so it's more likely that they produced many ships, more capital ships than fighters though because we see that the NTF has many Deimos and Aelous but not many advanced fighters and bombers and I think that was a correct decision too. The GTVA, in the end of the war, probably recaptured the majority of those shipyards.
-
I think the majority of the NTF fleet was captured directly, with very realitively few warships being produced by the NTF, 18 months isn't much time to build destroyers; although wartime probably boosted their capacity considerably.
-
The NTF shipyards created three, no more, no less. Three was the number they created, and the number of the creation was three. Four they did not produce, nor did they produce two, excepting between the periods in which they had created one and three. Five was right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then they were retaken by the GTVA.
-
:lol: :yes:
-
This was the funniest thing I've seen today. :yes: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I'm not sure they even built anything; just reconditioned stuff from the local boneyards.
-
Well unless they managed to capture 2 Hecate's as i think i saw in the wiki (not sure though) they must of produced something. I do not believe that the NTF could of hed on for so long without replacing some of its warships lost during diferent stages of the engagement. I mean they were seriously outnumbered by the GTVA yet they managed to hold on for like 18 months that is a long time not matter how good of a strategist Bosch was.
Also lets not forget that the NTF actualy fought and ofensive war at one time so you have aditional casualties there.
During war time the idustry goes into wartime schedule with its production in some case increasing up to 4 times that of the normal output.
-
Id imagine that lot of their ships and personnel came from GTA as traitors. And there likely were side switchers troguht the whole war. A lot of the fleet sided with Bosch.
-
I doubt very much more than 3 fleets sided with Bosch, the NTF was never fighting for complete domination, just for independence.
-
That is true There were not more then 3 fleets on Bosch's side during the war at least from what I know. But they managed to hold back the entire GTVA armada and the situation would of continued if the Collie hadidnt arived on station to defeat the NTF. This bring the folowing question what was the actual production run for the NTF. I mean how many ships are actualy captured or switched sides and how many are produced by the NTF shypyards. If we can figure this out or at least agree on a general fleet wise configuration of captured/switched sides kind of ships then we should be able in the end to roghly aproximate what ships were actualy constructed.
I'm willing to bet that those Hecates were not captured but rather roduced. Why? Because there are very few of them around at any given time and it would be rather hard for the NTF officers to actualy get aboard the most advanced destroyers of the GTVA without beeing closely monitored by the GTVI. Also I suspect that comanders of these new warships was given to the most trustworthy and capable comanders the GTVA had. Even Koth I believe was the name of the Admiral of the NTF had an Orion as his flagship. Not that that is something wrong hell no the Orion is one of mi fav. ships ever surpassing the Hecate and the Hatshepsut.
-
Freedom Shipyards built the Iceni, thats a definate(?)
But most of the construction effort went on YMCA station in JAD2........ ;7
-
I don't understand how freedom shipyard in Polaris could have built the Iceni, then stuffed it in an asteroid and shipped it to Deneb. I think that goes under the category of "Plothole" and we know about those from JAD as well.
As far as destroyers go: Tactically I love the Orion, but aesthetically it has to take second place to the Hecate.
-
I don't understand how freedom shipyard in Polaris could have built the Iceni, then stuffed it in an asteroid and shipped it to Deneb. I think that goes under the category of "Plothole" and we know about those from JAD as well.
As far as destroyers go: Tactically I love the Orion, but aesthetically it has to take second place to the Hecate.
Shipped it to Deneb, then stuffed it in a 'roid, I'd wager.
-
I'd wager it used the engine subsytem or was towed, ANyhoo this is moot, The point is there were at lest 140000 Aeolii made in a fortnight s spacce...
Or am i slightly off?
-
Well unless they managed to capture 2 Hecate's as i think i saw in the wiki (not sure though) they must of produced something.
Alright, you're going to have to post a link to this. I just can't remember in any tech room description, briefing, or other canon information that confirms two Hecates being captured by the NTF. Every single NTF destroyer encountered in the main campaign, including those that played roles best filled by Hecates, was an Orion. If the NTF had been producing Hecates at all, then why weren't they deployed to Epsilon Pegasi, Deneb, or Alpha Centauri, where their 150 strikecraft could have turned the tide in favor of the NTF?
Also lets not forget that the NTF actualy fought and ofensive war at one time so you have aditional casualties there.
Yes, but it also was a surprise attack on the GTVA. There was virtually no resistance in Polaris, as it was his fleet stationed in the system that he broke away with. The attack on Regulus was very likely a surprise attack, and those that didn't defect right from the get-go were likely forced to surrender seeing the size of the fleet against them. The remainder of the fleet in Regulus likely retreated to Sirius because of the overwhelming NTF forces, leaving Sirius as the only system one of the three that could have mounted a counterattack.
Of course, then take into account the NTF sympathizers in Sirius, and the combined strength of two fleets bearing down on one system, Sirius very likely didn't last very long either. When the NTF was forced to engage in three different border systems, the offensive likely scaled down.
Also bear in mind that NTF officers and strategists weren't exactly stupid either: any commander that can organize a blitzkrieg attack that destroys 75% of an enemy's forces in one system and provide fierce resistance for a two-pronged attack on another front must have something more than luck working for him.
-
Here you go : I though i mentioned i saw it in the wiki.
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Freespace_2_Rebel_Ship_Database#Neo-Terran_Front
-
OMFG, they
do did indeed have two Heca-tays...
-
Ah, I see. There's one major inaccuracy there though: the Cyrene is clearly shown as an Orion in the Command Brief showing the rebels' loss of Polaris and Sirius. As for the Corsica, considering the lack of voiceacting for its arrival in the mission, I'm led to believe that it was added later and may not be canon. Any multi vets out there know anything about this? I think this falls into the Murikami having a Vasudan commander, yet being a Deimos.
-
Was the Corsica in RI? Man i must have blapped that more times than i could count back in my LOA--JK47 days, (salutes the fallen LOA) I thougt it had voice acting all the way in Rebel Intercept? Only haxxors granting promotions on duplicates of that mission had corrupt/dodgy events..........
-
The deimos uses vasudan tech. Make no mistake about it. Also Since someone bashed mi head and not only mine because if its in the game then its cannon you cant not accept it. So there you have it. I't doesnt matter if its presented as an orion icon as long as its hecate no doubht about it.
-
Not having a pop A1, slow down the conjunctives please.
Also Since someone bashed mi head and not only mine because if its in the game then its cannon you cant not accept it
i completely lost ya there.........
-
Well remember the whole arguement about the cannon fact regarding the 6.000 crewmen on a Sobek. Well that was mention only if you failed the respective missios and since that was almost imposible to happen(lose the mission that is) then its cannon since its mentioned in the game. Doesnt matter when or in what circumstances. The same goes here if its in the game then it doesnt matter in what circumstances it apears its cannon.
-
I't doesnt matter if its presented as an orion icon as long as its hecate no doubht about it.
One: there is absolutely no canon evidence besides that Command Brief that determines what class the Cyrene is. Flagship + destroyer =! Hecate
Two: Considering every single briefing icon in a Command Brief represents a ship as its exact class (the Aquitaine as a Hecate, Psamtik as Hatshepsut, Repulse as an Orion), we can assume that the Cyrene is an Orion as depicted. If it was a Hecate, there would have been more than enough room in the Command Brief to replace the Orion image with a Hecate.
Three: Just because the wiki says it doesn't mean it's true. The wiki is still peer-edited, and I've come across plenty of inaccuracies myself.
The deimos uses vasudan tech. Make no mistake about it.
I know that the Deimos uses a Vasudan reactor. My question was why a Deimos was using a Vasudan commander's voiceover in addition to the player being ordered to engage whatever fighters launch from the Deimos.
-
Actually you blow it up in Rebel Intercept Multiplayer mission, Its a Hecate. You hardly need more proof than blowing it up right?
-
Actually you blow it up in Rebel Intercept Multiplayer mission, Its a Hecate. You hardly need more proof than blowing it up right?
True, but IIRC, the mission is only fully VA'd by :v: for all of the corvettes and smaller warships. I'm not sure if I remember hearing an arrival message for the Corsica or the Alsace, though, which leads to question their canonical worth.
-
Fighters launching from the Deimos?? Where did you get that. Also I have come to the conclusion that not all icons represent the exact ship as it is depicted. I saw in FS1 an icon of a bommber that we actualy see in fs1 later during the campaign as a newer bommber available yet they are shown to have been available long before they were introduced to the fleets. Also You dont actualy fly the bommber depicted by the icon.
-
So what Volition only validated half the mission and the other half they what deemed it....what??
-
I'm sure i remember a wav, Can someone rip the RI mission from the VP file and check for a .WAV reference, im at work and dont have my FS2 files for some "silly :D" reason.
"Definately a canon mission though"
-
Fighters launching from the Deimos?? Where did you get that. Also I have come to the conclusion that not all icons represent the exact ship as it is depicted. I saw in FS1 an icon of a bommber that we actualy see in fs1 later during the campaign as a newer bommber available yet they are shown to have been available long before they were introduced to the fleets. Also You dont actualy fly the bommber depicted by the icon.
(http://www.game-warden.com/gti/murakami.JPG)
The Murakami shows up as a Deimos, correct? Now listen to the conversation between the rebel ships and the Murakami. (http://www.game-warden.com/gti/murakami.wav) I think that this may have been a last minute balancing change, and that RI probably had similar changes made.
The icons are off simply because those icons are the generic briefing icons used by the game to represent certain classes of ships rather than making briefing icons for each and every one of the ships in that class. Cutscenes and Command Briefs are typically more accurate because they're special cases: they aren't used for every mission as ordinary Briefings are.
-
My copy of Rebel Intercept doesn't have the Corsica or the Alsace in it. It's also M-04 rather than M-04b...
-
Ah, I see. There's one major inaccuracy there though: the Cyrene is clearly shown as an Orion in the Command Brief showing the rebels' loss of Polaris and Sirius. As for the Corsica, considering the lack of voiceacting for its arrival in the mission, I'm led to believe that it was added later and may not be canon. Any multi vets out there know anything about this? I think this falls into the Murikami having a Vasudan commander, yet being a Deimos.
hmm, that looks like an error on my part. I remember correcting that though; the fix must have somehow slipped through when I uploaded the file. There was a discussion on this a few years ago at FRED Zone and the general conclusion was that the Cyrene is almost certainly an Orion due to the thing in that command briefing (which is not just the normal icon, but the actual Orion model).
The Corsica on the other hand is definitely a canon NTF Hecate.
My copy of Rebel Intercept doesn't have the Corsica or the Alsace in it. It's also M-04 rather than M-04b...
That's the older version of the mission. Volition released newer versions (with the b labels) of the first four multiplayer missions at some point, along with three new missions.
-
The NTF shipyards created three, no more, no less. Three was the number they created, and the number of the creation was three. Four they did not produce, nor did they produce two, excepting between the periods in which they had created one and three. Five was right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then they were retaken by the GTVA.
"Now pull the holy pin and throw it with righteous might against thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it! Amen"
EDIT: Bloody hell! According to this, the NTF had AT LEAST 10 destroyers!!!!
-
What does? :confused:
Surely not the Command breifings.
-
What does? :confused:
Surely not the Command breifings.
If you include the multiplayer briefings.
-
That's why I think the majority of the NTF's ships were reconditioned from the Polaris boneyard. I just don't see any other way they could have gotten that many. Even at its height the NTF only had control of four or five systems.
-
That's why I think the majority of the NTF's ships were reconditioned from the Polaris boneyard. I just don't see any other way they could have gotten that many. Even at its height the NTF only had control of four or five systems.
To be fair, both the number and composition of fleets are rather abstract; the casualty figures for Operation Thresher in particular would require a substantial number of fighter 'bases' (installations or destroyers), for example.
-
If you include the multiplayer briefings.
I'm inclined to treat the multiplayer missions as not canon, or maybe semi-canon, due to the number of inconsistencies and cans of worms involved.
-
If you include the multiplayer briefings.
I'm inclined to treat the multiplayer missions as not canon, or maybe semi-canon, due to the number of inconsistencies and cans of worms involved.
That's exactly why I don't say that the NTF had a Hecate like the Corsica. The multiplayer missions seemed more geared around playability and balance, not around the story ala the main campaign.
-
If you include the multiplayer briefings.
I'm inclined to treat the multiplayer missions as not canon, or maybe semi-canon, due to the number of inconsistencies and cans of worms involved.
That'd be my inclination. Particularly as IIRC Volition used to give approval to fan-missions for MP, which would mean they were more or less allowing fanon-as-canon if MP missions were canon, and I doubt that would be their likely intent.
-
:V: had to validate missions, and dont forget, i know it was a few years back, but :V: used to release mission as well to re-centre balance issues. :V: MP mission packs were like gold dust when FS2 @ PXO was starting out....
