Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: AlphaOne on November 06, 2007, 05:37:39 pm
-
Oki i was thinking about what would prove to be the most efective way to wage a war agains the shivans .
Now we see the GTVA as having very powerfull warships . Sure they are not as powerfull or as fast as the Shivan ones (i think) but somehow the GTVA managed to deply most of its ships really fast in order to counter the shivan threat. However it is also true that had the GTVA been emphasizing the mobility factor of its ships they could of run circles around the shivans and outmanouver them every time. However lighter faster ships also means a decrease in the overall armour(HP) of the ships not to mention smaller sizezed warshisp and less heavy weaponry on them. One exception in this regard would the Iceni (I love that warship).
On the other hand heavy warships alow you to smash through enemy strongholds faster and can last longer in a prelonged battle. It all depends on how you use each one! However the obvious limitation would be significantly reduced mobilaty and more expenses. Not to mention vulnerabilaty to lighter classes of warhips if they are on a hunter killer mission.
So i want your opinions and sugestions regarding each of these diferent aproces .
Also i would like you to sugest or try and imagine what kind of warship would be ideal for the next 20 to 25 years after Capella for the GTVA the more massive Hecate and Hatshesut class destroyers ore more agile sleeker faster ships such as the corvettes and Iceni . Perhaps a downsize in destroyers specs perhaps a new class altoghether or even upsizinf some of the cruisers creating a newwer larger class of cruiser??
I await your input on this ! :D
-
Well, they need some big ships in order to counter such things as Saths, but small, agile ships are also required to go places fast, either to annoy enemy forces or to take a bit of pressure off of bigger ships.
Also: "outmanuever the Shivans every single time"? Have you ever gone up against a Dragon? They outmanuever everything!
So, my thought is: both. Big ships are required to deliver heavy blows to other big ships. Demons, Ravanas, Lucifers, Saths... Shivans have some really powerful ships and the GTVA needs weapons that are able to take them out. That means some pretty powerful ships (more powerful than destroyers, in the case of Saths). And small ships are needed to support the big guys, do reconnaisance, and wage small battles the larger ships shouldn't have to deal with.
-
You need both Heavy ships to fight the Shivan heavy ships and smaller, lighter ones to protect the heavies. If forced to choose between a fleet of smaller, lighter ships or heavier, bigger ships, I'd take the fleet with the lighter ships. That way I could use guerrilla tactics, whereas a fleet of all heavier ships would be sitting ducks.
Of course, as I said, a mix is really needed for any real hope at victory.
-
If forced to choose between a fleet of smaller, lighter ships or heavier, bigger ships, I'd take the fleet with the lighter ships. That way I could use guerrilla tactics...
Except that even then they be swatted aside by a ship of Superdestroyer or Juggernaut class like so many gnats. Hell, a Sath could probably just run them all over and have done with it. :p
Of course, as I said, a mix is really needed for any real hope at victory.
QFT. :nod:
-
Well a mix would be ideal but then again its already been tried already in FS2 and it didnt do so well now did it?
Also im not talking about fighters/bommbers just capital warships. I was thinking that even a Sath cand be taken out by a couple of Iceni's rather fast without risking major investments ! On the other hand the sam could be achieved by fewer warhisp but a lot more powerfull! This is dilemma for me as the only really capable warhips that are both fast and agile and have loads of firepower is the Iceni and to some respects the Deimos (someone get rid of all those slasher :(( ) )oh but keep the aaaf defences they are second to none) !
I was tinkering with the idea of more specialized warships such as battlecruisers (cruiser only larger and more powerfull yet small enough to be more manouverable then a corvette) Iceni class warhisp and poket size destroyers 1.5 km long or so!
But i dont want to go into specifics . However its seems that after Capella the GTVA command is low on both big and small warhips . The question would be what do you do next which do you build more . The more lighter ships you have the more your tactics become more mobile the heavier the ships the more you have to addopt large slower tactics whych require that the objectives be of similar magnitude. You cant just sent a Destroyer to rescue a hand fuill of supply transports but then again you cand send in a cruiser since it would be cut to pieces . So you either send a more powerfull variant meaning a battlecruiser or 2 or a combination of battlcruiser and corvette ?
-
I was thinking that even a Sath cand be taken out by a couple of Iceni's rather fast without risking major investments !
Well... technically, it can, but it takes forever and any intelligent Sath commander would jump out after it was clear he was taking more damage than he was dealing.
Want proof? Play Tech Superiority sometime. There's a mission in which a cruiser and another small ship take on a Sath and win... only because:
A)the Sath was disabled
B)they were not in the FOF of its beams
C)it only had about a quarter of the fighters it was supposed to
D)the cruiser (Anya) was ridiculously over-powered.
(No, I am not a fan of Tech Sup.)
It's just implausible to assault really powerful ships with greater numbers of much weaker ships... unless you significantly out number them. Which is also implausible... especially when considering the Shivans, who seemed to outnumber the GTVA nearly a hundred to one at the end of FS2.
