Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: colecampbell666 on June 19, 2007, 05:54:17 am
-
Somehow I think the Lucy will win :D
-
You forgot the Hades. If you put in Lucy, you need to put in Hades. Disqualify both or neither.
I vote for the Orion, even if it sucks against bombers.
Anyone tested the Orion against the vacuum cleaner before? I wonder who would win.
-
I voted the GVD Hatshepsut (spelling?).
Especially the HTL one, when I first saw that one I was like.........."WOW! What a beauty!"
It aint the strongest destroyer but it sure is the prettiest!
-
I would have gon efor the Hades but its not there so i'm not voting :p
-
actualy the Hatsheepsuit is the second stronget GTVA destroyer in the game with 150.000 HP it has 50% more hp then the Hecate and it has a lot more powerfull beams overall with decent aaaf firepower. But i voted for the Orion I mean whenever i see one of those things i'm like "So beautiful...so terifiing" Man that this is the king of the destroyers. Well maybe except for the Ravana.
But for a 60+ years old design it is still the most powerfull destroyer in the GTVA and by the looks of it it has an asured future in the GTVA since its huge RAW firepower is second to none in the GTVA. Aside from the Ravana there is no destroyer out there that can really match the Orion.
-
Though fight between Orion and Typhon. I chose Typhon because I feel it's a bit under appreciated...
-
I forsee that the Demon is going to get no love. :(
That said, the Orion is clearly the greatest. There's simply no better symbol of the Freespace universe than the old girl, crusing around in all her blocky, no-frills glory.
-
Where is the Orioshapsut? :lol:
-
Orion, no contest. Nothing quite like seeing one lashing out with four heavy beams at once.
-
Tough call...I like em all :D
-
Yep same here. Although I'm kind of fond of the Orion :pimp:
-
Orion is simply THE Destroyer, with the "Terran feeling" all over it. Raw firepower, boxy design, simply the ship made for war. Yes, as said earlier its weak against bombers, but no ship is perfect. Despite this, "old ironhorse" is still kickin'...
-
It would have been better if you could select 2 or 3 favourites. Or you'd just left the Orion out of this... Then this might actually be interesting...
-
I like Vasudans, so the GVD Hatshepsut is my favorite.
I like the Freespace 2 Ships more than the FS1 ones.
-
Ok, i'm swayed, simply for my love of the Galatae, and the single tear i shed as the Bastion went Bye Bye first time i saw that cut-scene............ :(
-
Orion. With Lucy and Hecate tieing for second. You know where it's at, people :pimp:
-
You forgot the Hades. If you put in Lucy, you need to put in Hades. Disqualify both or neither.
I vote for the Orion, even if it sucks against bombers.
Anyone tested the Orion against the vacuum cleaner before? I wonder who would win.
I reset the poll, adding the Hades.
-
Hallowed are the Orii.
...sorry, I just couldn't resist. :lol:
-
the orion
why?
it really gives a feeling of a powerfull ship :)
and i love it
2nd
the demon
why?
it looks awesome
3rd
the nemesis!
i JUST LOVE THE NEMESIS!!!
edit : why not making a topic : Favorite ship or your ship top 3 (not only freespace but over all the mods etc)
-
Orion or the Lucifer . But I choose Orion because to me it's the most beautiful ship in Freespace . :D
I just couldn't resist !
-
No votes for the Hecate (figures). Vasudan Vacuum Cleaner in 2nd place, with Lucifer close behind. Ladies and gentlemen, the Orion is a clear winner... it's probably the only ship that looks uglier with MediaVPs, but it still pulls down framerate like anything else.
-
UGLIER!!! It looks amazing! Before I could've built a more detailed Orion with building blocks!
-
Alright, new poll options: Orion vs. Orion w/MediaVPs. :drevil:
-
OMG ! CAN'T CHOOSE BETWEEN THOSE TWO ! :shaking:
-
Hmm... a tough choice. I love the Orion, and I actually am a fan of the Hecate. It looks pretty cool, and it's extremely fun to launch from its fighterbay. :p
But the Hades gets my vote. Cool name, cool design, cool place in the story, etc.
-
Hecate for me :)
-
The Orion is by far the sexiest.
But I find the Hades to be the most.. sinister.
Still, Orion it is.
-
i'll go for the hades, but only because of PI
-
hades = cool :cool:
-
The Hat is the best destroyer in the GTVA in terms of combat ability and everything. If I was flying around in anything in the GTVA arsenal, I'd feel safest in a Hatshepsut.
But I still voted Orion. :D No FS2 ship can ever, ever beat an FS1 ship. Too much history, too much awesome.
-
I think black wolf just likes to hang with the old fogies on the decks of an old orion. Can you say multiple **** your pants moments on this rig? With a crew of 80 year olds behind every turret yes you can. And probably even better piloting that old dusty ursa loaded up with harbinger bombs with guess who...skeleton crewmate ;7 And i feel sorry for you black wolf, because now you're already in space, and you know that harbingers are old, but they can still do the damage, until you find out that you shouldn't have rushed yourself, and made sure that old dusty ursa had something other than the ml-16. That's right, the fs1 default weapon that's always equipped unless you remember to change your weapons.
If he somehow survives that mission, i really hope he gets stationed on a hatshepsut or a hecate, where that **** doesn't happen.
If i were to go aboard an orion, i'd jack the supply of avengers :pimp: And go back to my hecate hopefully in a stolen athena, with some "cool" great war relics.
-
Orion and Hecate kick ass. For the record, My second favourite Destroyer is the Hecate, after further thought.
-
I'm partial to the Hatshepsut, myself. Really, as asthetics go, I enjoy the look of all of the Vasudan warships in FS2, but the Hatshepsut's got a lot more than just looks. That's right.... The Hatshepsut has magical powers.
...
What? You don't believe me, do you? Okay, go back to the first mission of FS2, and watch the Psamtik make the Belisarius disappear. I'd like to see David Blaine make 720 meters of armor and weapons vanish, like the Psamtik. Magical-flippin'-powers of DOOM.
Make Black Wolf's Orion disappear too....
What? You heard me.
-
Orion and Hecate kick ass. For the record, My second favourite Destroyer is the Hecate, after further thought.
Well you have fun at your roman candle party (stock of ml-16's) on your first preference of destroyer :lol:
-
Orion and Hecate kick ass. For the record, My second favourite Destroyer is the Hecate, after further thought.
Well you have fun at your roman candle party (stock of ml-16's) on your first preference of destroyer :lol:
Nah, on the GTD Mynameistoo****inglong, we use modern weapons and fighters. And Mark Hamill, in a move that makes hardcore WC fanbois screm out on agony. In addition, Colonel Dekker also saw fit to bring Vasudan's in a Bikini. Also, our pilot's wear condoms that are capable of withstanding BFGreens....