Its only the fuxards who would edit a pre-apporved filenam and whack a "grant-promotion"on the end of a directive to cheat. Like certain members of RN (roughnecck sqdrn LOA's evil arch enemies).
:( I miss my squad............Muahahahah
-
I can't see any reason at all why the Volition-designed multiplayer missions are not canon for FS universe purposes. They detail quite a few additional events that occur during the main campaign. There are a small number of inconsistencies, but they are quite minor and you can also find similar issues in most of the other FS2 material. The validated usermade missions are a different matter, but the Volition missions are easily on the same level as the main campaign ones.
-
:v: MP missions may have details about event and story. But you have to remember that the missions are ultimatley balanced for multiplayer. And highly likely :v: placed balance and gameplay over story and "reality". Thus they could have thrown in an NTF Hecate just because player never got to go against them in the campaing. I'd classify MP as semi-canon.
-
Story wouldnt have been changed that much surely?..........
-
:v: MP missions may have details about event and story. But you have to remember that the missions are ultimatley balanced for multiplayer. And highly likely :v: placed balance and gameplay over story and "reality". Thus they could have thrown in an NTF Hecate just because player never got to go against them in the campaing. I'd classify MP as semi-canon.
That applies equally well to the singleplayer missions though. In terms of the story, it doesn't make sense to have Alpha 1 single handedly wreaking havoc in many of the missions, but that makes it more fun from a gameplay point of view.
-
Oki now here is where i go balistic ! You guis treat every twich and inonsitenci in the FS singleplayer as canon that is not to be disputed and yet when something doesnt agree with you or you think it highly unlikely you make it se-canon or whatever. If its V made or aproved then its cannon i dont care what theyr goal was. Aldo and several other members of the forum beat that into mi head . Then if you can say that things like these should be semi-canon or something like that then i can say the same for the Sobek numbers motivating that Volition maibe just wanted to add some more drama to the story and a sence of complete failure and remorse over the failed mission.
See where i'm gooing?
-
Oki now here is where i go balistic ! You guis treat every twich and inonsitenci in the FS singleplayer as canon that is not to be disputed and yet when something doesnt agree with you or you think it highly unlikely you make it se-canon or whatever. If its V made or aproved then its cannon i dont care what theyr goal was. Aldo and several other members of the forum beat that into mi head . Then if you can say that things like these should be semi-canon or something like that then i can say the same for the Sobek numbers motivating that Volition maibe just wanted to add some more drama to the story and a sence of complete failure and remorse over the failed mission.
See where i'm gooing?
Yes, we see, but the fact is that singleplayer is designed almost purely for the story. Multi is more centered around balancing gameplay for eight or so players to be challenged and adapt to new situations that weren't faced in the main campaign (dueling around a Ganymede, taking down a Hecate, etc.). If we treated the multi missions are pure canon, then we would have proof that the GTVA actually had another Hades--it was the central obstacle in a TvT mission (unless, of course, it was a simulation, in which case, why wouldn't the GTVA simply use a Hecate or Orion instead of a ship that was highly-classified and controversial?).
Point is we don't tend to treat the multiplayer missions as canon simply because they don't seem entirely focused on advancing the main storyline, but only generating isolated battles or circumstances to allow some believability but give the players something new to go up against.
-
Operation Templar and RI are pretty canon in my eyes.
I can understand both your POV's damn my objective outlook :mad:
-
Yes, we see, but the fact is that singleplayer is designed almost purely for the story. Multi is more centered around balancing gameplay for eight or so players to be challenged and adapt to new situations that weren't faced in the main campaign (dueling around a Ganymede, taking down a Hecate, etc.). If we treated the multi missions are pure canon, then we would have proof that the GTVA actually had another Hades--it was the central obstacle in a TvT mission (unless, of course, it was a simulation, in which case, why wouldn't the GTVA simply use a Hecate or Orion instead of a ship that was highly-classified and controversial?).
Point is we don't tend to treat the multiplayer missions as canon simply because they don't seem entirely focused on advancing the main storyline, but only generating isolated battles or circumstances to allow some believability but give the players something new to go up against.
As I said before, all that applies to the singleplayer missions too. Many of them sacrifice story realism for fun gameplay (as they should). FS2 is a game after all, not a movie or something. The TvT missions are almost certainly supposed to be simulations, similar to the Gauntlets and Dogfights that are actually labeled as such, considering that they often tell you to retry it if you lose. I don't see any evidence at all of the story taking a backseat to gameplay in the co-op missions though, any more than the campaign missions at least.
I have to agree with AlphaOne there. It's a little strange that a few of the same people religiously defending the Sobek 6000 number are now mumbling something about "semi-canon" here. :p
The way I see it, anything made by Volition carries the official weight except where there is an explicit inconsistency (like whether or not the Mentu has anti-capital beams), but that doesn't stop me from changing things around as I please (within reason) in my own missions, especially gameplay-related factors like the weapon balance and ship stats.
-
Right i think we can all agree on the fact that Canon = Made by :v: so any :v: made stuff must be canon except where it conflicts with itself.
So lets all forget our worries with a nice bowl of strawberry ice-cream
-
Operation Templar and other background stories for the MP missions I consider to be canon. Because I have no reason not not. I also do not totally dismiss the idea of NTF having Hecates. It is possible that they had. But I will not zealously belive so because of some multiplayer mission. Because IMHO multiplayer mission were not created to tell a story, they were created to entertain, and to offer variable battlesituations against other human players. Is that not right? Thus balance and pure old fashined fun came first, and if story elements suffered because of that... I don't think :v: cared. When they wanted to involve an NTF destroyer, they selected a Hecated probably because player has owned so many Orions during the single player campaing. Isn't that a logical assumption?
Yes, the single player is full of little inconsistencies. That's why I trust multiplayer even less. And I cetainly don't trust easily on what kind of ship was where and what happened to it because :v: clearly wanted to have lot's of explosions. And for that purpose they had an unlimited amount of ships.
I am willing to belive the NTF had Hecates if you point out at least two places where they are mentioned. If those Hacates really are so damn important.
And a toally another matter:
AlphaOne, will you ****ing calm down! There is no reason for you to start whinnig like an immature ***** everytime someone disagrees with you. By pissing yourself off you always get others agitated too. Plus we have to decipher your posts with an enigma machine every time you are angry and don't bother to check your spelling.
-
Oki now here is where i go balistic ! You guis treat every twich and inonsitenci in the FS singleplayer as canon that is not to be disputed and yet when something doesnt agree with you or you think it highly unlikely you make it se-canon or whatever. If its V made or aproved then its cannon i dont care what theyr goal was. Aldo and several other members of the forum beat that into mi head . Then if you can say that things like these should be semi-canon or something like that then i can say the same for the Sobek numbers motivating that Volition maibe just wanted to add some more drama to the story and a sence of complete failure and remorse over the failed mission.
See where i'm gooing?
Yes.
Obviously, we're not beating hard enough.
-
V cruel Aldo, V funny but V cruel :lol:
-
multiplayer mission were not created to tell a story, they were created to entertain, and to offer variable battlesituations against other human players. Is that not right? Thus balance and pure old fashined fun came first, and if story elements suffered because of that... I don't think :v: cared.
Just like the singleplayer campaign. When you get down to it, FS2 is primarily a game, not a story. Anyway I find that things like Rebel Blockade or Operation Templar are easily on the same level as the best singleplayer campaign missions, purely in terms of the story.
I think it's fine that people want to disregard some canon stuff - I do it all the time - but it's stupid to then defend other aspects of canon material like the 6000 so virulently in the other thread, with the only justification being that Volition says so and Volition's word is god's word. :p (this is not really directed at you, more at some of the other posters)
-
Just like the singleplayer campaign. When you get down to it, FS2 is primarily a game, not a story.
:lol: "primarily a game, not a story"... Yes, I do have to agree on that. Though someone might not.
What ever, semantics...
-
The Hecate class of destroyers is replacing the Orion as the flagship of Terran battle groups,says the tech.
Sirius,Polaris and Regulus are important systems for Old civilizations and for modern research.This importance is proportional to the FS2's one.
It's almost impossible that no Hecate was present in these systems.Impossible.
If the NTF had Hecates,they must be taken down before Alpha 1 entered the conflict...
In a 18 months period...
Did the NTF pay attention on firepower? Orions are known to have a magnificent firepower against warships...
is this "canon"?
Vasudans Hatshepsut ar far better than Typhon,tech says that retrofitting Typhons with beams led to system failure.Hatshepsut destroyers are the mainstay of the Vasudan fleet.According to this the Vasudans must have a number of Hatshepsut greater than the Typhons' one,or almost equal.We see two Hecates in the single campaign but a much higher number of Orions,in the Terran fleet happened something different.
And finally:the player starts his training in Vega while he is waiting for the Aquitaine to arrive,so it must be a newly build warship,and also the best known of its class.The NTF never had access to modern techs,such as the Pegasus or the Perseus.According to this,the NTF has captured an incomplete Hecate when the rebellion started and then finished the construction,or it never had one.
-
Oki now here is where i go balistic ! You guis treat every twich and inonsitenci in the FS singleplayer as canon that is not to be disputed and yet when something doesnt agree with you or you think it highly unlikely you make it se-canon or whatever. If its V made or aproved then its cannon i dont care what theyr goal was. Aldo and several other members of the forum beat that into mi head . Then if you can say that things like these should be semi-canon or something like that then i can say the same for the Sobek numbers motivating that Volition maibe just wanted to add some more drama to the story and a sence of complete failure and remorse over the failed mission.
See where i'm gooing?
He's right you know.... When the point suits you that all that comes out of your mouths is "[V] said so! Canon it must be! Ramen!".. and when it doesn't suit your tastes that you start with the "maby it was a mistake" Or "[V] didn't pay attention"..
Hell, I'm copying this thread to show it down the throat of anyone who acuses me of trying to twist FS canon to his whim! :D
-
Just like the singleplayer campaign. When you get down to it, FS2 is primarily a game, not a story. Anyway I find that things like Rebel Blockade or Operation Templar are easily on the same level as the best singleplayer campaign missions, purely in terms of the story.
I think it's fine that people want to disregard some canon stuff - I do it all the time - but it's stupid to then defend other aspects of canon material like the 6000 so virulently in the other thread, with the only justification being that Volition says so and Volition's word is god's word. :p (this is not really directed at you, more at some of the other posters)
The only reason I objected to that is because as far as I could tell, the only justification on the other side was "I don't like that number, it should be 3!" Plus I was board, and debates are fun when you board.
-
The Hecate class of destroyers is replacing the Orion as the flagship of Terran battle groups,says the tech.
Sirius,Polaris and Regulus are important systems for Old civilizations and for modern research.This importance is proportional to the FS2's one.
The basic problem is, though, that they may not (probably didn't in fact) have the capablity to really keep their newer ships in service. A few major actions and they would have run out of Hecate parts and start having to jury-rig. Big ships, being more complex then little ones, take poorly to that kind of thing; if the NTF still had any Hecates in service by month 18 when FS2 starts, at best they would be one step ahead of being cannibalized for parts, and their performance badly degraded.
-
The only reason I objected to that is because as far as I could tell, the only justification on the other side was "I don't like that number, it should be 3!" Plus I was board, and debates are fun when you board.
Well, I think "I don't like the number" is a much better excuse than "multiplayer missions are meant for gameplay unlike singleplayer ones." I mean, hey, at least you're being honest about it. :D
-
The basic problem is, though, that they may not (probably didn't in fact) have the capablity to really keep their newer ships in service. A few major actions and they would have run out of Hecate parts and start having to jury-rig. Big ships, being more complex then little ones, take poorly to that kind of thing; if the NTF still had any Hecates in service by month 18 when FS2 starts, at best they would be one step ahead of being cannibalized for parts, and their performance badly degraded.
What makes you think that none of those systems can produce the necesarry spare parts?
-
What makes you think that none of those systems can produce the necesarry spare parts?
Probably the fact the NTF had no Hecates in evidence in the main campaign. Also the fact it's new; we only saw a grand total of two on the GTVA side. Polaris is an important, but not a core, system. Intial construction probably took place in Beta Aquilae or near there (Ribos, Antares? Maybe Vega?), and the first factories for production of those parts would of course be there as well. Polaris is pretty far out in the boonies for Terran space, really. This is not. however, to say that Polaris did not have the industrial capablity. It probably did. But it would have had to retool (and take the thing apart to reverse engineer the parts) and that would also inhibit its ability to keep the majority of its destroyer force, composed of Orions, active.
From a logistical standpoint, the NTF fought a war they couldn't win. They probably started the war as well-equipped as any GTVA unit, but by the time of FS2 they've fallen back almost entirely on ships from the Great War era. Even if they could maintain or build newer ships, they could not keep up with the pace of losses and damage for those craft in combat. That's why you're dealing with all these Lokis and Hercs. They don't have much else.