-
So for the sake of arguement you are sayng that perhaps 6 or 7 Iceni's with a total firepower of 18-21 Bgreens would take forever to take out a Sath? I rather think they will do it much faster then even a Collie! However you are correct smaller warships are also more exposed then the more powerfull ones. However this in itself can be ablessing since any shypa of Iceni's size ould run circles around a Sath. But i wasnt talking about uber ships of doom i was talking about the "normal" FS2 ships. Since it seems that the shivans can outnumber the GTVA when it comes to heavy warships ships whych for the most part are superior in ofensive capabilaties to any GTVA warships theyr smaller warships aside from the Lilith suck big time.
And in such a case a fast mobile fleet would prove to be a winner when confronted with supperior numbers of shivan warships. However it is also true that the GTVA may not always be the ones who are gooing on the defensive since they might even lunch a few counter attacks . In such a situation better armed and armoured ships would be preferable in combination with the fast mobile forces to keep the shivans busy till the big ships can get into position.
-
To be honest, I would much prefer a larger fleet of smaller ships to a smaller fleet of larger ships. Something like pocket carriers, corvettes, and cruisers compared to full blown destroyers and frigates. The reason being is that you have little invested in each ship. If one is eliminated, its not a significant blow to your operation assuming it wasn't the command vessel. Smaller ships with quicker recharge jump drives would enable the fleet to use harrassment tactics against a larger force. Now against the Shivans this sort of strategy might work better than you think. Shivan ships in general seem to have no concept of strategy whatsover. As a species they seem to apply one strategy; throw everything you've got at the enemy until he's dust, his planet is dust, and his fleet is a floating debris pile. Using smaller ships, the GTVA could stay mobile, and thus fight engagements only when the odds are in their favor. In addition, since the Shivans are relentless, using smaller, faster ships to draw out the Shivan big guns would be an effective way to eliminate chunks of the Shivan fleet. Shivans have little in the way of anti-fighter defense (The Ravana, Demon, and Sathanas anyway. Fly in circles around them all day with narry a scratch). Because of this, luring a destroyer or juggernaught into position, then either launching bomber attacks or deploying a stealthed meson bomb(not really sure if that's possible, but it would make for one hell of a nice surprise) would enable the GTVA to pick off larger targets with little risk to the main fleet.
Now some might argue that the Sathanas would just unleash all of its fighters to stop the incoming attack and thwart it. The best way to handle that is to have a small fighter escort guarding one of the smaller ships, causing the Sathanas to hopefully launch its fighters while its still out of beam cannon range. If it launches even a third of its fighter compliment, that is a significant boost to the strike force. If said bombers are accompanied by two or three cruisers or corvettes to provide fire support, the Sathans can be ambushed, crippled, and destroyed with probably minimal loss of life on the part of the attackers.
When fighting an enemy who has both superior numbers and firepower, you make him come to your yard.
-
What the GTVA could use are deployable RBCs.
Have several "transport corvettes" tug a few RBCs around. They could jump in, unload them, dash away (now that the weight is reduced) and use them as the Remote Beam Cannons that they are.
Then you could get rid of those crappy slasher beams and have more anti-fighter defenses (perhaps even a small fighter bay could be incorporated into the design).
-
If I had to choose only one or the other I would choose the large powerful slow ships. But but for that to work there would need to be a lot of fighter/bomber support.
-
The GTVA can already win against the Shivans . GTVA has fighter superiority over the shivans ( kinda ) . And for the capital ships - simply target the main weapons ( like the sathanas beam cannons ? ) with the GTVA's beam cannons . You don't really need to destroy a shivan ship . Simply make it useless - disable , disarm , destroy subsystems , and sometime later maybe destroy it .
Though I'd choose heavy capital ships .
1. They're awesome .
2. You'd keep loosing lighter ships in every battle . Heavy ships ensure that it'll survive a lot of battles .
However , the GTVA should copy the shivans on capital ship design - front firepower . And they'd need a quickly recharging jump drives . Hit and run tactics would be perfect that way - jump in , fire all your beam cannons from the front , jump out . Jump in from behind , fire again , jump out before the hostile ship turns to you . Etc.
-
But i dont want to go into specifics . However its seems that after Capella the GTVA command is low on both big and small warhips . The question would be what do you do next which do you build more . The more lighter ships you have the more your tactics become more mobile the heavier the ships the more you have to addopt large slower tactics whych require that the objectives be of similar magnitude. You cant just sent a Destroyer to rescue a hand fuill of supply transports but then again you cand send in a cruiser since it would be cut to pieces . So you either send a more powerfull variant meaning a battlecruiser or 2 or a combination of battlcruiser and corvette ?
Methinks its reather obvious. Initially the gTVA will need a lot of ships (since it lost a lot) for system patrol, fighting off pirates, fanatics, etc.. For such domestic purposes, lighter, faster warships are far better suited (whens the last time pirates had any significant firepower?)...and you can produce them faster. Besides, there's no point in making a uber-destroyer now - let the tech division brains work and experiment with smaller ships a bit.