-
This poll is invalid again! Wheres the Iceni?!?!
-
Orion. There's no place like home. ;)
-
This poll is invalid again! Wheres the Iceni?!?!
The Iceni's not a destroyer. A FS Destroyer is
- Capable of carrying fighters
- Armed to engage other large capital ships
- Over 2 km long (debateable, granted, but all destroyers we've seen so far have been at least this long. I think you could still call a ship a destroyer as long as it was, say, between 1500 and 3000m Less than that and you're in unknown territory, more and you're a super destroyer (Lucifer) or a Juggernaut (Sath, Collie).
The Iceni only fits into one of those categories. It's either a Corvette (bassed on size, armament and it's short name in the tables) or a Frigate (based on it's tech description.
Oh, and as for the Orion being an old fogies ship, well... a FS2 Orion is the single most powerful GTVA destroyer against capital ships. Can't stop a fighter attack worth a damn, but hey, that's what other fighters are for. :D
-
I would say frigate. The Iceni's armament is too strong for it to be a corvette.
Although how would we class a frigate? A corvette that has sacrificed anti-fighter armament in order to power heavier beam cannons?
The Orion.. besides its power and history.. is just majestic. It doesn't look "busy" like the Hecate, but it isn't curvy or beautiful like the Vasudan destroyers. It's just imposing and strong, and that's what a destroyer should be. :)
-
Build as the NTF's command frigate at the Freedom shipyards in Polaris, the Iceni was built to help facilitate the completion of Admiral Bosch's ETAK project. The frigate possessed superior firepower, armour and speed to the smaller Deimos-class corvettes.
From the wiki............
Nah, on the GTD Mynameistoo****inglong, we use modern weapons and fighters. And Mark Hamill, in a move that makes hardcore WC fanbois screm out on agony. In addition, Colonel Dekker also saw fit to bring Vasudan's in a Bikini. Also, our pilot's wear condoms that are capable of withstanding BFGreens....
* "screms wildly"
* :eek2: My secret shame............. Why ??
-
actualy the Hatsheepsuit is the second stronget GTVA destroyer in the game with 150.000 HP it has 50% more hp then the Hecate and it has a lot more powerfull beams overall with decent aaaf firepower. But i voted for the Orion I mean whenever i see one of those things i'm like "So beautiful...so terifiing" Man that this is the king of the destroyers. Well maybe except for the Ravana.
But for a 60+ years old design it is still the most powerfull destroyer in the GTVA and by the looks of it it has an asured future in the GTVA since its huge RAW firepower is second to none in the GTVA. Aside from the Ravana there is no destroyer out there that can really match the Orion.
Wrong, the HP of the Hatshepsut is 13500, not 15000.
The Terrans need a replacement for the Orion in post Capella, which by then most existing Orions would have been lost along with the rest of the fleet. The Hecate is decent (note: not exceptional) as the "carrier" type of destroyer sized ships, but a "battleship" type to complement it is needed, after the Orions.
If not, then the Terrans should build a modified version of the Deimos with 2 BGreens and 2 slash beams but with reduced anti fighter defenses to provide anti-capship fire support.
-
The Hecate is fine. What really matters is the fighter/bomber complement. Destroyers are mainly plot elements, just a squadron of bombers can do more damage than a destroyer firing all beams.
What they really need to do is scrap those TC-TRI cargo containers and turn them into hangers, so those flimsy Tritons become aircraft carriers.
-
The Hecate is fine. What really matters is the fighter/bomber complement. Destroyers are mainly plot elements, just a squadron of bombers can do more damage than a destroyer firing all beams.
What they really need to do is scrap those TC-TRI cargo containers and turn them into hangers, so those flimsy Tritons become aircraft carriers.
Only if the pilots are Alpha 1! :D
-
The Hecate's best firing arc allows it to be able to fire four IIRC. The two forward beams can stirke at a ships rear, while the broadside beams can slash down and hit the front. It still mystifies me that the Hecate can be threatned by a singlar Moloch, espcially with how many fighters a Hecate can hold.
-
When I voted I was thinking more like an artist rather than thinking about firepower. The best art design for a destroyer would have to be the Orion. Hatshepsut comes in second, if only the model was done better and looked more like the concept. The Demon has to be the next best destroyer, again, because of it's design. It looks the most spikey and shivan-like than all of them.
You guys notice that they improved on the shivan and vasudan ship design in fs2, but not the terrans? The terrans got less angular, which I hated. For me this is how it goes.
Terran: Chunky, angular, industrial, mechanical.
Vasudan: Organic and smooth. Like bones almost.
Shivans: Spikes. Curved yet angular.
Of course it might make sense that the terrans get less angular because Vasudans have something to do with designing some of these ships.
-J.P.
-
I would say frigate. The Iceni's armament is too strong for it to be a corvette.
Although how would we class a frigate? A corvette that has sacrificed anti-fighter armament in order to power heavier beam cannons?
The thing I find odd about the Iceni is the fact it has better sub-light acceleration, yet has heavier armor and main cannons. And as much as the Iceni's anti-fighter weapons are derided, they are good enough to cover the ship while it hauls ass toward the jump node. It is good enough to also help it's escorts finish off a fighter attack, and we most definately know what happens when a crusier gets in front of the Iceni.
As far as the Shivan Destroyers go, I liked the Lucifer most. Gotta love ships of death.
-
Well after capella the GTVA will be very hard pressed to find a replacement for the old Orion class. I mean each and every Orion destroyer out there is an extremely powerfull asset which they can no longer afford to decomission. Also The Orion class is THE simbol of pride and power the terrans have in fact the last one ! It would be a HUGE morale and pshicologycal blow for the GTVA to decomission the Orion at this stage.
Also unless the terrans can somehow bring forth a destroyer of equall value in terms of raw firepower in which to put all of they pride and hopes and dreams the Orion will most likeli not be decomisioned.
Also fighters and bommbers are good and powerfull but when you cant take them to the battlegield and deploy them you have a big problem. Also please note that by the time you can take out a Ravana in just bommbers you will also be submited to countless attack by its own fighter bommber squadrons. And this is where the big guns of the destroyers come in they can ensure that the battle is over that much faster.
As for the Hecate well lets just say that not even a Deimos or a Sobek can be threatened so much by a shivan corvette like the Hecate. That ship other then carryng fighters is useless. It's so weak in terms of raw firepower i would much rather have a deimos beside me . At least the deimos can eat fighters/bommbers for breakfast and still have room for the mothership in this case a destroyer or a corvette.
-
The Hecate, in a scrap, is good enough to really knock up even a destroyer. (Demon Vs. Hecate.) The Hecate is a CARRIER, not the Battleship/Carrier Hybrid that we all know and love in the Orion. Plus the Hecate boast far superior anti-fighter defenses.