-
Oki now here is where i go balistic ! You guis treat every twich and inonsitenci in the FS singleplayer as canon that is not to be disputed and yet when something doesnt agree with you or you think it highly unlikely you make it se-canon or whatever. If its V made or aproved then its cannon i dont care what theyr goal was. Aldo and several other members of the forum beat that into mi head . Then if you can say that things like these should be semi-canon or something like that then i can say the same for the Sobek numbers motivating that Volition maibe just wanted to add some more drama to the story and a sence of complete failure and remorse over the failed mission.
See where i'm gooing?
He's right you know.... When the point suits you that all that comes out of your mouths is "[V] said so! Canon it must be! Ramen!".. and when it doesn't suit your tastes that you start with the "maby it was a mistake" Or "[V] didn't pay attention"..
Hell, I'm copying this thread to show it down the throat of anyone who acuses me of trying to twist FS canon to his whim! :D
Yes.
Obviously, we're not beating hard enough.
Dodgily formatted qoute aside, I have said no such thing beyond suggesting that multiplayer may not be a good canonical source and listing reasons. AFAIK you're pretty much the only person suggesting the main campaign - the story - made mistakes.
-
Yes, I did say that there may have been mistakes in the main campaign... becosue tehre was logical reason for me to suspect that.
Name one game that was bug-free and where everything was perfect anyway...
-
The intercept mission for multiplayer added the Corsica later on to make the mission harder. IT was hard enough during the FS2 beta but it got easier when everything was balanced properly in the retail so they just dropped it in. Probably chose the Hecate to make it more difficult for the bombers (better flak and AAA beam protection). I wouldn't count it as being accurate in any way.
The NTF seemed to have alot of FS1 ships which, combined with the Operation Templar campaign, leads me to believe that most of the new generation of ships were slowly coming online in the last 24 months after the rebellion had started or just before. Perhaps the NTF rebellion spurred new designs on to try and overcome the rebels. I suspect that the GTVA fleets were somewhat diminished prior to the rebellion thus the success the NTF experienced. So my feeling is that most of the NTF fleet were repaired, scavenged, or salvaged and put back together again. They used alot of Loki's and Hercules Mark I and Medusas...probably available as active or mothballed after The Great War in large quantities. So I'll bet that while maybe they were producing new ships they were probably salvaging parts from three or four junked or mothballed types to create one good one.
-
The intercept mission for multiplayer added the Corsica later on to make the mission harder. IT was hard enough during the FS2 beta but it got easier when everything was balanced properly in the retail so they just dropped it in. Probably chose the Hecate to make it more difficult for the bombers (better flak and AAA beam protection). I wouldn't count it as being accurate in any way.
That doesn't make any sense. You could also argue that, for example, the Beleth was added into Bearbaiting to make the mission harder, so its existence is not "accurate." :p Besides, the NTF having a Hecate is really no more implausible than the Sobek 6000 number or a host of other things in the main campaign. You can certainly think of reasons why they might have one or two, even if it seems a little counterintuitive on the surface of it.
-
Aldo you just dont like that you and other people around here got cought when you were twisting the facts of the game to suit yourself. Thats all. Its pretty simple if you actualy want to look at it its all canon or none of it cannon make up your mind!
Sure there may be ridiculosu things like having a BFG mounted on a cruiser for instance(just an exagerated example doesnt actualy exist) where you have to let go of the canon.
-
Aldo you just dont like that you and other people around here got cought when you were twisting the facts of the game to suit yourself. Thats all. Its pretty simple if you actualy want to look at it its all canon or none of it cannon make up your mind!
Sure there may be ridiculosu things like having a BFG mounted on a cruiser for instance(just an exagerated example doesnt actualy exist) where you have to let go of the canon.
Please explain what facts I 'twisted', if you're going to throw round allegations like that.
Yes, I did say that there may have been mistakes in the main campaign... becosue tehre was logical reason for me to suspect that.
Name one game that was bug-free and where everything was perfect anyway...
Mario Kart? In any case, as i'm sure you are aware, a programmatic bug is vastly, vastly different - on a different paradigm in fact - to an error in text (including config and tbl files) that is proof-read multiple times during testing and quite probably written well in advance before the mission is made. Particularly vis-a-vis the Sobek one, where the same value is repeated (alone and as an addition) twice, which indicates it definately wasn't a mistype when the mission was made.
-
what you mean like taking Sobek number as canon beacuse it is in the game no matter how ridiculous it sounds (the number that is) yet saing that its semi-canon or non canon that the NTF had Hecates??? :rolleyes:
-
what you mean like taking Sobek number as canon beacuse it is in the game no matter how ridiculous it sounds (the number that is) yet saing that its semi-canon or non canon that the NTF had Hecates??? :rolleyes:
Suggesting, actually.
Let's look at the quote in question;
If you include the multiplayer briefings.
I'm inclined to treat the multiplayer missions as not canon, or maybe semi-canon, due to the number of inconsistencies and cans of worms involved.
That'd be my inclination. Particularly as IIRC Volition used to give approval to fan-missions for MP, which would mean they were more or less allowing fanon-as-canon if MP missions were canon, and I doubt that would be their likely intent.
Definitions of inclination on the Web:
* an attitude of mind especially one that favors one alternative over others; "he had an inclination to give up too easily"; "a tendency to be too strict"
Hmm. So you're talking out your arse, sunshine. I said absolutely nothing along the lines that it was explicitly non-canon, just that I'd tend to regard it that way for a number of well documented reasons. Note that I didn't say to anyone 'oh, that's too many Hecates'. Moreso, we have a clear deliniation between multiplayer and singleplayer in terms of story importance, something which someone else suggested before I made any sort of comment. And even then I didn't draw conclusions.
You know why? Because I know how stupid it sounds, when you flat out decide something must be wrong because it sounds wrong to you.
-
Now was the last phrase suposed to be a direct sugestion to mi Sobek debate? Cuz if it is then well its just mi PERSONAL OPINION STATED THERE. Never said it should be the way i want it.
Also i think that if everyone agreed with the arguemnts posted abaut fanon-as-canon and semi-canon then you wouldnt be poiting out the fact that you and other members of the forums were just giving sugestions.
To make it short if the balled rolled down your way then you wouldnt be sugesting it you would in the end enforcing it. Mi english tiping and spelling mai be bad which is in fact the reason i cant come up with elaborate ideas and arguements but dont think for a second that i dont understand most of time the finer points of peoples posts arguements and counterarguements.
-
Now was the last phrase suposed to be a direct sugestion to mi Sobek debate? Cuz if it is then well its just mi PERSONAL OPINION STATED THERE. Never said it should be the way i want it.
I never said anything about anyone in particulars' opinion. If you happen to think that applies to you....well, that's your choice.
Also i think that if everyone agreed with the arguemnts posted abaut fanon-as-canon and semi-canon then you wouldnt be poiting out the fact that you and other members of the forums were just giving sugestions.
Why the hell do you think I said they were suggestions? The issue of mp briefings has nothing to do, in any case, with the canonicity of the main campaign, because it is the story. The entire suggestion is whether MP lives on that same plane, and i left that entirely open to decision.
To make it short if the balled rolled down your way then you wouldnt be sugesting it you would in the end enforcing it. Mi english tiping and spelling mai be bad which is in fact the reason i cant come up with elaborate ideas and arguements but dont think for a second that i dont understand most of time the finer points of peoples posts arguements and counterarguements.
'the balled rolled' (sic) down my way right there, and guess what - I didn't. I didn't say, 'oh, I disagree with these Hecate numbers, they must be a mistake!!11one', I said, 'perhaps MP isn't intended as canon' and left it open. In fact, I even added a counterpoint piece of support for the GTVA having more destroyers than perhaps the main campaign indicated.
-
Never said nothing about the number of destroyers since i happen to agree that there must of been more destroyers or ship of a diferent class then mentioned in the main campaign.
God I love debates. Can you guess why?
-
Never said nothing about the number of destroyers since i happen to agree that there must of been more destroyers or ship of a diferent class then mentioned in the main campaign.
Never said you did. what's your point, caller?
-
The point was that at least to me it seems that some of the mebers around here seem to be very hard tough on things like cannon and personal ideas about one thing or another which refers to the FS main campaign yet when some of these facts tend to not match what you think is cannon you then tend to be somehow turn it around or at least give the impression that some things should not be taken as canon.
I have a feeling i'm giving another spelling hurt to someone.
-
The point was that at least to me it seems that some of the mebers around here seem to be very hard tough on things like cannon and personal ideas about one thing or another which refers to the FS main campaign yet when some of these facts tend to not match what you think is cannon you then tend to be somehow turn it around or at least give the impression that some things should not be taken as canon.
I have a feeling i'm giving another spelling hurt to someone.
There are people, myself included, who object to saying canon is 'a mistake' because it doesn't suit some persons' agenda.
However, that is a seperate issue from the multiplayer missions, because these are effectively a seperate game - you don't take, say, Call of Duty multiplayer to be representative of the actual war 'story' of the game, nor do you regard RTS skirmish multiplayer as indicating the same.
Canon is absolute for single player. That much is obvious and self-evidence. The question is, should multiplayer be held to the same level, given that it has a rather different purpose to a story-telling main campaign? Note that none of this is at the stage cherry picking bits to reject from multiplayer, as with the aforementioned likes of, say, 'the Sobek can't have 6000 crew' or 'the maxim is a mistake'. It's 'does this match with singleplayer, and is it even intended to, or is it just a piece of standalone fun'.
-
I've always held the opinion that as long as there is nothing blatantly contradicting what we already know, then it's not a problem. My own opinion is that the NTF is made entirely of captured ships, there's a possibility that they might have captured a shipyard somewhere in their home systems, but if they did, it was no doubt dedicated to producing smaller ships like fighters and bombers to maintain supply. I expect they would have been very hard pushed to produce even a single cruiser.
As for Hecates, as long as Canon doesn't say that 'Only the GTVA had them', then theres no reason why the NTF didn't, however, even then, you can make excuses like 'Command didn't want to make public the loss of such a new and dangerous ship'.
It IS a game first, and a story second, but with a good story, you can put just about anything in the game that doesn't vastly contradict canon. Ship with 50 beam cannon = Bad, Hecate in the hands of NTF = Meh.
-
However, that is a seperate issue from the multiplayer missions, because these are effectively a seperate game - you don't take, say, Call of Duty multiplayer to be representative of the actual war 'story' of the game, nor do you regard RTS skirmish multiplayer as indicating the same.
Canon is absolute for single player. That much is obvious and self-evidence. The question is, should multiplayer be held to the same level, given that it has a rather different purpose to a story-telling main campaign? Note that none of this is at the stage cherry picking bits to reject from multiplayer, as with the aforementioned likes of, say, 'the Sobek can't have 6000 crew' or 'the maxim is a mistake'. It's 'does this match with singleplayer, and is it even intended to, or is it just a piece of standalone fun'.
Why does it have a "rather different purpose" from the main campaign? I still don't see where any of this is coming from. Any story fault you can find with the Volition MP missions has a counterpart with the SP campaign missions, and in any case, there is nothing that even remotely contradicts events in the SP campaign. This "focus on gameplay" argument is nonsense since that's also equally true of the campaign missions. You could make a case for that with the tech room descriptions or reference bible, but the SP campaign is not primarily "story telling" any more than the multiplayer missions are.
As for the other games, most of them don't have co-op modes. The ones that have specially designed co-op maps usually complement the SP story and often have detailed plots to go with them, like SCCT for example. FS2 is in the same category with its co-op missions.
This is the first time I've seen anyone suggesting that the Volition MP missions are not canon and it seems a bit strange coming from otherwise hardline canon supporters. There used to be all kinds of debates over story-related issues at the FRED Zone forums a few years ago (and even at the VBB, to a lesser extent) where the MP story events were fully accounted for. The thought that multiplayer isn't canon would have been absurd back then, and I'm not sure why so many people think differently now.
-
However, that is a seperate issue from the multiplayer missions, because these are effectively a seperate game - you don't take, say, Call of Duty multiplayer to be representative of the actual war 'story' of the game, nor do you regard RTS skirmish multiplayer as indicating the same.
Canon is absolute for single player. That much is obvious and self-evidence. The question is, should multiplayer be held to the same level, given that it has a rather different purpose to a story-telling main campaign? Note that none of this is at the stage cherry picking bits to reject from multiplayer, as with the aforementioned likes of, say, 'the Sobek can't have 6000 crew' or 'the maxim is a mistake'. It's 'does this match with singleplayer, and is it even intended to, or is it just a piece of standalone fun'.
Why does it have a "rather different purpose" from the main campaign? I still don't see where any of this is coming from. Any story fault you can find with the Volition MP missions has a counterpart with the SP campaign missions, and in any case, there is nothing that even remotely contradicts events in the SP campaign. This "focus on gameplay" argument is nonsense since that's also equally true of the campaign missions. You could make a case for that with the tech room descriptions or reference bible, but the SP campaign is not primarily "story telling" any more than the multiplayer missions are.