So you basicly build a lot of corvettes, battlescruisers and similar ships to help mantain peace for a few years. during htat time you eperiment and develop technologies for bibber, badder warships - armor plating more resistant to shivan beams, better heat sinks, meson missiles :snipe:.
THEN you start building frikkin big warships.
So when hte shivans come, the friggin big warships tie their juggs and super-destroyers up, while hte smaller warships move to flank them and shove a few photon beams down their a**. :p
-
What the GTVA could use are deployable RBCs.
Have several "transport corvettes" tug a few RBCs around. They could jump in, unload them, dash away (now that the weight is reduced) and use them as the Remote Beam Cannons that they are.
Then you could get rid of those crappy slasher beams and have more anti-fighter defenses (perhaps even a small fighter bay could be incorporated into the design).
Except the RBC's would be destroyed faster than you could blink when fighters are deployed. You'd need a lot of fighters to protect the RBC's, because we all know that turrets suck.
-
So they upgrade the RBC's to have heavier armor. Or maybe some AAA beams on 'em for anti-fighter defense.
I like RBC's... they were always so underused in the main campaign.
-
I like RBC's too. If they upgraded them with a few AAA beams and a flak turret or two they'd be awesome for holding a line against capital ships. As it stands in the main FS2 campaign though, they wouldn't last against enemy fighters without fighter support of their own.
-
Hence deployable ones off of specialized corvettes which can in turn carry more anti-fighter weaponry and/or fightercraft. The idea is increasing the number of targets and making things modular so that parts could be replaced more quickly.
Big durable ships are still needed of course, but not too many. The Colossus sustained only moderate damage against the Sathanas and it took several months to fix it up again. If you "mass-produced" modular RBC detachments, then it'd be a swap.
I dunno, there's probably some serious holes in this idea, haven't thought it through. I'd imagine RBCs couple with Morning Star sentries would be a really tough nut to crack.
-
A ship with only "engines and beam cannons" for strike and vanish attacks. They could fly very fast compared to average, and have massive firepower at the front, however, have no other turrets what-so-ever, so they could be good at and only at this purpose. A couple of these should be able to destroy a Sath, definately a destroyer quickly.
-
Here's a somewhat heretical suggestion, one I'll throw out to test the reaction.
Forget ships as we know them.
Build skeletons: a subspace drive, an overpowered main engine, and minimal crew. The ship doesn't need to be maneuverable, it just needs high linear speed.
For in-system combat, slap on seven or eight capacitors for the jump drive so you can make rapid jumps, and lots and lots of the following:
- remote beam cannon platforms.
- antifighter beam platforms
- missile pods - forget the slow Helios weapons, stuff them with Infyrnos and Stilettos.
Jump your skeleton ship in, shed the payload, and jump out. Repeat as necessary. If you need to, you can jump to six separate combat zones throughout the system and supply them with firepower. Think of the tactical possibilities; Alpha 1 sees a Ravana pop in and simply calls for a load of Mjolnirs on-station. Bombers attacking a convoy? Deploy the antifighter pickets.
You can use these ships as carriers, too. Equip hangar pods and keep them constantly on the move.
They can't defend themselves well if they're caught without any payload left, but even if you lose one, it's just the chassis and the drives. Compare that to the loss of a Hecate.
This is the in-system fighting variant. I'd imagine you could come up with a Sathkiller variant and a blockade runner for jumps into hostile territory. Suggestions?
-
personally a bunch of large heavy ships would probably be the best way to take a sath out. I mean if you did have a bunch of Iceni's and then like even 2 or 3 fighter wings they could do it, but it'd have to be friggen quick cause that sath can leave at any second 9like what was stated before0
a mix would be better though. you can attract fire with the smaller ships and then ahve something huge jump in behind the sath (this is, of course, assuming that sath's cannot nano jump like in Inferno)
-
Why not save the energy and have torpedoes? they wouldnt take as much power as a beam weapon and if you want to you can ram the enemy...
or better yet, build giant missiles, big enough to pack enough bombs to blow a Sath out of space... with enough of them you could even stop an invasion.
Maybe we could put Mason bombs in them.... like 4 or 5 each. Ohhh, that way you could program them to detonate at the same time, or scatter on impact to spread the dmg over a large area, OR they could be used to collapse jump nodes. usefull some? it could save some older destroyers from that fate
If that dosent make sense I was making it up as I went.
-
Did anyone here read the Higaaran history book which came with Homeworld 1? (that chronicles the whole discovery--> construction thing) There was a section quoting two generals/admirals discussing strategy like this IIRC :)
-
Did anyone here read the Higaaran history book which came with Homeworld 1? (that chronicles the whole discovery--> construction thing) There was a section quoting two generals/admirals discussing strategy like this IIRC :)
and in the end whoever won let whatever planet it was called get glassed. So I wouldnt take advise from either of them.