The Hecate is far from useless.
-
Well the Hecate does have much better AAAf defences when compared to other destroyers in game but all to often you are calle upon to help a Hecate because its AAAF defences simply arent good enough. As I said the Hecate is a good carrier but it should not be anywhere near the front line. For front line duty and force projection you need a cmbination of Orion and Deimos or Hashesut and Sobek or Deimos. Or several Deimos/sobek + Hecate. But i believe that the first 2 variants are cheaper since they would require a lot less ships to achieve the same goal.
-
The Hecate can defend well, even in an anti-cap situation. I hate it when the Hecate gets a bad-rep for cap fire against crusers, despite the fact both times the Aquataine engaged a Corvette, they were in a NEBULA. Scanners and gun comps were impaired. I still state that a Hecate could cream a Moloch in a stand-up fight that was not in the nebula. PLus the fighter+bomber thing helps in it's favour. The Hecate is raather unfairly derided. (Hell, in my anti-cap test, the Hecate beat a Typhon.) Granted, the Orion is much better in this role. ALso, the Orion needs some durn flak, ASAP.
-
When I first saw the Hades, I thought " That is the worst ship I have ever seen!" ie the shape, but especially the colour.
I voted Orion by the way, because it is stonger than the rest and is Terran - all the browny coloured ships have a Vasudan feel about them. Nothing against Vasudans, I like the Hatchepsut over the Hecate.
EDIT: Are the BFGreens used on any of the ships? I first thought the Colossus had them but on closer inspection it only had BGreens. That is ridiculous, since they only do 3000 or so damage while BFG's do 4500 and BFR's do 8000. (something like that)
-
I think we're hitting on a difference in design intent here.
I always like looking at real-world naval vessels when drawing comparisons, so let's have a peek at any given battleship versus any given aircraft carrier. I'm not sure if you guys have noticed, but even though the battleships have enormous guns and would clearly win in a direct engagement, aircraft carriers have totally obsoleted battleships. Why? Coupling reconnaisance (from patroling aircraft from the carrier or other ships in the area) and radar, it isn't necessary for the carrier to enter the battleship's range. It's tempting to say that replacing big guns with huge missile batteries, but missile systems are compact enough to be placed on smaller warships (i.e. destroyers), so there's really no need for some huge, hulking craft designed for direct engagement.
In FreeSpace, as fighter and bomber technology continues to improve, I foresee decreasing emphasis being placed on direct firepower, in favor of additional fighter and bomber capacity.
Just for giggles, let's consider a wargame scenario, where an Orion and a Hecate enter opposite sides of a star system. Assuming the ratio of escort fighter to recon craft to bomber are kept the same, the Hecate has 50% more recon fighters to deploy, meaning that they are quite likely to spot the Orion first, but let's suppose that they receive word about each other at exactly the same time. Immediately, the Orion starts to either launch bombers or fighters, depending on whether they want to start on offense or defense. On the other side of the system, the Hecate, having greater launch capacity begins launching bombers and escort fighters. In addition to its superior anti-fighter armaments, the Hecate will have escort fighters in position by the time the Orion's bombers arrive. The Orion, on the other hand, is going to have warheads sticking out of its hull in very short order. (You could argue, here, that the Orion could choose to launch fighters before bombers, but they're unlikely to match the Hecate's ability to launch escort fighters, and they're going to have zero capacity to attack the Hecate, and if you can't get on the offensive, you can't win a fight.)
You might posit that the Orion could try jumping to the Hecate's location to turn the tables, but once again, superior fighter and bomber forces are going to win the day, as the Orion is going to be neutered in mere minutes. What's more, by the time an Orion is capable of jumping to the Hecate's position, the Hecate can jump to a new location, and then we're back to square one. Even with big, flippin' beams becoming standard equipment on large warships, the universe is becoming a fighter/bomber pilot's paradise.
The issue of corvettes came up, and again, I refer to real-world navies. Removing fighters from the equation, even with a two-inch gun and some kind of lightwieght surface-to-surface missile system, in a direct engagement, a naval destroyer is going to kick the crap out of an aircraft carrier. Current weapon systems are just ridiculously powerful, and there's not really an armoring technique that's both viable and effective. Seriously, if you double a carrier's weight just adding armor plating to it, so that it can take multiple hits from surface-to-surface missiles, all you're likely to do is save your enemy the trouble of sinking your carrier.
Likewise, there's not a really good defense against beam cannons, if you actually put yourself in a position to be fired upon by one, so as a warship's commander, your goal is to avoid being put in such a position, while directing fighters and bombers toward your target or pursuer. While I'm no expert on the subject, I'm pretty sure that the number of direct naval engagements has been steadily declining on a per-conflict basis since World War II, where aircraft really started to play a significant role in naval combat. Naval destroyers exist both to provide support for ground forces and to keep submarines away from carriers and other strategic targets.
In the FreeSpace universe, I see technology moving space combat into a realm even closer present-day naval combat. I see the TAG missile system being used to allow corvettes to target enemy vessels from ridiculously long range, allowing fighters to take over a bomber's role in a pinch. I foresee the destroyer class, as defined by the Orion and Typhon being phased out entirely, in favor of a dedicated carrier class, while corvettes move into a defense and long-range support role. As hinted at in the Deimos' tech room entry, I doubt that cruisers will have a role in the future of FreeSpace, unless they can integrate some type of stealth technology that isn't viable for ships any larger than cruiser-class. Even at that, though, since first-generation TAG technology can overcome stealth tech, I think cruisers are just dead.
Anyway, all that chat about the Hecate and Orion are nice, but the three BVas beams on the Hatshepsut make a stronger broadside than the Orion has (which mixes BGreens and TerSlash beams), and its fighter compliment is comparable to a Hecate. All told, I think that if Admiral Khafre and Admiral Petrach had a showdown, it'd start with Khafre stating something along the lines of, "Bite my well-tanned, exoskeletal ass," and it will end with appropriate results to back up the smack talk. Vasudans have superior equipment, and though it'd take an autopsy to find them, they've probably got positively massive testicles, which can provide Samuel L. Jackson levels of badass to even the average Vasudan.
I'm pretty sure I had more to say about this, but it's late, and even if all these Orion-loving junkies saw enlightenment, the forum script won't let them change their votes anyway. I've also probably said too much by the time I get to the vasudan-anatomy imagry.
-
While I don't nessarily agree with your opinion, I must say that your post was incredibly thought out, and rather informative. I promise to make my points clear, but it is rather late here, as well.
-
blah blah blah... (very nice, BTW! :D )
Good points... I just want to throw this in there... you would have an interesting situation if they (any party involved) managed to get real "submarines" built. What? There's no water in space. No, but there is subspace... whoever designed a ship capable scanning & firing weapons through the normal / sub space dimensions would easily have a huge advantage. Of course, this assumes it's even possible... but think of what we would consider the idea of a submarine, if they had never been invented until now!