As for the other games, most of them don't have co-op modes. The ones that have specially designed co-op maps usually complement the SP story, and some even have detailed backstories to go with them, like SCCT for example. FS2 is in the same category with its co-op missions.
This is the first time I've seen anyone suggesting that the Volition MP missions are not canon and it seems a bit strange coming from otherwise hardline canon supporters. There used to be all kinds of debates over story-related issues at the FRED Zone forums a few years ago (and even at the VBB, to a lesser extent) where the MP story events were fully accounted for. The thought that multiplayer isn't canon would have been absurd back then, and I'm not sure why so many people think differently now.
Because the multiplayer section has the purpose of, well, multiplayer enjoyment; it's not predicative of prior knowledge in the same way as singleplayer missions are. And the singleplayer is set up to tell the storyline; that's the whole purpose of playing it!
Due to the simple fact that the player is so dominant in singleplayer, i.e. alpha one syndrome, the (co-op) multiplayer requires a different setup to balance it. It might not be realistic or desired within the context of singleplayer to have xx NTF warships in a certain place (as it contradicts, say, the realistic NTF size), but it might be necessary for multiplayer to be the right difficulty for >1 humans.
And also, because it's multiplayer, it may be that designers do stuff not possible due to story constraints. For example, maybe they would have liked to have the player fighting a Hecate in SP, but the storyline made that infeasible; but why not shove it into MP?
I think it's (canon status of MP) worthy of consideration at the very least.
-
The SP campaign is set up to tell the storyline and the MP missions aren't? That is a rather strange perspective. As I've said before, FS2 is a game above all else, so the purpose of the campaign is to provide a fun gameplay experience, just like the multiplayer missions. The story and anything else is secondary to that. You can't say that some things were done to improve gameplay and can be disregarded for story purposes.
It's interesting that you bring up Alpha 1's supremacy, since that's probably the best example of story realism being ditched in favor of gameplay. Volition isn't doing anything differently in MP when they balance things for multiple players. If the SP campaign was really set up to tell the story over everything else as you claim, they would have just put the player in observer mode at all times and let the AIs fight it out in every mission. :D
There is no reason that the player couldn't in theory fight a Hecate during the campaign. It's certainly compatible with the story.
I would say that the canonicity of the MP missions is more than "worthy of consideration." It should be a foregone conclusion, as far as this goes.
-
From a logistical standpoint, the NTF fought a war they couldn't win.
I beg to differ. They were on the verge of winning before the Colossus showed up.
-
Yes, but that's not logistical, is it now? It would have been a political victory; the GTVA would have folded not because they lacked the means to continue, but the will. If the GTVA had the political will to prosecute the war as long as necessary they would have eventually ground the NTF down to nothing.
-
Yes, but that's not logistical, is it now? It would have been a political victory; the GTVA would have folded not because they lacked the means to continue, but the will. If the GTVA had the political will to prosecute the war as long as necessary they would have eventually ground the NTF down to nothing.
That's exactly what the NTF wanted, an acknologement of its political dominance of its three sistems, there even a line that admiral Petrarch says that unless they do something the GTVA would be forced to admit the NTF as a political body.
-
The SP campaign is set up to tell the storyline and the MP missions aren't? That is a rather strange perspective. As I've said before, FS2 is a game above all else, so the purpose of the campaign is to provide a fun gameplay experience, just like the multiplayer missions. The story and anything else is secondary to that. You can't say that some things were done to improve gameplay and can be disregarded for story purposes.
How many people bought FS2 and didn't play multiplayer?
You'll note I didn't say, I said it was possible. Look at, say, Halo co-op; does that mean there were 2 Master Chiefs? Of course not.
It's interesting that you bring up Alpha 1's supremacy, since that's probably the best example of story realism being ditched in favor of gameplay. Volition isn't doing anything differently in MP when they balance things for multiple players. If the SP campaign was really set up to tell the story over everything else as you claim, they would have just put the player in observer mode at all times and let the AIs fight it out in every mission. :D
I'd say it's as much an example of technical limitations in writing AI. Now you're being silly, anways. If the single player game isn't setup to tell the story, why not just have a bundle of standalone missions?
There is no reason that the player couldn't in theory fight a Hecate during the campaign. It's certainly compatible with the story.
I would say that the canonicity of the MP missions is more than "worthy of consideration." It should be a foregone conclusion, as far as this goes.
Well, I believe you've just made an assumption there in that 'it's certainly compatible with the story'. And I believe Goober already pointed out an inconsistency with regards to a Deimos 'launching' fighters. Or, for example, even the Templar contains an inconsistency, referring to 'Scarab stealth prototypes', when the Scarab is already the name of an escape pod class.
I believe it's worthy, again, of an examination as to whether compromises may have been made to balance multiplayer gameplay. Is that really that unreasonable?
-
How many people bought FS2 and didn't play multiplayer?
There are also plenty of people who bought FS2 and never looked in the tech room intel section. Does that mean that the material there is questionable?
You'll note I didn't say, I said it was possible. Look at, say, Halo co-op; does that mean there were 2 Master Chiefs? Of course not.
Okay, but in the FS2 context, there is certainly nothing wrong with having multiple player-controlled ships or anything else the MP co-op missions bring to the table.
I'd say it's as much an example of technical limitations in writing AI. Now you're being silly, anways. If the single player game isn't setup to tell the story, why not just have a bundle of standalone missions?
I think you're the one being silly by making nebulous statements about the campaign being a story and the MP missions not being so. :p The point I'm making is that you can't just say that things were added in for gameplay balance and are therefore not canon, because that is also often the case with the campaign missions. Just about any canon material could be disputed if we started thinking along lines like that.
Well, I believe you've just made an assumption there in that 'it's certainly compatible with the story'. And I believe Goober already pointed out an inconsistency with regards to a Deimos 'launching' fighters. Or, for example, even the Templar contains an inconsistency, referring to 'Scarab stealth prototypes', when the Scarab is already the name of an escape pod class.
I mean, there is no obvious reason why it shouldn't be (it could work in theory, like I said). Anyway my assumption is better than what you were suggesting, that Volition may have put it into a multiplayer mission for no other reason than that it wouldn't fit in any singleplayer one. :p
Regarding the name inconsistency, it's no different from the GVFr Nephthys in the final mission conflicting with the GVS Nephthys class. That doesn't mean we should disregard the entire FS2 campaign as non-canon. As for the Deimos launching fighters, could you refresh my memory on where that occurs? I can't seem to remember it. Although I'm not sure that it's any worse than the tech room explicitly saying that the Mentu has anti-capital beams when it clearly does not.
The fact is that there are minor contradictions in all of the Volition material. That is no reason to discount everything they are contained in.
I believe it's worthy, again, of an examination as to whether compromises may have been made to balance multiplayer gameplay. Is that really that unreasonable?
Yes, I do think that is unreasonable if you're restricting your analysis to multiplayer missions only. If you're including the campaign missions and any other Volition material, then there is nothing wrong with that.
-
How many people bought FS2 and didn't play multiplayer?
There are also plenty of people who bought FS2 and never looked in the tech room intel section. Does that mean that the material there is questionable?
IMHO yes. For me, the order of canon priority is the single-player campaign, then the tech room, then the multiplayer missions. This is why I tend to ignore the "only 24 of these cruisers" comment about the Aeolus; from the way it's treated in the single-player campaign, it's clear that Volition meant for the Aeolus to be the next-generation cruiser. Whoever wrote the tech entry merely made a mistake based on an incomplete grasp of its tactical capabilities.
I think you're the one being silly by making nebulous statements about the campaign being a story and the MP missions not being so. :p The point I'm making is that you can't just say that things were added in for gameplay balance and are therefore not canon, because that is also often the case with the campaign missions. Just about any canon material could be disputed if we started thinking along lines like that.
I don't think this is an unreasonable position. Consider that :v: probably had a team of story designers sit down and hash out the plot for the main campaign. They had to outline the campaign's plot, and then they had to coordinate with the people who designed the models, wrote the code (e.g. nebula, supernova), rendered the cutscenes and cbanis, FREDded the missions, wrote scripts for the voice actors, and so on. A lot of thought went into the single-player campaign. In contrast, the multiplayer missions were probably just the result of the lead mission designer telling his minions, "Okay, just make a bunch of cool missions where you get to blow a lot of stuff up."
I don't mean to say that none of the material outside of the single-player campaign should be considered canon. I just think that certain parts of the game should be ranked more strongly than others. We already ignore much of the inconsistencies in the FS2 intro cutscene, even though it's canon as well.
-
IMHO yes. For me, the order of canon priority is the single-player campaign, then the tech room, then the multiplayer missions. This is why I tend to ignore the "only 24 of these cruisers" comment about the Aeolus; from the way it's treated in the single-player campaign, it's clear that Volition meant for the Aeolus to be the next-generation cruiser. Whoever wrote the tech entry merely made a mistake based on an incomplete grasp of its tactical capabilities.
I also find that number a little dodgy (in my campaign I added in some crap about a new, cheaper Aeolus revision being introduced, so I could use more than two new ones in my own missions), but it's hardly because people don't look in the tech room, as aldo was suggesting with the MP missions. I mean, if people don't want to play the MP missions, that's their problem. :D
I don't think this is an unreasonable position. Consider that :v: probably had a team of story designers sit down and hash out the plot for the main campaign. They had to outline the campaign's plot, and then they had to coordinate with the people who designed the models, wrote the code (e.g. nebula, supernova), rendered the cutscenes and cbanis, FREDded the missions, wrote scripts for the voice actors, and so on. A lot of thought went into the single-player campaign. In contrast, the multiplayer missions were probably just the result of the lead mission designer telling his minions, "Okay, just make a bunch of cool missions where you get to blow a lot of stuff up."
But there isn't any evidence at all to suggest this. On the contrary, I would argue that several of the co-op missions are of the same level of quality as the SP campaign missions, indicating that there was probably just as much thought put into them.
I don't mean to say that none of the material outside of the single-player campaign should be considered canon. I just think that certain parts of the game should be ranked more strongly than others. We already ignore much of the inconsistencies in the FS2 intro cutscene, even though it's canon as well.
I agree there - this makes perfect sense to me - but remember that you can also extend this reasoning to different aspects of the SP campaign. The 6000 crew of the Sobek, for example, can be considered less canonical in this sense than, say, the destruction of the Colossus.
-
But there isn't any evidence at all to suggest this. On the contrary, I would argue that several of the co-op missions are of the same level of quality as the SP campaign missions, indicating that there was probably just as much thought put into them.
*smacks CP*
Because they were FREDded by the same mission designers who worked on the main campaign, that's why. :p
Don't confuse quality with canonicity. They're professionally-made missions, just like the ones in the main campaign. However it's quite likely that the multiplayer missions did not have the same thought and effort put into their back stories. Conversely, the mission designers had a lot more freedom to fudge the plots behind the multiplayer missions.
I don't mean to say that none of the material outside of the single-player campaign should be considered canon. I just think that certain parts of the game should be ranked more strongly than others. We already ignore much of the inconsistencies in the FS2 intro cutscene, even though it's canon as well.
I agree there - this makes perfect sense to me - but remember that you can also extend this reasoning to different aspects of the SP campaign. The 6000 crew of the Sobek, for example, can be considered less canonical in this sense than, say, the destruction of the Colossus.
And I agree with that too. :nod:
-
*smacks CP*
Because they were FREDded by the same mission designers who worked on the main campaign, that's why.
Don't confuse quality with canonicity. They're professionally-made missions, just like the ones in the main campaign. However it's quite likely that the multiplayer missions did not have the same thought and effort put into their back stories. Conversely, the mission designers had a lot more freedom to fudge the plots behind the multiplayer missions.
Again, why is it "quite likely?" You guys keep repeating this without backing it up. :p What characteristics are unique to the MP missions that make this likely in your view?
And I agree with that too. :nod:
Ah, then there is nothing left to argue about. :D
-
You are encouraged during SP to look int the techroom several times. So the Tech Room IS part of the SP wether you like it or not..and it too has some OBVIOUS mistakes (like the Mentu's missing beam cannon) and some possible ones (Aeolus numbers).
Is it so hard to acknowledge taht if mistakes can be found in the tech room, then it is possible that a few of them might allso found their way into single-player...maby in a unimportant debrief...maby in a mission text..
I know I recall seeng wrong head ani's on 2 ocasions in the SP..so mistakes can obviously happen. Yet some outright dismiss even the POSSIBILITY of a mistake.
Is the Sobek crew number wrong? Maby..maby not.. but it surely is a strange number.
Is the Maxim range a fluke? Maby..probably not, but it really doesn't make logical sense in the FS universe.
I choose to treat things that contradict (or are illogical in) the game universe as not thrustworthy.
-
You say it's a strange number, but you can't justify that without using your own assumptions.