One because his strategy failed, the other because he eventually accepted a flawed idea.
-
No not the missiles thing, i should have said "With relation to the topic title" in retyrospect. :)
-
i believe along the way people has lost the whole idea i was discussing! Im not talking about uber ships of doom popping out everiwhee or crazy deployable mesons superboms or anithing so extravagant! I'm talking about pure theoretical strategies while using 2 different aproaches to acompli the same thing! both have theyr pro's and con's so its not like any one of them is perfect however having a jack of all trades is no longer a perfect option not for the GTVA they already did that and look what it got them. sure they may not of had any choice in the matter either way but i believe using some refined tactics the shivans could of sustained much more heavy losses then the GTVA.
The GTVA doesnt actualy need to win anithing they just have to cause so much damage to the shivans that it would be too expensive for the shivans to completely destroy the GTVA.
Just imagine a group of a dozen or so Iceni's packed in an square facing a Sath overloading they beam cannons in order to gain the superior range. Then imagine all those oveloaded beam cannons opening fire on the blasted Sath. Can onyone say Sath is for dinner today boys??
Faster more mobile warships can be deployed much much faster then normal ones. They are more adept at dodging bullets so to speak while delivering huge amounts of damage with theyr superior numbers.
However it is also true the same thing can be acomplished by massive warships since they can withstand the damage much better. They are ships that can really be used in many circumstances but mostry when you have a prelonged battle and you need superior armour to hold the line. I believe the GTVA would be much better of if they concentrated theyr fleets around Colossus size warships with the colossus beeing the focal poin and the fast more mobile ships which should acount for about 75% of its fleet with the rest of 25% heavy warships.
-
How can anything be too expensive for the Shivans? The can send an endless rain of Sathanas O_o.
-
We have no conception of how the Shivans view industry, warfare, loss of ships, etc. Fighting a war of attrition might work if you're battling a reasonable foe, but "reasonable" and "Shivan"? We have no idea how a reasonable Shivan would act.
-
No matter how strong their industry is it's not unlimited. Tehri numbers aren't endless.
Theoreticly, if you managed to put enough hurt on them they might reconsider their approach. Immaginve every single node in Allied space blockaded by 40 RBC and a decent-sized fleet, all neatly parked to rape whatever comes trough the node.
Eventually the shivans would wear done the defenses but just think of the loses tehy would sustain to gain a SINGLE node. :eek:
-
The Shivans would get pissed off if you started a war of attrition, and then decide to scrap all their Saths and sortie their radical suicide bombers!
-
Let them come!
I love the smell of mesons in the morning! :pimp:
-
They'd bomb your government buildings and assassinate your presidents with their undercover agents!! :P
-
You're right.
We would never notice those huge, 5 legged, compund glowing eyes monstrosities in our vicinity. Tehy are so redicly different that everyone would think they are halucinating and would just ignore them...untill it's too late! :eek: :eek:
-
Yes. You can't just go around arresting every single guy in the GTVA who looks like he's got 5 legs and compound eyes now, can we? ;)
I guess the GTVA is in quite a pickle. :nod:
-
Actually, odds are the Shivans are a post-scarcity society.
It's quite possible that they have such enormous command of technology that they can produce unlimited quantities of matter and technology. They're not limited by what we consider 'industry', or even the need to produce natural resources - they can use femtotech fabrication, or maybe even some kind of subspace power.
Their tactics, which seem to totally disregard losses, support this suggestion.
It's possible that they literally can make ships faster than we can kill them. There's no way we can disprove it.
-
that HAS to be a valid point!
-
Actually, odds are the Shivans are a post-scarcity society.
It's quite possible that they have such enormous command of technology that they can produce unlimited quantities of matter and technology. They're not limited by what we consider 'industry', or even the need to produce natural resources - they can use femtotech fabrication, or maybe even some kind of subspace power.
Their tactics, which seem to totally disregard losses, support this suggestion.
It's possible that they literally can make ships faster than we can kill them. There's no way we can disprove it.
:wtf:
There is no such thing as "unlimited quantities" of anything.
While their tech is impressive, their ships are clearly products of similar fabrication techinuqes as the Terran or Vasudan ones, or else we wouldn't be abel to retrofit them so easily or slap our weapons in them.
They aren't grown or"2replicated" or any such crap.
-
The reverse engineered ships don't have any Shivan technology. The engines and weapons are all Terran, not Shivan. It seems to me they just tore out the insides and smacked on some Terran tech.
-
It's possible that they literally can make ships faster than we can kill them. There's no way we can disprove it.
So guess it's time to find whoever else lives in the Milky Way, and make as many allies as possible.
Returning to the topic:
There's room for both a fleet of smaller ships (usefull for patrols and surprise attacks from safe directions) and a few larger ones in the battlegroup (these would be fire support in larger battles).