-
I think we're hitting on a difference in design intent here.
I always like looking at real-world naval vessels when drawing comparisons, so let's have a peek at any given battleship versus any given aircraft carrier. I'm not sure if you guys have noticed, but even though the battleships have enormous guns and would clearly win in a direct engagement, aircraft carriers have totally obsoleted battleships. Why? Coupling reconnaisance (from patroling aircraft from the carrier or other ships in the area) and radar, it isn't necessary for the carrier to enter the battleship's range. It's tempting to say that replacing big guns with huge missile batteries, but missile systems are compact enough to be placed on smaller warships (i.e. destroyers), so there's really no need for some huge, hulking craft designed for direct engagement.
In FreeSpace, as fighter and bomber technology continues to improve, I foresee decreasing emphasis being placed on direct firepower, in favor of additional fighter and bomber capacity.
Just for giggles, let's consider a wargame scenario, where an Orion and a Hecate enter opposite sides of a star system. Assuming the ratio of escort fighter to recon craft to bomber are kept the same, the Hecate has 50% more recon fighters to deploy, meaning that they are quite likely to spot the Orion first, but let's suppose that they receive word about each other at exactly the same time. Immediately, the Orion starts to either launch bombers or fighters, depending on whether they want to start on offense or defense. On the other side of the system, the Hecate, having greater launch capacity begins launching bombers and escort fighters. In addition to its superior anti-fighter armaments, the Hecate will have escort fighters in position by the time the Orion's bombers arrive. The Orion, on the other hand, is going to have warheads sticking out of its hull in very short order. (You could argue, here, that the Orion could choose to launch fighters before bombers, but they're unlikely to match the Hecate's ability to launch escort fighters, and they're going to have zero capacity to attack the Hecate, and if you can't get on the offensive, you can't win a fight.)
You might posit that the Orion could try jumping to the Hecate's location to turn the tables, but once again, superior fighter and bomber forces are going to win the day, as the Orion is going to be neutered in mere minutes. What's more, by the time an Orion is capable of jumping to the Hecate's position, the Hecate can jump to a new location, and then we're back to square one. Even with big, flippin' beams becoming standard equipment on large warships, the universe is becoming a fighter/bomber pilot's paradise.
The issue of corvettes came up, and again, I refer to real-world navies. Removing fighters from the equation, even with a two-inch gun and some kind of lightwieght surface-to-surface missile system, in a direct engagement, a naval destroyer is going to kick the crap out of an aircraft carrier. Current weapon systems are just ridiculously powerful, and there's not really an armoring technique that's both viable and effective. Seriously, if you double a carrier's weight just adding armor plating to it, so that it can take multiple hits from surface-to-surface missiles, all you're likely to do is save your enemy the trouble of sinking your carrier.
Likewise, there's not a really good defense against beam cannons, if you actually put yourself in a position to be fired upon by one, so as a warship's commander, your goal is to avoid being put in such a position, while directing fighters and bombers toward your target or pursuer. While I'm no expert on the subject, I'm pretty sure that the number of direct naval engagements has been steadily declining on a per-conflict basis since World War II, where aircraft really started to play a significant role in naval combat. Naval destroyers exist both to provide support for ground forces and to keep submarines away from carriers and other strategic targets.
In the FreeSpace universe, I see technology moving space combat into a realm even closer present-day naval combat. I see the TAG missile system being used to allow corvettes to target enemy vessels from ridiculously long range, allowing fighters to take over a bomber's role in a pinch. I foresee the destroyer class, as defined by the Orion and Typhon being phased out entirely, in favor of a dedicated carrier class, while corvettes move into a defense and long-range support role. As hinted at in the Deimos' tech room entry, I doubt that cruisers will have a role in the future of FreeSpace, unless they can integrate some type of stealth technology that isn't viable for ships any larger than cruiser-class. Even at that, though, since first-generation TAG technology can overcome stealth tech, I think cruisers are just dead.
Anyway, all that chat about the Hecate and Orion are nice, but the three BVas beams on the Hatshepsut make a stronger broadside than the Orion has (which mixes BGreens and TerSlash beams), and its fighter compliment is comparable to a Hecate. All told, I think that if Admiral Khafre and Admiral Petrach had a showdown, it'd start with Khafre stating something along the lines of, "Bite my well-tanned, exoskeletal ass," and it will end with appropriate results to back up the smack talk. Vasudans have superior equipment, and though it'd take an autopsy to find them, they've probably got positively massive testicles, which can provide Samuel L. Jackson levels of badass to even the average Vasudan.
I'm pretty sure I had more to say about this, but it's late, and even if all these Orion-loving junkies saw enlightenment, the forum script won't let them change their votes anyway. I've also probably said too much by the time I get to the vasudan-anatomy imagry.
Seems like your entire argument is designed to tear down the Orion. It is obviously unfair since the Orion is a generation (if not more) behind in terms of design. This however does not demolish the argument for a battleship in FS2.
The fighter complement size of the Hatshepsut is not known. Assuming it to be the same as the Hecate is too big of an assumption to make. If that is so, then the Hatshepsut become a super ship, since it can deal a mad beatdown with its beams like a Orion and yet match a Hecate in the number of boys it can launch into space.
Secondly, you are arguing different things in your post. First you talk about ship types then ship classes. Please separate the two of them.
Finally, modern naval combat involves battlegroups, not single ship duels like the way they are in FS universe. Tactics and equipment in real life navies and FS2 do not match. Naval attacks right now consist of bombers (Backfire sized or just a fighter mounting anti-shipping missiles) launching missiles at long ranges (We'll leave aside small motorboats loaded with explosives for now). Fighters on CAP patrol are tasked to intercept those bombers before they launch while the escorts have to contend with shooting those missiles in flight. You can say that there is a lot of button pushing there. In contrast, FS universe has bombers closing in to eyeball distances to ensure the bombs don't get shot down. Plus, those bombs don't have the range (let alone the speed) for long range attacks. The weapons and tactics are totally different.
Another thing, the anti-air defenses of modern carriers are pathetic. They must rely on escorts for protection against air and subsurface threats. I don't think you can draw a parallel b/w a Hecate and a Nimitz.
-
Hmm... Phalanx?
-
Hmm... Phalanx?
A Nimitz has 3-4 Sea Sparrow launchers (which cannot compare to the Standard missiles carried by the escorts, in terms of missile capability and magazine capacity) and 4 Phalanx CIWS. Those CIWS have an effective range of about 2 km. To date, it has targeted and shot at the chaff released to foil a missile that it was supposed to shoot at, as well as at an aircraft dragging a decoy that it is supposed to shoot at.