-
You are encouraged during SP to look int the techroom several times.
Hardly. The TechRoom is mentioned twice throughout the whole campaign; by Loukakis when introducing the Subach, Tempest, and Rockeye, and again by Petrarch when introducing the Rakshasa and Mara.
And yes, the TechRoom is known for having errors in it. It did that in FS1 as well. Most of the errors are reasonably minor or insignificant (84 turrets vs 63 on the Collie, for example), though it's probably more acceptable to go off whatever the player sees in action during the campaign or is told in briefings than what is said in the TechRoom.
Yet some outright dismiss even the POSSIBILITY of a mistake.
We're not denying that mistakes happen. We've seen the intro, Collie cutscene, the GTA Monitor, a Mentu preceeded by GTC (King's Gambit CB), etc. etc. They're all minor things though. I would assume that :v: got the significant things right, since the Maxim, Mentu, and Collie remained the same after two patches.
-
You say it's a strange number, but you can't justify that without using your own assumptions.
No, I can justify it...when looking the bigger picture with all ship classes, the internal volume, weaponry/fighters and crew numbers don't add up.
-
You say it's a strange number, but you can't justify that without using your own assumptions.
No, I can justify it...when looking the bigger picture with all ship classes, the internal volume, weaponry/fighters and crew numbers don't add up.
You've just defined it for yourself there, assuming - ooh - all the crew 'counts' for fighters, weaponry, and the internal structure. That's what I meant by 'without using your own assumptions'; the arguement you make against it is based entirely on what you think, not anything said or shown in the game.
-
That's exactly what the NTF wanted, an acknologement of its political dominance of its three sistems, there even a line that admiral Petrarch says that unless they do something the GTVA would be forced to admit the NTF as a political body.
That's also completely beside my point. The NTF was doomed from the word go, logistically and hence militarily. Their only hope lay in a lack of intestinal fortitude among the GTVA General Assembly.
-
No, what I said was that the NTF was aiming for a political victory like you said. How they can be doomed logistically? They have shipyards to replenish their material losses and enough forces to defend their 3 main systems very effectively, in the hands of a capable admiral like Bosch, they would be able to achieve victory. The only problem that I see is that if they spread their forces or supply lines too thin, then they're dead. Of course, I'm saying this not counting the Colossus because the flying brick already assures victory for the GTVA.
-
The NTF was created to raid Vasudan systems where there were Ancients relics, so the inevitable consequence would be that they'd be overstretched and operating in hostile territory. Of course, you could play hypotheticals about a simply rebellious NTF, but in that case how many of the top level people would have defected to them? (it seems to me pretty likely the command staff knew Bosch' plan, for example, and I'm sure they'd be quite high level and thus take a few important ships with them).
-
No, what I said was that the NTF was aiming for a political victory like you said. How they can be doomed logistically? They have shipyards to replenish their material losses and enough forces to defend their 3 main systems very effectively, in the hands of a capable admiral like Bosch, they would be able to achieve victory.
Because, quite simply, they have three systems. The GTVA has 20-odd systems, with all that goes with that: greater industrial capacity, greater population, greater resources of all kinds, as well as a significantly larger fleet composed of ships of a more recent vintage. The proof the NTF can't win is in the disappearance of newer ships from their ranks. They could neither repair nor replace them; they fell back upon older craft, of which they have greater stockpiles and so can keep going longer, but they lack the ability to sustain them indefinitely.
-
Although, do we actually know if the NTF even had 'new' ships (beyond the obvious Deimos)?
-
They had small numbers of the newer fightercraft left; some Aeoli(spelling?) too.
-
Because, quite simply, they have three systems. The GTVA has 20-odd systems, with all that goes with that: greater industrial capacity, greater population, greater resources of all kinds, as well as a significantly larger fleet composed of ships of a more recent vintage. The proof the NTF can't win is in the disappearance of newer ships from their ranks. They could neither repair nor replace them; they fell back upon older craft, of which they have greater stockpiles and so can keep going longer, but they lack the ability to sustain them indefinitely.
You're forgetting the jump nodes. As long as you can only enter or exit a system through a single point, you can play Horatio at the Bridge and fight off the GTVA all day.
-
Because, quite simply, they have three systems. The GTVA has 20-odd systems, with all that goes with that: greater industrial capacity, greater population, greater resources of all kinds, as well as a significantly larger fleet composed of ships of a more recent vintage. The proof the NTF can't win is in the disappearance of newer ships from their ranks. They could neither repair nor replace them; they fell back upon older craft, of which they have greater stockpiles and so can keep going longer, but they lack the ability to sustain them indefinitely.
You're forgetting the jump nodes. As long as you can only enter or exit a system through a single point, you can play Horatio at the Bridge and fight off the GTVA all day.
Even WW1 trench warfare couldn't be sustained indefinately.
-
Because, quite simply, they have three systems. The GTVA has 20-odd systems, with all that goes with that: greater industrial capacity, greater population, greater resources of all kinds, as well as a significantly larger fleet composed of ships of a more recent vintage. The proof the NTF can't win is in the disappearance of newer ships from their ranks. They could neither repair nor replace them; they fell back upon older craft, of which they have greater stockpiles and so can keep going longer, but they lack the ability to sustain them indefinitely.
You're forgetting the jump nodes. As long as you can only enter or exit a system through a single point, you can play Horatio at the Bridge and fight off the GTVA all day.
Even WW1 trench warfare couldn't be sustained indefinately.
Yes but in this case you just have to make it bloody enough so that the enemy wont want to fight anymore.
-
You say it's a strange number, but you can't justify that without using your own assumptions.
No, I can justify it...when looking the bigger picture with all ship classes, the internal volume, weaponry/fighters and crew numbers don't add up.
You've just defined it for yourself there, assuming - ooh - all the crew 'counts' for fighters, weaponry, and the internal structure. That's what I meant by 'without using your own assumptions'; the arguement you make against it is based entirely on what you think, not anything said or shown in the game.
I beg to differ - the length, thus the size and volume is known. Weapon arrays on capships are also known, as is the number of fighters they carry and miniumum required pilots (2x150)
The exact number of fighter crew is not known, but actually, even taking the whole fighter complement out of the equation, the crew numbers STILL don't add up.
-
You say it's a strange number, but you can't justify that without using your own assumptions.
No, I can justify it...when looking the bigger picture with all ship classes, the internal volume, weaponry/fighters and crew numbers don't add up.
You've just defined it for yourself there, assuming - ooh - all the crew 'counts' for fighters, weaponry, and the internal structure. That's what I meant by 'without using your own assumptions'; the arguement you make against it is based entirely on what you think, not anything said or shown in the game.
I beg to differ - the length, thus the size and volume is known. Weapon arrays on capships are also known, as is the number of fighters they carry and miniumum required pilots (2x150)
The exact number of fighter crew is not known, but actually, even taking the whole fighter complement out of the equation, the crew numbers STILL don't add up.
Length != internal volume; internal volume is therefore... not known. Turret crew - not known. Engineering and other subsystem crew - not known. Flight support crew - not known. Pilot to fighter/bomber ratios - not known (who says they don't have rotation fighters?).
-
WEll regardless of how many crewmen they can fit into a ship for all I know they could fit 30.000 crewmen into a Sobek. They sure as hell can on a modern aicraft carrier if it would be fariing refugees or something like that.
But anywai did quik look over on the Wiki and found an aproximation of the hips the NTF had during the rebelion.
32-Cruisers
10-Corvettes
10-11-Destroyers :eek2: :wtf:
Now if these figures are just from the fleets of 3 star sistems then what in the name of whatever gods the fishhugger's pray to, is the aproximated number of warships in service during the war??
-
WEll regardless of how many crewmen they can fit into a ship for all I know they could fit 30.000 crewmen into a Sobek. They sure as hell can on a modern aicraft carrier if it would be fariing refugees or something like that.
But anywai did quik look over on the Wiki and found an aproximation of the hips the NTF had during the rebelion.
32-Cruisers
10-Corvettes
10-11-Destroyers :eek2: :wtf:
Now if these figures are just from the fleets of 3 star sistems then what in the name of whatever gods the fishhugger's pray to, is the aproximated number of warships in service during the war??
You're forgetting that some ships defected to the NTF from the GTVA. Possibly quite a lot. Also, IIRC the NTF pushed out from their 'core' systems; for example, in the beginning of FS2 the NTF is in combat with the GTVA in Alpha Centauri, Epsilon Pegasi and Deneb.
An interesting quote is, though;
36 hours ago, the NTF launched a full-scale offensive in Epsilon Pegasi, taking the GTVA 6th Fleet by surprise. Commanding his forces from the NTD Repulse, Rear Admiral Koth leads the rebel advance. With 75 percent of our forces in this system decimated, the regional death toll since the incursion now exceeds 80,000.
Unless we act quickly, a decisive rebel victory is imminent.
-
well yeah but still you must remember that they also had to deal with the GTVA forces still loyal to the GTVA also i do not believe that that many rebels managed to join with bosch because the GTVA was always around. after the initial shock passed on.
But still in general the main forcet that the NTF had were the forces from the Polaris sirius and regulus sistems if i'm not mistaken. Well most of them with the defecting warships completing the fleets the NTF could bring to the battle field. Lets not foget that at least some of the warships that defected to the NTF were mainly deimos corvettes and cruisers and posibli one destroyer or so from the 6=th fleet!
Also is it safe to asume that the standard GTVA fleet has about 2 destroyers per sistem with the acompaniing corvettes and cruisers.
-
I beg to differ - the length, thus the size and volume is known. Weapon arrays on capships are also known, as is the number of fighters they carry and miniumum required pilots (2x150)
The exact number of fighter crew is not known, but actually, even taking the whole fighter complement out of the equation, the crew numbers STILL don't add up.
Length != internal volume; internal volume is therefore... not known. Turret crew - not known. Engineering and other subsystem crew - not known. Flight support crew - not known. Pilot to fighter/bomber ratios - not known (who says they don't have rotation fighters?).
If you know the lenght you can calculate the internal volume since you know the shape of the ship (if you're any good at math that is).
Turret crew - not known, but there is no reason for laser turret to require more crew on a Orion than it would on a Deimos. thus the crew-per-tueerrt-type numbr would be the same for all classes
As I said - fighters and their crew don't even come into the equation. Even without them the ratios don't add up. Include them and it's actually even worse.
-
:sigh:
The internal volume only works if you assume it is an entirely hollow object. Which it blatantly bloody well isn't. Even then, it's an irregularly shaped object, and you have to work out the level of armour plating to calculate the inner bounds.
Turret crew; there are all manner of possible reasons from differing levels of automation to complexity & maintenance. Are we forgetting the Orion has 16 turrets, and the Deimos 26 (Sobek 22)? i'm not quite sure why an Orion needs more turret crew than an Orion for this to work (unless you're strictly using made up crew-to-subsystem ratios), but if you want a reason - Orion turrets are older and less reliable / less automated. For example.
So, all unknowns.
-
WEll regardless of how many crewmen they can fit into a ship for all I know they could fit 30.000 crewmen into a Sobek. They sure as hell can on a modern aicraft carrier if it would be fariing refugees or something like that.
But anywai did quik look over on the Wiki and found an aproximation of the hips the NTF had during the rebelion.
32-Cruisers
10-Corvettes
10-11-Destroyers :eek2: :wtf:
Now if these figures are just from the fleets of 3 star sistems then what in the name of whatever gods the fishhugger's pray to, is the aproximated number of warships in service during the war??
This is just the number of ships that we know during the course of the game, since the rebellion had already been going for 18 months it safe to assume that the actual number of ships the NTF had were higher then this but even with this numbers they could have held their 3 main sistems for a veeery long time, also it's interesting to note the unusual high number of destroyers.
-
Destroyers are more likely to survive then other ships however, with their integral fighter cover and greater durablity. Also smaller craft are likely to end up sacrificing themselves to protect their destroyer, slightly inflating their casualities. The high number of destroyers probably represents survivors from previous "waves" of mobilization. These may be a bit beat-up or have damaged aerospace groups.
-
WEll regardless of how many crewmen they can fit into a ship for all I know they could fit 30.000 crewmen into a Sobek. They sure as hell can on a modern aicraft carrier if it would be fariing refugees or something like that.
But anywai did quik look over on the Wiki and found an aproximation of the hips the NTF had during the rebelion.
32-Cruisers
10-Corvettes
10-11-Destroyers :eek2: :wtf:
Now if these figures are just from the fleets of 3 star sistems then what in the name of whatever gods the fishhugger's pray to, is the aproximated number of warships in service during the war??
This is just the number of ships that we know during the course of the game, since the rebellion had already been going for 18 months it safe to assume that the actual number of ships the NTF had were higher then this but even with this numbers they could have held their 3 main sistems for a veeery long time, also it's interesting to note the unusual high number of destroyers.