It won't be as numerous as a task force made fully of small units, but thanks to the capships there will be room for many fighters (the only field where the GTVA fights Shivans more less as equals untill overrun) and some serious firepower.
From a tactical point of view:
The fleet should not be concentrated around anything, except the ships in action (ie. the corvette that got ambushed should automatically get everyone's available escorts untill it can jump out to safety).
There also must be many supply and repair ships among the fleet, to keep as many of the ships in action as possible.
-
The reverse engineered ships don't have any Shivan technology. The engines and weapons are all Terran, not Shivan. It seems to me they just tore out the insides and smacked on some Terran tech.
IIRC, the terran Maraonly had problem with shivan weaponry, and it's is said ot handle better than the shivan original.. Obviously they didn't jsut gut it.
There also must be many supply and repair ships among the fleet, to keep as many of the ships in action as possible.
But I agree on ressuply and repair ships. the GTVA would need em..That's why I was making the big one...which reminds me..gotta finish it one of these days..
(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8661/constructor3vg8.th.jpg) (http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=constructor3vg8.jpg)
-
IIRC, the terran Maraonly had problem with shivan weaponry, and it's is said ot handle better than the shivan original.. Obviously they didn't jsut gut it.
It had a Terran thruster. Doesn't seem to me like that's Shivan tech. It was probably just some super expensive stuff they threw in to make it better.
-
It has a terran thruster becosue it is in the table under Terran ships...pfft.
F'course they had problems with getting everything t owork on such a short nocie. Don't forget jsut how long the Great War and hte Second Great War lasted.
-
What nonesence shivans dont need resources then what the hell did you blow up in that nebula you know the big rouded things which were called gas and ore miners??? remember those?? Oh yeah and the BIG BOOM you got from them? Shivan resources are not ulimited They can be hurt ! All you have to do is prove to be a much too costly endeavour for the shivans! But by that time they should of already suffered serious damage to ther numbers because of theyr one line tacttics. Sned in as many ships as you have regardless of the fact that they get slaughtered ! This is the shivan approach!
Also shivan tech regarding subspace is very impressive they are at least 50 or 100 years perhaps ahead of the terrans however while theyr beam cannon tech is for the moment ahead of the GTVA most anything else is somewhat inferior! Theyr ships suck big time if they are not on the offensive which limits in a severe manner the way it performs other roles. Also while the shivans tend to relly on "send in the destroyers " the GTVA seems to be gooing along with "send in a corvette 1 wing of bommbers and 2 wings of fighters to take out that dammned destroyer" Its cheaper faster and a lot safer! The GTVA tried already the shivan way of dooing things and they got bashed since GTVa warships are not ourely offensive in theyr designs but rather allround kinda ships with defensive accents. The only truely offensi ships i can think of Are the Iceni (sure its not GTVA standard yet) the Sobek and the Deimos. Other then that even the mighty Orion and Hatshepsut are allround ships with defensive capabilaties emphasized.
Notice i did not put in the Hecate since that piece of junk has trouble taking out even a cruiser let alone a destroyer but on the other hand that is not what it was designed for so for what it was designed iot is a superb ship.
SoI believe that with smaller more capable ships more specialized ships the GTVA could socre victories much more easy and fast. However i do agree 100% now that big heavy hitter must be around to provide the extra firepower.
-
Heavy ships . Light ships can be lost from time to time , and eventually you'll have very little of them . Heavy ships ensure that they'll survive a lot of battles . And if used wisely , they can survive almost everything . So basically , if you build heavy ships , you ensure that the crew ( in-game , a crew doesn't matter ) will surive . If they're on a light ( but fast ) ship , something can go wrong ( accidentaly go into primary weapon fire zone , secondaries can kill you too , bombers , a hell lot of fighters ) , and your ship is dead . The crew is dead too , and so you have less people wanting to join the GTVA fleet's , and you have less people to place into new ships . As you will always loose a few of the lighter ships .
By the way , the Sathanas isn't really a good example of the Shivan ships . I would choose the Demon or the Ravana as representers of the Shivan fleet .
-
You have a point there, AlphaOne: if the Shivans were truly a post-scarcity society they wouldn't need gas miners.
I won't withdraw my suggestion, but I will admit that it's less likely than I first considered.
However, Trashman, the fact that they're built along the same lines as Terran or Vasudan ships doesn't mean they're not 'replicated' or grown. And there certainly can be effectively unlimited quantities of something; what if the Shivans have von Neumann miners that can simply convert an entire planet directly into Maras, or even into ship components?
The gas miners might be gathering elements not available through that method - but only necessary for certain specialized tasks (say, the Sathanas' subspace weapons.)
They could draw energy directly from stars, from subspace, or even from zero-point energy.
I'm not saying this is the case, but I am saying it's a possibility, one that should be taken into account in any strategic analysis.
As for the topic itself, I'll stand by my idea of getting rid o
-
Hehe...that's still not unlimited.
If you look at FS1 and fS2 shivan ship, they certanly don't look grown.