The carrier also has 4 12.7mm machine guns. Except for shooting fishing boats, those don't count in naval warfare.
-
Darn. I was hoping they were actually an effective close-range defense.
-
Darn. I was hoping they were actually an effective close-range defense.
It was only fired in anger once, and at that point in time it screwed up. We don't know how effective it would be had there been more engagement.
That said, there are plans to replace them with missiles instead.
-
A Nimitz has 3-4 Sea Sparrow launchers (which cannot compare to the Standard missiles carried by the escorts, in terms of missile capability and magazine capacity) and 4 Phalanx CIWS. Those CIWS have an effective range of about 2 km. To date, it has targeted and shot at the chaff released to foil a missile that it was supposed to shoot at, as well as at an aircraft dragging a decoy that it is supposed to shoot at.
The carrier also has 4 12.7mm machine guns. Except for shooting fishing boats, those don't count in naval warfare.
They're currently retrofitting all Nimitz carriers with the rolling airframe missile system as well.
-
*SNIP*
Can't agree with that one. In RL, carries are more usefull than battleship, but in FS the abiltiy to move fast, from one end of the system to another in a few seconds (minutes tops) really evens the playfield.
An Orion jumping in beside the Hecate - a single Orions broadside is enough to SERIOUSLY damage the Hecate. Yes, the Hecate can jump out, but the damage is done...it can't jump out fast enough to avoid at least one salvo, and that is usually more than enough. Whatever fighters and bombers the Orion has can finish the job from then on.
The Hecate simply can't use the same tactic, unless the Orion is SERIOUSLY weakened or disarmed before jumping in.
to make a long stroy short - in FS, carriers and battleship are BOTH usefull.
-
I actually heard CIWS are efective, alltough you dont' want it to come down to them.. They're the last line of defense, after all.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM
-
From what I remember, Carriers are used now a days because it is easier to maintain a fighter-plane that it is to maintain a battleship. Orion's are designed really to be a full-on combo od Battleship/Carrier. The Hecate leans in heavily toward carrier(Despite the fact a Hecate's total firepower is quite above any corvettes). With the crappy condition the GTVA may be in post-capella. Plus Helios torps are described to be rather expensive, with Meson bombs being far more so.
AS for different roles, I would keep the Hecate away from the front lines and let the battlegroup, plus fighters deal with any incoming capships. If this fails for any reason, the Hecate should try to haul ass out of the system. The Orion can't project quite as much force, because it carries less fights and bombers, but made up in the fact that the Orion is quite superior in combat. In other words, ones anti-cap armanant is dependan on other ships support while it tries to leave, while the Orion armanant is good enough to do in any other warship, aside from Collosus/Sathanus, but that is a debate for another time...
-
From what I remember, Carriers are used now a days because it is easier to maintain a fighter-plane that it is to maintain a battleship.
Carriers are used nowadays because in WW2 battleships showed their weakness against carrier-borne aircrafts (see attack on Taranto harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Taranto), sinking of the Bismarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bismarck_Chase), attack on Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor) and sinking of the Yamato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#Deployment)). :)
-
I don't think you'll gain anything from drawing comparisons between FS and RL. It's worth noting that in real life you can't reliably hit a moving target with naval gunnery greater than 60km away, versus SSMs (missiles) that have a range of 120+ km. Most FS beams can shoot at least 3000m away, while you have to be under 600m from your target to get a good bomb hit. It's a somewhat different balance, even though FS and RL share a few superficial similarities.
It's also helpful to remember that FreeSpace ships were designed as plot devices, not as something to be analyzed from a tactical perspective. Why does the Eva sit in place for 15 minutes while you pound it with bombs? Why can you cripple the Sathanas using Rockeyes? Why doesn't the Orion replace its blob turrets with Morning Stars?
Capital ship engagments in FreeSpace are rare, and even they are choreographed, not complicated battles. Yeah, you can think about tactics if you want, but Volition didn't intend for you to read that much into it. Many of the ships are stupidly laid out both in fire arcs and in weapon choices, and the tactics they use border on idiotic.
-
Poor little demon... :(
-
You might posit that the Orion could try jumping to the Hecate's location to turn the tables, but once again, superior fighter and bomber forces are going to win the day, as the Orion is going to be neutered in mere minutes.
Unless Alpha 1 is on the Orion
-
and if alpha one activated the www.freespace2.com and ~ked the hecate ^^
-
You might posit that the Orion could try jumping to the Hecate's location to turn the tables, but once again, superior fighter and bomber forces are going to win the day, as the Orion is going to be neutered in mere minutes.
Unless Alpha 1 is on the Orion
Mah..the Orion only needs 20 seconds to turn the Hecate into a smoldering ruin.
-
Poor little demon... :(
I likd the Ravana design more. THAT is how you build an offensive destroyer. Enough focused firepower to render a Hatshepsut to wreck debris in a hurry.
-
the important thing to remember here is they all blow up equally well. more or less.
-
Orion class! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_class_battleship)
-
Quote from: BlueFlames on June 21, 2007, 12:20:20 AM
blah blah blah... (very nice, BTW! )
That deserves an A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it was weird how the Ravana did nothing while the Sobek fired at it in "Slaying Ravana" (the destruction of the first Ravana)
It didn't even attempt to try and fight back - if it can nuetralise a Diemos in a few seconds, why not a Sobek?
Oh, I think this is a good tactic for attacking the Sath (no doubt discovered years ago). Go directly in front of it in the cage created by its arms. Obviously if you wander out of it then there will be debris for it to try and evade. You could stick an Orion or any other destroyer in there. One other problem - what if the Sath decides to jump? But surely it would cause great damage to itself.
BTW, has any one tried the Orion II against a Hat or a Colossus? That would be interesting.
-
I think I'm more disturbed about the compliments to my post than the arguments.... I was nodding off and watching TV while typing that. The abrupt change of pace in the middle of the post was where I lost my train of thought, watching the 1:00am re-air of Mythbusters. ;)
At any rate, I stand beside my defense of the Hatshepsut and my use of the parallels between real navies and the FS2 fleets. The parallels aren't perfect, but the GTVA's technology, between FreeSpace 1 and FreeSpace 2, seems to be evolving in such a way as to make the comparisons increasingly valid. Bombers simply have greater reach and power than beam cannons do, just as WWII torpedo and dive bombers had more range and power than any battleship could muster.
Regarding an Orion jumping atop an unsuspecting Hecate, it's just unlikely, given the fact that the Hecate will be able to field more reconnaisance fighters, capable of spotting the Orion from far beyond sensor range. Yes, the Orion is likely to have recon wings of its own, but the point is, the Hecate will have more. This means greater coverage of a system and faster detection of targets hostile to the Hecate. Supposing the Orion does pop in to make its broadside attack, the Hecate survives, jumps away, and even has time to leave a few wings of bombers to return the favor. Where's the Orion now? It's stuck in a small swarm of hostile bombers, until it can recharge its jump drives to give chase.