I can't believe that the number of NTF corvettes is equal to the destroyers' one.It's impossible!
And what are these questions about subsys-ratio-crew etc.?
Maybe it's a story plot "bug" FS has.I can't believe that in 2370 turrets are still controlled by crew.Neither some modern ones are!
-
That's because corvettes are newer ships and they would be assigned first to the most important sistems (Beta Aquilae and Delta Serpentis) so there wouldnt be a high number in the possesion of the NTF.
-
That's because corvettes are newer ships and they would be assigned first to the most important sistems (Beta Aquilae and Delta Serpentis) so there wouldnt be a high number in the possesion of the NTF.
That's not necessary true.In the Freedom shipyards in Polaris Bosch made the Iceni,a "super-corvette".Why they shouldn't create Deimos too?
I don't know if someone talked about this before,but NTF ships with <bad> names,like the NTC Refute and the NTD Repulse may be NTF constructed ships(or ships under construction then captured by the NTF,so the rebels have changed their names).The rebels controlled 3 systems,maybe they have constructed one or two Orions,up to three Deimos and even more Aeolus(the NTF has too many Aeolus cruisers for its dimensions,we know that there are 24 of them,but after seeing the Mylae,the Hellespont,the Saharan,the Liberty,the Epigoni,and considering that other cruisers with non-specificated class can be Aeolus...well..)or Leviathans(and,ok,Fenris too).
-
Yeah, I agree. And I think that the shipyards under their control focused more on capital ship production than on small craft but because its a new ship there would be many around. Why does everybody says the NTF is lacking in technology? The more advanced fighters/bombers of the GTVA (ex:Perseus) were introduced only in the course of the game so for the most part of the conflict both sides had an equal field.
-
Actualy thats not true the rebels never had large numbers of Hercules MK II neither did they have large numbers of Mirmadons for that matter. Most of the time they just came at you with Herc's MK I and Loki's . But i must admit that they were or most of the time on equal footing in terms of tech with the GTVA. In fact if considered from a destroyers POW they were superior because they had a large number of the much older yet more powerull Orion class destroyers which for all they AAAF weakness and smaller fighterbay were far superior to the Hecate for a beam weaopons POW.
This has led me to believe that more then 60% of the actual casualtis suffered by the GTVA in terms of capships came from beam fire rather then bommber or heavy fighter attacks.
If that is the case then that would imply a level of sophistication in the tactics far superior to any tactic used by the GTVA command.
-
Maybe it's a story plot "bug" FS has.I can't believe that in 2370 turrets are still controlled by crew.Neither some modern ones are!
There are still maintenance, target assignment, etc duties associated even if the turret tracks the actual targets all by itself. The very fact of 10,000 crew on a destroyer makes it pretty apparent that manual labour / control is needed somewhere on the ship.
-
Actually that's not true, the rebels never had large numbers of Hercules MK II['s], nor did they have large numbers of Myrmidons for that matter. Most of the time they just came at you with Herc's MK I['s] and Loki's . But I must admit that they were or most of the time on equal footing [most of the time] in terms of tech with the GTVA [in terms of tech].
I think most people can agree with that.
In fact if considered from a destroyer POV they were superior because they had a large number of the much older, yet more powerful, Orion class destroyers: which for all theyir AAAF weakness and smaller fighterbay were far superior to the Hecate for a beam weapons POV .
How do we know that the NTF had more Orions than the GTVA had?
This has led me to believe that more then 60% of the actual casualties suffered by the GTVA in terms of capships came from beam fire rather then bomber or heavy fighter attacks.
And how did everything you've said before now backed this up? :confused:
If that is the case then that would imply a level of sophistication in the tactics far superior to any tactic used by the GTVA command.
Assuming everything you said was true, how would it display better tactics and not better selection
-
And of course that fails to realise that it's the GT ->V<- A and not GTA. Vacuum cleaner FTW!!!
EDIT:
In response to the reply below, that's my point!
-
Did anyone say GTA?
-
Yada, yada...
As I said - Hecate has approximately 12 times the volume of a Deimos and the same number of turrets.
The 10:6 crew ratio is hard to belive given the HUGE volume difference even if the Hecate was a pure warship type (no fighters). It's even more redicolus with the fighters counted in.
This cannot be denied! (not even by you)
-
I think its possible that the NTF had more Orions but thats because the GTVA had more Hecates.
-
Yeah, I agree. And I think that the shipyards under their control focused more on capital ship production than on small craft but because its a new ship there would be many around. Why does everybody says the NTF is lacking in technology? The more advanced fighters/bombers of the GTVA (ex:Perseus) were introduced only in the course of the game so for the most part of the conflict both sides had an equal field.
They lacked Hecates (for better or worse), they had a very small number of Herc IIs (predeployed in the game, the 107th had not just finished transitioning to them, they were equipped before you got there) and had a small number of Myrmidons too. The Boanerges predates your first flight of it. The NTF did not have the Perseus (although it is worthwhile to realize that the Perseus is not necessarily brand new and while considered a "new" fighter has probably been in squadron service for at least a month before you got there), Artemis (maybe?), and definitely not the Eryines.
-
The Perseus is really new, it doesnt have much service time since it was introduced on the end of the conflict. The Eryines was only in service with the SOC but it seemed to be on opeval with them, it was only much later that it was deployed for the fleet. The bombers are also new but its said in the techroom that all Artemis are serving with the 2nd and 3rd battle groups and the Boanerges have been assigned to elite bomber squadrons in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Terran battle groups so that seems to show that there are only limited number of these craft. It would appear that most of the fighters and bombers that the GTVA were using before the game were the Herc IIs, Myrmidons, Zeus and to some good extent older crafts. They lacked Hecates because there doesnt seem to be many of them around, my guess is that the ship is a even newer desgin then the Deimos and because it takes more time to build a destroyer there shouldnt be too many of them (we only see 2 on the main campaign).
About the Vasudans tech level, it would seem that all of their ships (except the Ptah) have already been in service for a good time.
-
Yada, yada...
As I said - Hecate has approximately 12 times the volume of a Deimos and the same number of turrets.
The 10:6 crew ratio is hard to belive given the HUGE volume difference even if the Hecate was a pure warship type (no fighters). It's even more redicolus with the fighters counted in.
This cannot be denied! (not even by you)
Oh, for goodness sake. Did you read what I said? Obviously not.
You cannot calculate the internal volume due to a) the irregular shape of vessels, b) the unknowns of the thickness of the hull and c) the unknowns of the internal structure and which mechanical, cargo or components are present. For example, a destroyer might be intended for a vastly longer tour of duty than a corvette, and hence have a vastly larger cargo store for supplies.
What you've done, is a) calculate the volume of the highly irregular destroyer class (versus the much more regular corvette shape) and then b) assume the destroyer represents some sort of maximum crew cap.
This cannot be denied etc etc blah exclamation mark capitals soforth.
-
You err sir.. It is a matter of simple deduction - if a Collie has 12 times the volume ofa lucifer than a Heacte has 12 times (ROUGHLY) the TOTAL volume of a Deimos. Just how big a percentage of that is usefull volume is another matter, but you don't design warship to have a lot us useless volume, now do you?
Let's assume there is a vessel the size of a Orion that is a pure heavy hitter and carrier no fighters whatsoever. what would you estimate it's crew complement?
What would you estimate a cruiser complement is? (destruction of the Orff mentioned 120 methinks or several dozen..can't remember which)
Just how much does it take you to see the lack of logic between size of ships and crew complement?
-
Why estimate when we have official values?
-
becoause you don't have an estimate of a destroyer-sized NOT-carrier-warship maby?
-
becoause you don't have an estimate of a destroyer-sized NOT-carrier-warship maby?
what in the name of holy **** does that have to do with anything?
-
You err sir.. It is a matter of simple deduction - if a Collie has 12 times the volume ofa lucifer than a Heacte has 12 times (ROUGHLY) the TOTAL volume of a Deimos. Just how big a percentage of that is usefull volume is another matter, but you don't design warship to have a lot us useless volume, now do you?
Okay, basic design understanding time! Useless=Armor Fuel Supplies Weapons Powergeneration Engines Everythingelsenotcrewspaces. No. Just no.
Please note the Colossus' speed relative to a destroyer, then its size and superior durablity. Please consider that in must have vastly larger amounts of interior space spent on engines then a destroyer. Please take into consideration its much greater density of beam cannon to surface area.
Also please note that the Hecate is not 12 times the volume of the Deimos. That's straight bullcrap. Six, perhaps eight at most; the irregular shape (which you keep dismissing) means it is nowhere near as much as you say. Six-eight times the space is moving at a speed slightly less then half. Three times the engines minimum. Probably more, considering while it may be six-eight times the space it is probably twelve times the mass.
Let's assume there is a vessel the size of a Orion that is a pure heavy hitter and carrier no fighters whatsoever. what would you estimate it's crew complement?
Leave the damn battleships out of it, they're irrevelant to the discussion.
-
becoause you don't have an estimate of a destroyer-sized NOT-carrier-warship maby?
what in the name of holy **** does that have to do with anything?
It does.. A ship like that would have to have more than a sobek but less than a hecate thus demonstrating the totaly redicolous crew numbers.
Could you really immagine a Orion-sized Deimos type ship with only 8000 crew compared to Dimos?
Cruiser to Corvette to That-kind-of--ship to Destroyer.
think man..the crew numbers just don't make sense.
-
Please note the Colossus' speed relative to a destroyer, then its size and superior durablity. Please consider that in must have vastly larger amounts of interior space spent on engines then a destroyer. Please take into consideration its much greater density of beam cannon to surface area.
Also please note that the Hecate is not 12 times the volume of the Deimos. That's straight bullcrap. Six, perhaps eight at most; the irregular shape (which you keep dismissing) means it is nowhere near as much as you say. Six-eight times the space is moving at a speed slightly less then half. Three times the engines minimum. Probably more, considering while it may be six-eight times the space it is probably twelve times the mass.
All taken inot the ac****..
The Collie has bigger engines but it's allso bigger, so the space devoted to engies is proportionally the same (if not smaller - the collie has less engines actually)
If you scae something up every subsystem is allso scaled - thus the ratios remain the same. Armor is another matter, it might scale more or lees. That allso means that the crew space scales more or less the same.
And the Hecate actually has the Volume of 10 Deimoses (check it in Truespace yourself).
It's not only the length, but allso the width and height that increased.
A good example is a cube with 1cm sides and a cube with 3 cm sides.
The other ones' dimensions is x3 but it can fit 3x3x3 = 27 1cm cubes inside
-
Ah, so now we're making up how much space the Colossus engines require?
And still missing the sort of key thing about volume - a Hecate isn't a box. Tsch. I mean, come on. Not all ships need to be hexagonal tubes with holes in the front. What about a cube of 1cm dimensions, versus a sphere of 1cm radius? Not the same volume! Shockeroony!
Oh, and using an imaginary ship to explain 'the crew numbers don't make sense'. Imaginary. In fact, you're little pet ubership class, I believe, which you work so hard to try and justify......
-
Oh, and using an imaginary ship to explain 'the crew numbers don't make sense'. Imaginary. In fact, you're little pet ubership class, I believe, which you work so hard to try and justify......
You mean this one?
Thanx! The model I'm talking abot is a 5,8 km long Battleship with over 150 turrets. When finished (I'll post a pic. here) it should have abot 8000-9000 polygons. Is that too much? Too litle?
You know Trashman, if you didn't try justifying everything, and just released MODs, or one big MOD with missions and all of your various changes for the game, I think it would be really fun. No one is stopping you from releasing MODs; you should try it: I think your quite capable of changing things to conform to a lot of your suggestions yourself, and then releasing them. I think it would be quite fun, if damn near impossible, to fly against one of those "battleships" that you were thinking of
-
Trashman i had an idea regarding a battleship calss and even a dreadnought class of warships but 150 turrets.....youch.......thats how shall i say this......huge. Also the ship is too byg at least that is what i have come to believe. It would be to cumbersome in the post capella era. Unless you place the stroy at least 2 decades after capella. Why not try and scalde it down a bit to about 4 km max. Put err....2 BFG 4 BG and 3 slashers on it and it should do the trick i think. No fighters to worry about.
But then you would have to have a very good AAAF defensive sistem placed on it. And at leas one carrier trailing it no matter what. You need the fighters or bommbers if you want to make good use of the ship you could use something like a pincer movement with the bommbers and fighters then jump in with the battleships and tart them to pieces in amatter of seconds while the bommbers and fighters retreat. Or you could just pitch it up against a Ravana in which case it should lose in case it doesnt have the amount of HP the Colie had.
but back to the whole Orion stuff. Well the GTVA employed most of the time either Hecates or Hatshepsut for large fleet operations while the Orions that were still in service with the GTVA were usde to pound the enemy with its powerfull beams. Lets not forget that the GTVA must of had at least half a dozen of Hecates cuz well even the NTF had at least 1. I think I saw it in the wiki the number of Hecates the GTVA had.