They have a alien design but they are clearly metalic, not organic.
Replicating ships? That level of tech is too impossible and redicolous for me to even consider (but then again, the shivan DID blow up a start, which is also a redicolouslyimpossible level... :wtf: )
-
I'm not saying they're grown or replicated. I'm saying they're built, but in a very efficient manner.
Von Neumann machines are machines programmed to build more of themselves using available resources. If the Shivans dropped a von Neumann machine on a planet, or into an asteroid belt, the Neumann could convert 10% of the available mass into more of itself.
These Neumanns could then use the remaining mass to build Shivan technology.
It's certainly the technique I would use, if I were the Shivans. Why bother with centralized factories?
And you've hit upon a point. If you can blow up stars, there's no reason to believe they can't pull off other feats of technology. It's not unlimited resources, but it's orders of magnitude more than we can imagine.
-
General Battuta has a point. Why bother with complicated battle doctrines when you can just simply outproduce everything your opponents can bare. For all we know, the Shivans may not even be binded to the Milky Way Galaxy. They could have an entire universe or two under their control. This may explain why Shivan technology seems so spread out. They might be having trouble updating their fleets simply due to their massiveness. Another explanation could be that the Shivans don't bother to update their ships. They could just build newer fighters and weapons without bothering to update their older ones.
-
this is ridiculous! Shivans do not have unlimited numbers they just have a massive fleet! They dopnt pop out ships out of magic hats!
They are not bound to the milky way that i agree. Also if shivans had unlimited numbers then the Ancients would of been wiped out in days ! I'm pretty sure that the Ancients could of matched the shivans in terms of warship numbers however the fact that the shivans were imprevious to the ancients weapons means that numbers were useless. Or rather the Lucyfer class of ships were invulnerable so all they could do was take out lots of smaller warships but no means to actualy inclict serious damage to the shivans. The GTVA however does not have such dificulties animore.
About the smalle warships tactics people need to remember that the GTVA is/would probably go berserk in researching shivan tech adapting and improving shivan tech. They can already produse supperior overall smaller warships such as cruisers and corvettes and if the Iceni is to be taken into acount then we might as well say friggates. The shivans on the other hand while adept at building superb offensive ships suck at anithing else.
We need to remember that tech in the GTVA is developing at light speed compared to the shivans.
I believe that one of main ships in the future of the GTVA fleets would be a variant of the Iceni class friggates. Perhaps even more powerfull beam cannons with improved aaaf defences. coupled with the Deimos corvettes and some sort of poket sized destroyers and dedicated carriers with the big ships holding out at the back of the line for emergenci deployments.
Lets us not forget that an Iceni class friggate depending on the conditions can take out a destroyer faster then a Hecate could ever hope or even fater then a Orion since and orion would need precious seconds to get into optimal firring position.
the Iceni has all of its beam cannon firepower concentrated into a forwards exterior firing ark which give it super offensive capabilaties comparable to those of a Ravana (except the fact that GTVa beam cannons are significantly weaker) but also some broadside firepower for defensive purposes which shivan warships lack. Couple that with superior manouverabilaty and speed and you have a true hunter killer warhips for taking out enemy warships.
The Iceni for example is in my opinion the perfect ballance between heavy armour huge firepower (it has 3 BG) and incredible speed and amanouverabilaty. Hell even the shivans should be envious about such a ship.
As to the trend the GTVA is gooing we can allready see the GTVA moving towards dedicated ship building with ships such as the Deimos with its overwhealming AAF firepower and the Sobek with its obvious offensive design , the Hecate which is more of C&C carrier then a true destroyer and the Hatshepsuit which is designed for offensive/defensive prelonged battles with its superrior armour and weaponry.
What the GTVA need is to lear how to use all of these advantages it has in decent coherent tactic since its pretty abvois that gooing about another war with the shivans using brute force and shivan tactics would result in massive losses for the GTVA.
I believe that the single greatest failure on the part of the GTVA is that it tried waging the war on shivan terms and tactics instead of using their own. The only reason why things are not worse is because at some point the GTVA learned how to use theyr superrior defensive abilaties to theyr advantage.
-
Good post.
I actually think that the terran designs are becoming more dedicated, while vasudan ones tend to be more the jack-of-all-trades type.
-
well the Hatshesut class destroyer seems to be designed for heavy combat ! It is more capable at offensive battles then defensive as oposed to the Hecate class destroyer which has superior aaaf defensive capabilaties. Also whyle the vasudans have on theyr destroyer good aaa defences when gooing with the more havy weaponry on it it is clear what its role is and that is to engage enemy warships at close range more succesfully then the terran designs! So we might conclude that the vasudans are spacializing theyr large warships for offence whyle terrnas go for defensive fighter projection tipe destroyers with the smaller warships beeing designed to get up close and personal.
-
The Hattie seems like a blend of a Orion and Hecate, vasudan style. It has big guns, but not as much as an Orion. It has AAAf defense, but not as much as Hecate. But all around it's one heck of a warship.