There's a reason the Hecate is a technological step forward: It's a better carrier-analogue, and as the carrier-analogues get better, the battleship-analogues get comparatively worse. That's not to say the Orion is totally worthless, but unless you're removing fighters and bombers entirely from the equation, or giving the Orion some other borderline-unrealistic advantage to the Orion, its odds just aren't great in an engagement with a Hecate.
-
One other problem - what if the Sath decides to jump?
DIVE DIVE DIVE, HIT YOUR BURNERS PILOT !! ............great now i've gotta wait ten minutes before i can change my shorts :p
-
I think I'm more disturbed about the compliments to my post than the arguments.... I was nodding off and watching TV while typing that. The abrupt change of pace in the middle of the post was where I lost my train of thought, watching the 1:00am re-air of Mythbusters. ;)
At any rate, I stand beside my defense of the Hatshepsut and my use of the parallels between real navies and the FS2 fleets. The parallels aren't perfect, but the GTVA's technology, between FreeSpace 1 and FreeSpace 2, seems to be evolving in such a way as to make the comparisons increasingly valid. Bombers simply have greater reach and power than beam cannons do, just as WWII torpedo and dive bombers had more range and power than any battleship could muster.
Regarding an Orion jumping atop an unsuspecting Hecate, it's just unlikely, given the fact that the Hecate will be able to field more reconnaisance fighters, capable of spotting the Orion from far beyond sensor range. Yes, the Orion is likely to have recon wings of its own, but the point is, the Hecate will have more. This means greater coverage of a system and faster detection of targets hostile to the Hecate. Supposing the Orion does pop in to make its broadside attack, the Hecate survives, jumps away, and even has time to leave a few wings of bombers to return the favor. Where's the Orion now? It's stuck in a small swarm of hostile bombers, until it can recharge its jump drives to give chase.
There's a reason the Hecate is a technological step forward: It's a better carrier-analogue, and as the carrier-analogues get better, the battleship-analogues get comparatively worse. That's not to say the Orion is totally worthless, but unless you're removing fighters and bombers entirely from the equation, or giving the Orion some other borderline-unrealistic advantage to the Orion, its odds just aren't great in an engagement with a Hecate.
1. You fail to take into account the obvius advantage of heavy beam cannons - they can't be stopped or intercepted and can be fired the second a destroyer jumps in.
bomber first need to get into range (which is significantly less than a beam cannons range) and they are slow moving so it takes them a while, get a lock (also takes time, especially if you're harassaed) and the bomb actually has to make it trough.
2. Also, AFAIK, you can't detect an incoming warship on time - unless you had a spotter that saw it leave position X, you'll know it's there only when you see the subspace tunel opening. Even if your jump drives are charged and ready and you hit jump the second the Orion pops up, it takes you longer to jump than it takes a capship to fire beams.
3. The fighterbay is allways a bottleneck - no matter how many fighter you cary you can only launch them at a specific rate. it takes several minutes to deploy all fighters...and several minutes is a long time (assumin all fighters arn't allready up in the air)
4. Finally, in reality the Orion doesn't need bombers..If you filled it with just interceptors it would be very hard for any bomb to pass trough...that holds even more true for the Hecate..
-
Even if the Hecate has more fighters the Orion would still win. If the Hecate sent lone fighter and bombers then the fighters on the Orion would have a better chance of defeating them because it could use it's defences to reinforce it's defenders. if the Hecate jumped in the Orion could destroy it before it could launch many fighters. If the Hecate launched fighters and then they all jumped in together, the fighters would get there first and be mainly gone by the time the destroyer arrived. Otherwise their would be a stalemate until the destroyers exhausted all of their fighters. Even then the Orion would still win becuase it is better on its own. This would all depend on the skill of either captain, and whether or not he played his strengths, though.
-
SD RAVANA!!!!!!It has 2 kick ass beams.It looks nice, every time i see one im like 'aww i have to kill it now?".Especially the HTL Ver.
-
The Hat is the best destroyer in the GTVA in terms of combat ability and everything. If I was flying around in anything in the GTVA arsenal, I'd feel safest in a Hatshepsut.
But I still voted Orion. :D No FS2 ship can ever, ever beat an FS1 ship. Too much history, too much awesome.
Uh, no you wouldn't. I personally would feel completely unnerved in a Hatshepsut. Honestly, what kind of background music is that? Crazy Vasudans...
-
Hah!
GTD Acquitaine
Officers & Crew: 1,000 (approx)
Orchestra: 9,000 (approx)
At least you know that the vasudans are doing something aboard their warships besides composing music. Granted, that something might involve decapitation of all terrans somehow involving wet herrings, but warships are supposed to be all about killing, right?
-
I allways wondered where that ominusmusic is coming from whenever something goes wrong...An orchestra on board - how ingenius!
Anyone seen a episode of Spongebob about the hunt for a Big White Clam?
To win, GTVA command must ORDER all orchestra on all ships to only play victorious and glorious music! Nothing can go wrong then!
-
Orion by far looks so much kooler cruising past than a Hecate.
When the MT destroyer (cant remember name),(in derelict) and fires off all the beam cannons it looks wicked. Wouldnt be look nearly as good if it was a Hecate.
-
It's called the MTD Auriga. The Orion is of course the best Destroyer. 3 BGreens and 4 Terslash can't be wrong.
-
To win, GTVA command must ORDER all orchestra on all ships to only play victorious and glorious music! Nothing can go wrong then!
What do you think plan-B is, after Alpha 1 gets shot down in any given mission?
-
A1 die? blashphemy
-
To win, GTVA command must ORDER all orchestra on all ships to only play victorious and glorious music! Nothing can go wrong then!
What do you think plan-B is, after Alpha 1 gets shot down in any given mission?
Play recordings of the Orchestra while they send out all the actual people from it to fight.
-
Oh, now there's an idea.... Jettison the orchestra out an airlock.... Your fleet can't repel harmonies of that magnitude!
-
Oh, now there's an idea.... Jettison the orchestra out an airlock.... Your fleet can't repel harmonies of that magnitude!
:confused: I don't get it, I thought those harmonics are used to power the beam cannons? Why eject the very power supply of your main guns?
-
Let's not forget..you must also forbid them to play any "impending doom" music...ESPECIALLY the one from the move jaws....or else shivan superships will start appearing and pwning the GTVA
-
well lets asume this if an Orion destroyer has any kind of reasonably deacent captain then that captain will take on more fighters and interceptors on its hangars then bommbers. Why? Because he can use his main guns to take out the enemy warship a lot faster then bommbers can. That can not be said for the Hecate which would obviously have more bommbers and heavy fighters on it to take care of the enemy warships since well its main cannons have trouble taking out even enemy cruisers fast enough let alone corvettes or destroyes.