Well the reason behind the superior tactics was based on the actual size of both fleets (GTVA vs. NTF)
lets not forget that the terrnas had a fleet equal if not larger to the one the NTF had and we also have our friendly nighberhood fishhugging friends the Zods. And from what I could see they were in a much better shape then the terrans were. I mean much more modern destroyers to replace the aging ones also a lot more corvettes and relatively new fighters/bommbers.
so the fleet the GTVA had at its disposal was at least double that of the NTF. Yet it took the Collie to efectively do away with the NTF. It was bute force and not tactics that on this war.
-
but back to the whole Orion stuff. Well the GTVA employed most of the time either Hecates or Hatshepsut for large fleet operations while the Orions that were still in service with the GTVA were used to pound the enemy with its powerfully beams. Lets not forget that the GTVA must of had at least half a dozen of Hecates cuz well even the NTF had at least 1. I think I saw it in the wiki the number of Hecates the GTVA had.
The Wiki only lists the ships that the player sees in the game, there may well be more than that, or not; I personally don't remember seeing more than about three Hecates in the main campaign, but I may be wrong.
Well the reason behind the superior tactics was based on the actual size of both fleets (GTVA vs. NTF)
Size is NOT tactics, tactics =/= size.
lets not forget that the Terrans had a fleet equal if not larger to the one the NTF had and we also have our friendly neighborhood fish-hugging friends the Zods. And from what I could see they were in a much better shape then the Terrans were. I mean much more modern destroyers to replace the aging ones also a lot more corvettes and relatively new fighters/bombers.
Yeah, like I said, I think we can all agree with that.
so the fleet the GTVA had at its disposal was at least double that of the NTF. Yet it took the Collie to effectively do away with the NTF. It was brute force and not tactics that on this war.
First off, tactics played a good part, for instance if Rear Admiral Koth had sent in a cruiser or corvette to deal with the GTC Rampart, the Repulse would not have been destroyed. I don't know about the relative sizes of fleets, and I wonder about whether or not the GTVA could have come up with a non-Juggernaut solution to the war.
-
WEll at the level and logic that most of the GTVA high commnad gave orders ....never.
Also we must remember that whyle obsolete the NTF had a very good defensive postion. I mean the GTVA could not run the blocades without running into al least 3 BG from an Orion. Also the rebels had quite powerfull bommbers. Sure they may not be the most modern but they are efective and deadly.
But i must admit that with the right tactics the GTVA could of won the war without a jugg tipe solution. but then it wouldnt be any fun now would it.
Well the wiki does show a lot of ships that we dont see in the campaign but are mentioned in the game either in the debrief or briefing . I supose we can accept those as well cant we?
Also I dont believe that the GTVA would of sacrificed its most modern destroyers on taking on the NTF simply because it would of been a waste. Frankly I would much rather see and Orion survive then a Hecate. Why?
simply because the Orion is much much better at taking out enemy warships then the Hecate could ever be. And we all know that shivans like to get in lose and personal to make use of theyr superior beam tech.
-
Hecate has more bombers........never regard destroyers as singular entities, they're never used in that manner but as the centre of a diverse and mobile attacking force.
-
Few of the ships mentioned in command breifings have classes attached to them, the Delecroix for instance.
-
Newer intented to use them as a singular entities its just that well after playng the main campaign several times I got sick of always bailing the Aquitane out. I mean what the hell put some freaking beam on it...! You might as well give them blob turrets to shoot with they be just as efective as those slashers.
That said has someone here ever done a refit of the hecate with some more powerfull beams?
-
I think Trashman did a MOD that was a refit of the Hecate, check Hades Combine.
The trouble with the Hecate isn't just the types of beams, it's also the placment. An Orion will still win against a Hecate with 2 Slashers replaced with BGreens.
-
yeah i know that but at least the Hecate has some forward firing ark while Orion doesnt if i remember corectly. Even if and Orion could take out a Hecate that would still give make the Hecate a lot more powerfull then it is now.
Also i have to wonder what were the terrans thinking when they built the hecate? i mean that ships has less concentrated beam output then a corvette.
-
yeah i know that but at least the Hecate has some forward firing ark while Orion doesnt if i remember corectly. Even if and Orion could take out a Hecate that would still give make the Hecate a lot more powerfull then it is now.
Also i have to wonder what were the terrans thinking when they built the hecate? i mean that ships has less concentrated beam output then a corvette.
They were thinking 'command and control centre, fighter platform'. You wouldn't send an aircraft carrier to go toe-to-toe, after all, yet it's the most valuable ship in any naval fleet.
-
They were thinking 'command and control centre, fighter platform'. You wouldn't send an aircraft carrier to go toe-to-toe, after all, yet it's the most valuable ship in any naval fleet.
Odd, it seems like people keep answering that same question, over and over; and yet it returns.
-
Well sure it does this role superbly yet how can they just not slap at last 2 corvettes to permanently guard the blasted thing.
Or at least use it in conjuction with a Hatshepsut or an Orion.
this is just bad tactics. The loss of a destroyer far outweighs the expenses of keeping it safe. Also i'm kinda used to the whole destroyers equal fighterbay and masive beam to beat the freaking crap out of any other ship thy come across.
-
If it's bad tactics, modern maritime fleets are all screwed
-
umm I dont think you understood mi point. I was refering to the fact the ships like the Aquitane tend to be left somewhat alone in diferent hostile enviroments where they dont belong in the first place.
They should of had at least one corvette acomapaniing the Aquitane at all times.
-
Oh! Yeah, your right.
-
Well sure it does this role superbly yet how can they just not slap at last 2 corvettes to permanently guard the blasted thing.
Or at least use it in conjuction with a Hatshepsut or an Orion.
this is just bad tactics. The loss of a destroyer far outweighs the expenses of keeping it safe. Also i'm kinda used to the whole destroyers equal fighterbay and masive beam to beat the freaking crap out of any other ship thy come across.
Ever heard of the word 'overrun'?
-
Aldo remember mi english please explain!
-
(http://www.cardshark.com/images_magic/29996.jpg)
:nervous:
It's basically... getting such a massive number advantage that the oposition gets trashed methinks. Getting them more than they can handle.
What the shivans do! :D
-
umm well...hell swarm the back with bommbers and fighters they tend to swarm you with capships if i remember coretly
And since the shivans have crappy AAAF defences.......well....see the point no?
-
(http://www.cardshark.com/images_magic/29996.jpg)
:nervous:
It's basically... getting such a massive number advantage that the oposition gets trashed methinks. Getting them more than they can handle.
What the shivans do! :D
Thats not that great of a card. It's really expensive and to make it worth it you would need two or three guys depending on how many people the other people have. It's better just getting a whole bunch of bonesplitters; they're much less expensive.
:/
-
You should use Dimensioni Leggendarie!
The target creature gets +8/+8 and gains trample...it is also an enchantment,so it remains in play...with only 3 more mana energy.
About this...who remember the FS Card Game someone was developing,I don't remember his name?
-
Aldo remember mi english please explain!
Overrun.
A position is overrun when the defensive perimeter fails and the enemy is able to get into the vulnerable 'centre' (i.e. that which was protected by perimeter defenses).
For example, if your general is in a command centre, surrounded by trenches, and overrun would be the enemy in some way defeating the defences - often through weight of numbers - and thus getting in at the general and command centre.
-
The war could be won not using the Colossus, the problem was that the destruction of most of the 6th fleet forced the GTVA's hand on the matter and since they were already engaging the Shivans, that conflict needed to end as swiftly as possible. It's basic strategy, never fight a war on two fronts but as we all know GTVA command doesnt know anything.
About the Hecate, the idea is good but the design isnt, a dedicated C&C and fighter carriyng capability is always good but they should have designed the ship with more defensive armament, against capital ships and small craft, even if its not meant to be at the front line it should be able to stand up by itself, something that the Hecate fails to do.
-
What, you mean like a Nimitz class aircraft carrier can?
-
Yeah, the Nimitz could ram the enemy into submission :rolleyes:
The Nimitz has anti-missile/fighter defenses (AMRAM missiles and 20mm Vulcan CWIS Turrets), but that's about it: kind of like the Hecate, which concentrates on AAA and Flak
-
What, you mean like a Nimitz class aircraft carrier can?
I dont know pretty much anything about the capabilities of real life navy vessels. But I meant that it should be able to pose a considerable threat to most capital ships and small craft, if its forced to go into battle, it should be able to defend itself against the enemy and come out alive since its role its vital.
-
In real life that's not really how it works; carriers with heavy cannons =/= good idea.
-
if its forced to go into battle, it should be able to defend itself against the enemy and come out alive since its role its vital.
It can. It's a far cry from being helpless, it just can't stand up to the likes of an Orion or the Shivan destroyers. Throw a corvette and a couple of bomber wings at it from a non blind spot and see what happens though.
The Hecate's problem is simply that it does not excel at either role. It tries to do everything, and so it is worse than any of the more specialised vessels like the Orion for capship combat or the Deimos for fighter shredding.
-
The Hecate's problem could easily be solved by a better weapons placement and quality (better beams). It doesnt try to do everything, its the counterpart of the Orion. That said the GTVA should focus on building a destroyer more oriented towards combat but with decent craft carriyng capability, something that can actually stand to a shivan destroyer by itself.
-
You mean an ubership? Naw, those are expensive, the Deimos will take care of everything the Hecate can't
-
No, not an uber ship, just another destroyer dedicated to the role that the Orion has now. The Deimos is a jack of all trades and really good at what it does but sometimes you need something with more firepower, something that when you're overrun by enemy capital ships, you can take them down fast.
-
The Orion can be taken out by 3 wings of Medusa bombers, which can be launched from a Hecate, the Ravana's main beam turrets are so weak, that I (theoretically) saved the Lysander (the Lysander dies whether or not the Ravana fires its beams). When the Aquitaine is assaulted by the Moloch, it never launches any bombers, something I consider to be a choice by the mission designers, although I don't know why they made that choice.
-
The Orion can be taken out by 3 wings of Medusa bombers, which can be launched from a Hecate, the Ravana's main beam turrets are so weak, that I (theoretically) saved the Lysander (the Lysander dies whether or not the Ravana fires its beams). When the Aquitaine is assaulted by the Moloch, it never launches any bombers, something I consider to be a choice by the mission designers, although I don't know why they made that choice.
Probably so the player would determine the outcome ;)
-
Imagine that! Yeah, your right.
So basically, the Hecate only sucks because of the mission designers wish to allow the player to determine outcomes.
Just like a Deimos can't actually be taken out by the Ravana in one shot, or at least, not by two beams
-
What, you mean like a Nimitz class aircraft carrier can?
The Nimitz needs escort too, particularly against submarines. It needs such escort against the sub's ability to attack without warning. Any naval officer (or player of Harpoon) knows the story of the flaming datum; you first realize there's a sub about when a ship blows up. There's a reason carriers never go anywhere without a battlegroup in attendance. Too, there are also times and situations where your air group will fail you; can't get them off the deck fast enough, or period, overwhelmed, whatever.
...and now your parallel comes back to haunt you, for the Hecate too can be subjected to attack (from subspace) without warning, and is also subject to those same situations where its fightercraft will not avail it. (The logical step isn't to build another destroyer however...they need a better escort craft. Or maybe they should build another destroyer; collapsed-core molybendum armor would be a good idea for something that likely to take fire...)
-
Just fix the already existing problems on the Hecate and that's it, you wouldnt need and escort ship. Also if the destroyer is good enough to stand up on its own it doesnt need escorts (for most of the time) and that would free up any warships to do other missions.
-
No, that's not how it works, look at the Orion, Alpha 1 took out, what, 3 Orions during the main Campaign? The Hecate, however upgraded it may seem, still has a much lower turret density then say a Deimos, without at least a cruiser and a couple wings of fighters, the Hecate would be easy prey for a squadron of Taurvi / Osiris / Zeus bombers, unless you upgraded its anti-fighter defenses, and even if you improved the beam cannons on the Hecate, the fact remains that they are still essentially large targets that happen to shoot uber-beams of death.
-
Alpha 1 is one thing and I'm not counting him because you always can take down any ship in the game. But against a number of fighter and bombers the Hecate can defend itself well, on the mission that you defend the Aquitaine on the nebula, it make short work of the shivan small crafts there. The only real laking area would be anti cap-ship power and turret placement, but perhaps if the placement of the defensive turrets (against small craft) were changed it would be even better?
-
My point was that it doesn't take many fighters.
-
Instead of redooing a flawed design regardless that it looks cool not cooler then an Orion but cool nonetheless is not the solution if you ask me. Simply redo the Orion it has a good fighterbay and super beam firepower. Just redoit add a couple of more AAAF turrets wheter they may be flack or AAAF beams or anithing else. Thats all the Orion only needs a hand full of aaaf turrets to become one of the most impresive destroyers in the game.