-
First off: I think the reason that you see Only offensive type shivan cap ships is because we've only encountered Shivan ships on the offensive.
Second, Sathanas Jugs seem to be the quintessential Shivan capitol ship. Where has there ever been ANY indication that any class of shivan destroyer existed in amounts that we saw Sathanas warships?
To answer AlphaOne's question: it's really easy: you build Big ships. The answer is not immediately obvious because of the way FS2 plays. The FS universe is set up in such a way that a defensive force has a HUGE advantage. You MUST use nodes for intersystem travel. So, set up a competent blockade with large vessels, with fighter cover and RBC support, and you will be able to prevent the shivans from entering. I mean, if there were 80 guys trying to get to me, and they have machine guns, but they all have to come through a door, and I have a machine gun too, I can take up a defensive position, and just pelt the individual guys as they come through the door, even if they have better guns than me.
Build big ships, and bockade nodes.
-
The only issue is the possibility of Shivans coming in through uncharted and unstable (for Terrans and Vasudans) nodes like how the Lucifer out-manuevered us in FS1. In that case, it won't do much good if your fleet is Somewhere Else (TM) when the Shivans arrive.
-
This is just an analogy in my head before i get <flamed>
You know in an RTS toward sthe end of the mission where you control the majority of resource points and are building units at top rate, but cos your income is so high the resource count is still screaming towards the roof. Thats the shivans, now imagine that your playing an AI at that point and you've just started and have encountered firstly a wave of scout units, That would be the great war, now you've killed a group of scout units and a few tanks, thats FreeSpace 2............
God knows what :V: would have put out for us to face if we waited for top level tech to reach us :nervous:
-
The only issue is the possibility of Shivans coming in through uncharted and unstable (for Terrans and Vasudans) nodes like how the Lucifer out-manuevered us in FS1. In that case, it won't do much good if your fleet is Somewhere Else (TM) when the Shivans arrive.
I thought about that too. But how often did the Lucifer do that? I can't remember.
-
It first arrived in Ross 128... then somehow appeared in Ribos, without going through Delta Serpentis or any of the inbetween systems.
Later it completely evaded the Vasuda Prime blockade and jumped around to Deneb.
So at least twice.
I'm wondering if maybe the Sirius-Delta Serpentis jump node that doesn't seem to exist in FS2 is one of those that the GTVA deems too unstable for travel, but they used it at the end of FS1 simply for lack of any alternative?
-
IIRC, the GTVA can detect unstable jump-nodes, but it can't use them.
So they can technicly blocakde even those.
-
And when all nodes are blocked, the Shivans do a Sath-rush and overrun our positions with minimum losses, using the Sathanas just as it was designed to.
The only situation they can't Sath-rush the GTVA is when their's no blockade to bust and they're constantly ambushed by frigates and bombers taking pot shots from behind in an attempt to disable them.
Once a Sath is disabled, a couple larger ships can finish it off in a few minutes.
-
Do you know how many engines (yes, plural) a Sath has? That in and of itself would take forever!
-
And when all nodes are blocked, the Shivans do a Sath-rush and overrun our positions with minimum losses, using the Sathanas just as it was designed to.
A good blockade can turn a Sath into scrap metal before it can turn around.Aand you don't even need that many ships. Try a FRED scenario or two, you'll see just how easy it can fall.
-
And when all nodes are blocked, the Shivans do a Sath-rush and overrun our positions with minimum losses, using the Sathanas just as it was designed to.
Which might work if the Saths could exit at the same time, but since they can't, 2 or 3 large destroyers combined with a few RBCs and Corvettes, and the Saths would be chopped liver.
-
But when they start coming in in a line then boom.
There went the fleet.
-
Who's fleet?
Shivns would be on the recieveing end there methinks.
-
There's always the danger of the blockade being hit by Sathanas debris.
That can be fairly devastating, as High Noon demonstrates.
-
Guis gooing static on the shivans is not the best thing to do since well if they do gather up a couple of Sath's around your door you can be sure they will use the superior numbers of they cargoholds to launch swarming fighter/bommber attacks at you! And you can be sure you will run out of fighters and bommbers before they do! And then what??? You get your arse kicked all over the sistem.
What would be ideal is a combination of tactics fast mobila warfare to lure the shivans into carefully planned killing fields.
I mean lure a Sath into a trap where you have a couple of large warships craging up they m,ain guns to fire on the sath. I mean imagine ships such as the Hattie and the orrion and iceni class friggates waiting for it to emerge then they fire! Sure the Sath is a very roboust ship but even such a ship would do down after just 2 voleis of fire from 20 or more beam cannons firing at it at once.