The point is the Hecate while a very good ship or the role it was designed would have a very hard time in close quarters combet with other warships exclueding its fighters and the enemy fighters. And again the problem is not necesaryli that it can not inflict enough damage but rather it can not inflict enough damage fast enough.
I mean Look at the Hatshepsut and the Orion the 2 beasts can inflict an insane amount of damage so fast it makes the Hecate seem like baby when compared.
However since shivans seem to have fighters pouring out of they freaking arse every few seconds the Hecate is one ship that the GTVA must have. Why because it has a superrior fighter capacity ideal to help out the other warships on the battle field. And as far as we know it may be the destroyer wiht the most fighter carryng capacity in game...altough this is just a speculation on my part.
I mean the hatsheepsuit was abviously built for close range havy battle via beam cannons whyle the Heacte was built to ensure the GTVA has fighter/bommber superiority on the battlefield See they tend to complement each other.
some of you will say that this mean that the Hatshesut class destroyers then carry fewer spaceships. But i believe that is not the case since they do seem to have at least an equal amount of spaceships to the Hecate. However if they do indeed have fewer spaceships carryng capacity then a Hatshepsuit surely does not have fewer the the Orion. Arguement: It's a nevwer warship with improved tech and its VASUDAN.
In this respect I believe the Hatshepsut to be a couple of metters per second slower the the Hecate due to its increased armour HP and while having formidable C&C tech on it the Hecate is probably superior in this respect since it would help her perform her duties .
Also I believe the Hatshepsut is a newer desing then the Hecate and was probably built with some leasson learnt from the Hecate designs. Even thou it is terran the vasudans would of probably learned from it.
Also the Hecate would be better of replacing its terslashers with vasudan beams since they tend to be somewhat better at recharging. And that would help the Hecate quite a lot.
-
It's called the MTD Auriga. The Orion is of course the best Destroyer. 3 BGreens and 4 Terslash can't be wrong.
Maybe you didn't notice the SD Lucifer up there.
Of course the Lucy would win out of all these. It isn't really useful to talk about the effectivness of various capital ships, as combat effectiveness is determined mostly by plot concerns. Remember Bearbaiting? How many hundreds of fighters/bombers do you think the Sathanas has? Why does it only scramble a dozen or so?
"Realistically", the bomber complements of these destroyers are so huge that it would really be the pilots who determine the outcome of the battle, not the beams. Plot and mission balance requirements determine victory on the FS battlefield more than armor or armament.
-
Personally, I think the MTD Auriga would provide a fairly even match for the Lucy (and no, I am not just basing that off of a quote in Derelict). Especially if its
beam inhibitor
was active.
-
Of course the Lucy would win out of all these. It isn't really useful to talk about the effectivness of various capital ships, as combat effectiveness is determined mostly by plot concerns. Remember Bearbaiting? How many hundreds of fighters/bombers do you think the Sathanas has? Why does it only scramble a dozen or so?
Most likely because it used them all up earlier.
-
The Shivans were able to bypass the beam inhibitor after fairly quickly. So it would have the first shot, but the Lucy can still heavily damage or destroy the Auriga.
-
Maybe you didn't notice the SD Lucifer up there.Of course the Lucy would win out of all these.
Maybe you didn't notice that the standard armament of the Lucifer in FS2 is 2 Sred which give it less firepower than a Rakshasa. It could barely harm a Leviathan. Its only saving grace is its ridiculously high amount of Hitpoints.
Of course if you change them to SSLs or Lreds it becomes quite powerful.
-
I still think that the Hatshepsut is the best destroyer. It might have a weaker hull compared to others, but its design is that it is meant to outflank other ships, not attack them head on. Hell, no GTVA ship would attack a shivan destroyer on, except perhaps a demon. Strange though, the SD Demon's design is very different compared to other ships. Its firepower is dispersed evenly around the ship, not all concentrated to the front. Functions more like a base then an attacking vessel.
-
It's called the MTD Auriga. The Orion is of course the best Destroyer. 3 BGreens and 4 Terslash can't be wrong.
Maybe you didn't notice the SD Lucifer up there.
Of course the Lucy would win out of all these. It isn't really useful to talk about the effectivness of various capital ships, as combat effectiveness is determined mostly by plot concerns. Remember Bearbaiting? How many hundreds of fighters/bombers do you think the Sathanas has? Why does it only scramble a dozen or so?
"Realistically", the bomber complements of these destroyers are so huge that it would really be the pilots who determine the outcome of the battle, not the beams. Plot and mission balance requirements determine victory on the FS battlefield more than armor or armament.
As said earlier, beams fire faster than bombs.
-
But if you have 20 bombers...
-
But if you have 20 bombers...
The beams on any competent destroyer (Orion, Hatshepsut) could cripple a carrier before it could release 20 bombers.
-
I still think that the Hatshepsut is the best destroyer. It might have a weaker hull compared to others, but its design is that it is meant to outflank other ships, not attack them head on.
The Old Hatshy has more HP than most destroyers in game IIRC...
-----
BEAM CANNONS
Advantages:
- long range
- can't be intercepted
- do a hell of a lot of damage
- can be fired the second the ship pops up (in or out)
???
BOMBERS
Advantages:
- you can have more of them than you have beam cannons
- linked fire
- can carry trebs?
???
-
^^ but both are easily destroyed by the other
-
I think what most people fail to realize is, bombers and even fighters with the maxim cannon can take out the beam weaponry on capital ships. Once the beams are done, its a giant piece of scrap metal. And if its engines and navigations are taken out, it's as good as dead.
-
But it takes time to take out navigation and engines...and a capship can jusmp by then and escape..of course, they can practilcy allways escape.
A beam salvo can cripple the ship in 5 seconds flat..no bbr can do that.
IMHO, maxims and Trebs are so overpowered it's redicolous. Have you ever seen any warship carrying a weapon with shorter range than a fighter?
-
The Maxim is so powerful, I think they should replace the blob turrets with them. That'll end capital ship engagements even faster.
-
That'll end capital ship engagements even faster.
That's exactly why they shouldn't ;).
Capitol engagements are to short as it is.
-
If capital ships always had weaponry that beats fighters and bombers before they get within range, you'd be the captain of a Deimos corvette and Alpha wing would be escorting you.
-
I think what most people fail to realize is, bombers and even fighters with the maxim cannon can take out the beam weaponry on capital ships. Once the beams are done, its a giant piece of scrap metal. And if its engines and navigations are taken out, it's as good as dead.
The navigation subsystem does nothing at all.
-
The navigation subsystem does nothing at all.
Game mechanics-wise no... Freespace universe wise it does something.. Ships can't jump without it..or at least not fast... Or something like that
-
Yes, but right now we're talking game-wise.