At least from mi POW.
the Orion does a too good of a job as a cap-ship-shreader to be retired especialy now after capella.
Given the right circumstances i even think that a uprgraded version of the Orion might come to life.
-
Instead of redooing a flawed design...
This statement begins with the flawed assumption that the Hecate is a flawed design, it's not, as several of us have been arguing for a while.
regardless that it looks cool not cooler then an Orion but cool nonetheless is not the solution if you ask me.
Was anyone arguing that it looks cooler? The Hecate is designed (fairly well I might add) for an entirely different purpose then the Orion.
Simply redo the Orion it has a good fighterbay and super beam firepower. Just redoit add a couple of more AAAF turrets wheter they may be flack or AAAF beams or anithing else. Thats all the Orion only needs a hand full of aaaf turrets to become one of the most impresive destroyers in the game.
"Super beam firepower"? How can you justify that along with a bigger fighterbay and improved point defense?
At least from mi POW.
For future reference, that is Point of veiw
[/quote]
the Orion does a too good of a job as a cap-ship-shreader to be retired especialy now after capella.
What if they don't need a giant ubership of doom?
Given the right circumstances i even think that a uprgraded version of the Orion might come to life.
I doubt it: a heavy refit of an old ship can often be less cost effective than just buying a new one.
-
Missed the point. I was just saing that the Orion needs just a few more AAF turretes not more fighter or more powerfull beams. It already has a superb beam firepower. Also keep in mind that the Orion has undergone a refit already.
Edit: The reason I stated that the Hecate is a bad design is because it is ment to be jack of all trades. without really beeing really really good at something. For example I would of liked to see the Hecate has even more fomidable AAAf defences then it has so that it does not have to worry about incoming fighters or bommbers. that would of made it a much better ship in mi opinion.
-
What, you mean like a Nimitz class aircraft carrier can?
The Nimitz needs escort too, particularly against submarines. It needs such escort against the sub's ability to attack without warning. Any naval officer (or player of Harpoon) knows the story of the flaming datum; you first realize there's a sub about when a ship blows up. There's a reason carriers never go anywhere without a battlegroup in attendance. Too, there are also times and situations where your air group will fail you; can't get them off the deck fast enough, or period, overwhelmed, whatever.
...and now your parallel comes back to haunt you, for the Hecate too can be subjected to attack (from subspace) without warning, and is also subject to those same situations where its fightercraft will not avail it. (The logical step isn't to build another destroyer however...they need a better escort craft. Or maybe they should build another destroyer; collapsed-core molybendum armor would be a good idea for something that likely to take fire...)
That was my point; there are always going to be compromises required. The Hecate sacrifices close in punch for projection; if you rate it in the latter, it's intended purpose, it's very good at it. In the former, all it needs to do is survive and escape.
-
Yes Aldo I do agree with you if you want to rate the Hecate from acarrier perspective then it does the job verry wel indeed. Also I think that further improvement in the future to the Hecate class design will tend to improve on its force projection abilaties and its AAAF defences and NOT its close range punch. However as i said above besides improved aaaf defences the hecate need to have at least the HP of the Hatshepsut. Which is a ship similar to it with similar fighter/bommber carryng abilaties yet has more HP and more heavy weponry on it.
this does tend to confirm to some degree that the Vasudans may in fact be somewhat more adnvanced in this regard to the Terrans.
Edit: and on an offtopic base since today is mi birthday i wanted to anounce that i am oficiali starting work on ship design which I have had in mind for quite some time. Oh and i will require some textures similar to the ones the Deimos or the Hecate has. As soon as i complete work on it to the best that i can i will release it which if nothing goes wrong shoul be in about 3 weeks or so. :D
-
Yes Aldo I do agree with you if you want to rate the Hecate from Carrier perspective then it does the job very well indeed. Also I think that further improvement in the future to the Hecate class design will tend to improve on its force projection abilities and its AAA defenses and NOT its close range punch.
Okay
However as i said above besides improved AAA defenses the Hecate need to have at least the HP of the Hatshepsut.
Why?
Which is a ship similar to it with similar fighter/bomber carrying abilities yet has more HP and more heavy weaponry on it.
That's called close in punch, and we don't know anything about the Hatshepsut's fighter carrying abilities, for all we know there could be 2 squadrons in there (obviously not, but that's the thing: we don't know) All we know is that it has two fighterbays, so does the Typhon, and the Typhon has only 2 more fighter squadrons than an Orion.
this does tend to confirm to some degree that the Vasudans may in fact be somewhat more advanced in this regard to the Terrans.
I think we already knew that in a way, however, we don't know what their realitive construction dates are, comparing them is like comparing the Deimos and Sobek, you have to figure, one was build later then the other, and there's a good chance that the newer one will be better.
-
Not necesarili each one is good at what is was ment to do. the sobek was ment to take on shivan cruisers while the Hecate was well intended to be a steroid version of the Aeouli. At least thats what I think. But they each do a good job at taking out enemy warships in they own way with the Sobek beeing more of a head on tipe of ship while the Deimos is more of a all round AAAF defences and good anti cap ship weapons.
-
Not necessarily each one is good at what is was meant to do. the Sobek was meant to take on shivan cruisers while the Deimos was well intended to be a steroid version of the Aeolus. At least that's what I think.
Both were designed as mainstay, standard warships, capable of considerable anti-warship power, but also capable of defending themselves.
But they each do a good job at taking out enemy warships in they own way with the Sobek being more of a head on tip of ship while the Deimos is more of a all round AAAF defenses and good anti cap ship weapons.
Yes, but the Deimos is a much better design overall, it tends to be able to take on warships and wave after wave of bombers. The Sobek is nice, but it's anti-fighter defense is worse then most Terran cruisers. This has to do with age, if the Sobek was the ultra-modern ship the Deimos was, who knows what it'd be like.
-
I alwai thought that the Sobek was better in terms of AAAF defences then terran cruiser in repect the Aeouli but worse then the Deimos???
-
They have about the same defenses in terms of anti-fighter turrets, but in terms of turret placment and laser turrets (good for taking down bombs) the Deimos's is much better.
We're talking about the same ships right?
Deimos
(http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/images/8/8e/Deimos320X240.jpg)
Sobek
(http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/images/d/df/Sobek320x240.jpg)
-
umm actuali i was refering to the sobek having better aaaf defences then the aeoulous cruiser yet not so good when compared to the Deimos. Yes I know the deimos Oh and I love that ship BTW.
Its just soo....sleak also the sobek is cool it has a sort of look like something you use to poke and enemy in the eye or stab him with it.
-
I was exaggerating about what I said with the Terran cruiser, basically, the Sobek can't compare with the Deimos, overall.
-
well sor of its just that the Deimos has far fewer blind spots then the sobek and they are generaly harder to spot. Also we must not forget that the Deimos is much bigger ship then the Sobek and has the abilaty to mount more weaponry then the Sobek. either way they are very good designs and the zods seem to have quite a number of sobeks around to deploy which can not be said fo the Deimos which is a brand new design so to speak which bareli left the drawing boards in a way.
-
well sort of, its just that the Deimos has far fewer blind spots then the Sobek and they are generally harder to spot.
Better turret placement in action
Also we must not forget that the Deimos is much bigger ship then the Sobek
Bull****, the Deimos is barely bigger than the Sobek, the difference in size between the Lilith and the Aeolus is about as sticking, IE barely considerable.
and has the ability to mount more weaponry then the Sobek.
Not really, the Deimos has a couple more laser turrets, and four beams, each with about half the strength of the Sobek's two beams, so it comes out ~ even.
either way they are very good designs
I'm not disputing that, merely stating that in most estimations, the Deimos is a superior vessel.
and the zods seem to have quite a number of Sobek around to deploy which can not be said for the Deimos which is a brand new design so to speak which barely left the drawing boards in a way.
Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my original point, which was that the Hatshepsut could be a far more recent design than the Hecate, and therefore we can't necessarily compare them 1 to 1, which we can't do already because there's a lot we don't know about the Hatshepsut (# of fighters for one) and the fact that they're designed with a totally different purpose in mind.
-
Actualy it states in the tech room i think that the Hatshepsut is the latest in temr of GTVA capships. Note GTVA and not Vasudan capships. So its safe to asume that the Hathsepsut is joint endeavour. however it was mainly designed to be used by the vasudans so you have the adequate design and weapons feature that the Zods use. the Hatshepsut was introducen into service in 2360. With the tech room saing that the Hecate are replacing the Orion as the main fleet destroyer . could we asume that the Hecate was introduce prior to the Hatshepsut?
Also note that the Deimos is actualy 107 metter longer then the Sobek. That is a pretti big diference if it was like a few metters then it would be neglijabele but 107 metters is not .
Also why does the tech room description say thet the Hatshepsut has 5 beam cannons yet in the wiki there are only 4 mentioned???
-
Tech descriptions are what they are.... that is they are quite often inaccurate and full of mistakes (check Mentu and Leviathan for other odd descriptions). The stats on the bottom of the wiki article are the actual weapons found from the ship according to ships.tbl.
-
Darn. So the Hatshepsut has only 4 beam cannons darn. Oh well you guis who actualy know how to do it can alway modifi the ships in Fs to actualy match the techroom descriptions. Or viceversa!
-
Actually, that would be wquite interesting, If someone ported the ships to original Tech-room specs,as the :V's word is god-mod: to see how the balance was affected. You could add all the Collies weapons as per teh cutscene also.....
-
umm sorry if mi memory fails me but what was so diferent in the final design of the Collie ? I mean that is not present in the game yet preasent in the cutscene??
-
There are something like 20 or so weapons missing between the Colossus as described in the techroom (and some tbl comments), and the Colossus seen ingame.
-
any of the actual BG beam cannons or something like that.
Also whats with these people and they slasher beam I mean come on put some in a dessigns but more then actual heavy beams....! Give me abreak already. The collie has +1 slasher then actual heavy beams!those blasted things Dont belong on anythin bigger then a cruiser.
-
Sigh :doubt:,
Theres far too much to consider based on vrying different power outputtage, space considerations in hull design as well as crew capability and who know how much maintenance beams use, I mean in the opening FS2 mission the plamptik had to order a plasma core insertion. or all we know they could be used like artillery shells- providing raw mateial to focus into a beam before being ejected and reloaded.
Horses for course remember, If all ships were equal, where would the fun be?
-
NOt saing all ships have to be equal but to mount 7 slashers as opesed to the 6 BG is just ridiculous to me. Get rrid of at least 2 slashers and replace them with BG then maibe just maibe the collie wouldnt burn out its reactors and take so much damage from overloading its beams!
-
Maybe BG's use more power during operation than slashers :nervous: Who's to say? :woot:
-
Umm and mounting 7 of them is a good wai to reduce power consumption??? Nope get rid of 4 then and replace them with 2 BG ! that shoul still be more then enough to power all the beam cannons also I dont think the Collie had anithyng to worry about in terms of power supplyes running out since well they had like 3 rows of reactors to power the blasted cannons. the only reason why they burned out was because they overpowered the beam cannons in order to do more damage. that is all.
If the Collie would of had nothin but BG (yah I know stupid thing to think about or sugest but im not sugesting anything) then it would of had i believe more then eneough fipower to take out the Sathani without actualy having to overpower the beam cannons.
-
All valid pints, but did they have a decent enough "Pleaseure deck" thats teh question, much like the sex deck from Holoship in red dwarf, but with less knookie. And more, umm, cinemas and........
-
I believe they did have something like taht remember the Holograms they have around in the briefings who says they dont have some sort of sex holograms like in startrek...well you get the point. the ones that actualy feel real i think...
-
Cos no-one would join up to fight, theyd all be at home boning FS2 equivalent of cortana >>:LUST:<<
-
umm and that is a bad thing because?????
Oh wait...now i see it...well....that would be kind of well....bad.....but on the other hand I bet theyr expensive and not everyone can aford them.....! This gives me an idea.
Why not offer special oprizes for all those who go off to war or volunteer for the army on a 10 year trial basis. Hell get then one for free if they do that. That should solve the problem of not enough men available for combat and stuff.
Also CD *made me imagine wird things about him and his spare time* :nervous:
-
WTBH??? :nervous: :shaking: :eek2: Why are you thinking weird things about me full stop........ :confused:
-
umm and that is a bad thing because?????
Oh wait...now i see it...well....that would be kind of well....bad.....but on the other hand I bet theyr expensive and not everyone can aford them.....! This gives me an idea.
Why not offer special oprizes for all those who go off to war or volunteer for the army on a 10 year trial basis. Hell get then one for free if they do that. That should solve the problem of not enough men available for combat and stuff.
Also CD *made me imagine wird things about him and his spare time* :nervous:
I think there are easier ways to get sex than by winning a hologram through 10 years of crippling combat.
-
Seconded,
Social experience and RL ventures-pubbing/clubbing for a few examples.