Using the ai_profiles (IIRC) you can actually make the navigation govern the ability to warp out.
-
If capital ships always had weaponry that beats fighters and bombers before they get within range, you'd be the captain of a Deimos corvette and Alpha wing would be escorting you.
Who said that? I said equal range.. and even if capships had weapons with longer ranges, that still doens't mean anything for the player.
Evade, dodge, countermesure?
-
Evade, dodge, countermesure?
Avoid the beam, and you won't get hit?
-
The Maxim is so powerful, I think they should replace the blob turrets with them. That'll end capital ship engagements even faster.
oh GOD no.
I replaced 4 turrets on a Fenris with Maxims, and for the life of me I could not kill the damn thing. (heavy assault fighter)
Those guns have RANGE man...
-
but IIRC, they cant actually kill anything bigger then a cruiser, corvet at most.
-
The Maxim is so powerful, I think they should replace the blob turrets with them. That'll end capital ship engagements even faster.
oh GOD no.
I replaced 4 turrets on a Fenris with Maxims, and for the life of me I could not kill the damn thing. (heavy assault fighter)
Those guns have RANGE man...
Which is the way things should be. One lone fighter should not be able to kill a cruiser.
You'll notice that the most lauded of PI's gameplay "improvements" is the strengthening of capital ship defenses. This is especially evident on the Saturn.
-
Which is why my capital ships are gonna be killign you :lol: :drevil:
-
The way capital ship armaments should have been is morning stars, flaks, and AAA beams for anti-fighter defenses. And that sounds reasonably repelling enough for fighters and bombers, and you might as well keep all the normal blob turrets on there, when the hell are you going to get hit by one of those to be killed? Plus the blob turrets could be like changed in a table where they only shoot at bombs and capital ships, and only at fighters if there's no capital ships around to engage with blob turrets coupled with flak and AAA beams and normal beams.
Pretty much i'm saying morning stars should be integrated onto bigger ships as weapon supplementing. Capital ships would then fill their role a lot better in the roles of anti-fighter, support, and killing other capships. Capships would also last a lot longer which i really wouldn't mind seeing. Capships already got enough antifighter weaponry that kills, but fighters and bombers can easily fly away. If you had morning stars on a capship (i'm not talking like an uber amount of morning stars, just a reasonable amount that would offer good coverage sort of like the intelligent placing of flaks on say a deimos or a triton freighter(the tritons single flak is very nice for where it's placed, and the fact that it's the only flak on the whole freighter), you'd be flakked, bounced around, maybe some blobbing, but in this horrible situation you'd be in if you were this poor fighter, you could still bug out before you recieved a blob and a beam.
Why do i suggest this? Well, it'd make capships more viable, and make capships safer i guess. I mean there's ships like the hecate which aren't really meant for or designed to take a direct assault, sort of like fenris cruisers. One of the motives of being a capship captain is that you want to stay away from fighters. And well this would make the world all better.
-
Making capships tougher - more HP and better AF defense means that the player will hardly be able to kill them alone....which is good.
No more 1 bbr wing attack, but whole friggin squads would attack. You'd have to take care of your wingmane and allies better, if for nothing else then for the fact that they'd make a good diversion ;7
-
I wasn't thinking more hp, the normal amount of hp ships have is fine enough.
-
downside would be that bombing runs would be almost impossible, taking all the fun out of it for the player. i mean, come on, do you want to get shot down 5 times by the same turret?
-
I'm not sure that beefing up capital ships' armaments is necessarily the best solution to their vulnerability to fighters. It's not the worst solution either, mind you, since blob turrets are so pathetic, but it's not the best.
I think the biggest problem with capital ships is that it is so easy for fighters to create blindspots in their defenses, even if initial turret coverage is pretty strong. For example, the two AAA beams at the rear of the Sobek is a pretty strong deterant to attacking fighters, but once some brave/poor soul moves in to destroy them, that whole rear quadrant is utterly defenseless. Let's pull a role reversal, and put you in the Sobek's command chair. What do you do when your tactical officer informs you that your aft quarter has been neutered? You probably tell your engineering teams, in no uncertain terms, who will be neutered next, if they don't restore those AAA beams to operation. Of course, that's a lot of scripting (especially if you want repair rates to slow as more turrets are damaged, representing a splitting of the repair team's efforts), so from a meta-game perspective, it's not a viable option, except in the rarest of cases.
Aside from that, I'd also consider making a couple of the player's weapons a little less ridiculous. The Maxim really needs its range dropped down to between 1250 and 1500 meters, like the Prometheus S, so that you can fire from a healthy range, but not without fear of reprisal. On top of that, the Trebuchet needs to be targetable as a bomb. This would make it equivilant to an advanced Stiletto in terms of its turret-smashing capabilities. (i.e. You can kill turrets from beyond their range, but you'll need to fire off the better half of a bank in order to overwhelm the turrets you're firing at, thereby making them a slower and less attractive option.)
I suppose the solution you choose depends on if you want to beat the player with the whoopin' stick or the nerf stick. Of course, lately, when I've been building missions, I opt for option three, not making the Maxim or Trebuchet available. Don't like the Prometheus and Stiletto? That's just too bad, now, isn't it?
-
I think that they just don't have enough turrets. Specifically, no point-defence weapons in the vein of Subachs. Your average WWII capital ship had a huge number of machine guns and light (ie fighter-scale) weaponry, 20mm guns especially, stuck on the deck wherever they could be fit, to supplement the heavy anti-aircraft guns. FS can't model huge numbers of turrets very well, but methinks that if an Orion had a realistic number of turrets - lots of little Subachs everywhere - they'd be more formidable. I mean, less than 20 guns on a ship 2 kilometers long? Unlikely.
-
but you'd probably crash the fs engine if you tried to do that. that is why they are so poorly defended, in my opinion. the engine cant handle a "realistic" number of weapons on a destroyers, so all the smaller cap-ships had to be scalled down to match, thereby giving the player an edge over the computer, but not so much as to take all the fun out of it, which is really the point of videogames, isnt it?
-
To make the Treb targettable, you just have to edit a weapons.tbl entry, right? Same goes for the Maxim's range... I think you could create a .tbm to change those values... not sure. Ask someone who knows .tbms. I think there's a wiki page on them.
-
Just add a bomb flag to it or something like that..I made my trebs targetable...it's fun
-
Just add a bomb flag to it or something like that..I made my trebs targetable...it's fun
Yeah, but I do not like it since the AI thinks it can't be used against bombers now (at least the AI doesn't do it).
BTW, have you tried deleting the "bomber+" flag of the Treb? The AI uses it against fighters and it makes for a lot of fun explosions ;)
-
Mayhaps we need a new flag? Something that will tell the turret AI that it can target the missile, but not applying any restriction to the missile itself?