Edit: Well heres something i usualy think when i'm playng RTS I mean i usualy start of y baiting the enemy no matter how large the force is or how powerfull the enemy force is i usualy start off by engaging the enemy with my light and medium forces sure sometimes they take some damage but if everithing goes oki my heavy forces can get there just in time and suround him while the lighter forces make an escape usualy to the rpair yards :)) but by that time the enemy has lost most of his lighter element so he can not oumanouver me and with me attacking from all sides even if he did manage to breack throuigh my tras he would take serious losses and damage to his ships and by that point my lighter forces can just catch up to him and take off his forces one by one! and if reinforcements appear then i just run away. making sure the heavy forces are close by in case i need something to blocade the basterd whyle i ran! :D So the same should apply to Freespace tactics reagrding heavy and lighter forces.
-
And when all nodes are blocked, the Shivans do a Sath-rush and overrun our positions with minimum losses, using the Sathanas just as it was designed to.
Which might work if the Saths could exit at the same time, but since they can't, 2 or 3 large destroyers combined with a few RBCs and Corvettes, and the Saths would be chopped liver.
If they can jump out in a couple minute distance (as proved by 'Into The Lion's Den'), they can jump in on the blockade every few minutes.
On the other hand:
10 Mjolnirs can kill a Sath in 66.7 seconds, so we might get somewhere IF the RBC's are outside the SJ's field of fire and are protected from Shivan strike craft.
-
On the other hand:
10 Mjolnirs can kill a Sath in 66.7 seconds, so we might get somewhere IF the RBC's are outside the SJ's field of fire and are protected from Shivan strike craft.
Well, put them in a rough ring around the node, and they would be outside the Sath's firing arc, since like 90% of its firepower is in those four forward beams. But Shivans like to "build-up" their attacks: Begin with fighters. Then send more fighters. Then bombers. Then a cruiser or two. Then a corvette. Next a Destroyer... repeat until Sath shows up. The RBCs would be rubble long before the Sath got there... unless there were around two wings of guard fighters to each.
Even supposing all Mjolnirs survive to shoot at the Sath... it still takes them a minute to take it down. Easily enough time for it to jump out again. And it would likely drop off a wing or two of fighters and bombers. Then the next Sath comes...
You might be able to damage a Sath this way... if you are very lucky, you may destroy it. But the next Sath to come through would likely win.
-
The Sathanas' subspace drive capablities are totally mission designer fiat (see High Noon), so that's not certain. On the other hand because of its size a Sathanas exits subspace at extremely high speed and travels a long way, so if you set it up to kill juggernauts, the blockade will not be posistioned effectively for cruisers or corvettes.
-
Most missions have sentry guns guarding their targets very closely, but Mjolnirs actually have very long range and you can get accurate shots at a target the size of a Sath from a good distance away. So with proper angling and distancing it would work.
Of course this all suposes that you can't just bomb out the heaviest beams and let the thing sit there. You can actually kill a Sathanas with a Fenris in a side-versus-side battle, with the cruiser staying just within fusion mortar range. In general, FS juggernauts have no range once their heavy weapons are down.
-
Guis gooing static on the shivans is not the best thing to do since well if they do gather up a couple of Sath's around your door you can be sure they will use the superior numbers of they cargoholds to launch swarming fighter/bommber attacks at you! And you can be sure you will run out of fighters and bommbers before they do! And then what??? You get your arse kicked all over the sistem.
What would be ideal is a combination of tactics fast mobila warfare to lure the shivans into carefully planned killing fields.
I mean lure a Sath into a trap where you have a couple of large warships craging up they m,ain guns to fire on the sath. I mean imagine ships such as the Hattie and the orrion and iceni class friggates waiting for it to emerge then they fire! Sure the Sath is a very roboust ship but even such a ship would do down after just 2 voleis of fire from 20 or more beam cannons firing at it at once.
That's exactly the same thing as blockading a node, except you have to build extra ships to lure the shivans to the trap.
Well, put them in a rough ring around the node, and they would be outside the Sath's firing arc, since like 90% of its firepower is in those four forward beams. But Shivans like to "build-up" their attacks: Begin with fighters. Then send more fighters. Then bombers. Then a cruiser or two. Then a corvette. Next a Destroyer... repeat until Sath shows up. The RBCs would be rubble long before the Sath got there... unless there were around two wings of guard fighters to each.
Even supposing all Mjolnirs survive to shoot at the Sath... it still takes them a minute to take it down. Easily enough time for it to jump out again. And it would likely drop off a wing or two of fighters and bombers. Then the next Sath comes...
You might be able to damage a Sath this way... if you are very lucky, you may destroy it. But the next Sath to come through would likely win.
Which is why I said the main brunt of the attack would be Big Ships, not RBCs. If the GTVA built a number of slow moving, heavily armored destroyers with the beams concentrated in the forward section of the ship, You could blockade the node by having them sit outside the firing arc of the Saths, and bombarding the Saths as the come in. Yes, it could be overwhelmed, and yes you would need a lot of fighter cover, but this is the only way to protect the Terran and Vasudan Civilian populations (guerilla tactics would probably be better against the Shivans, but in a matter of weeks, while you keep doing little hit and run attacks, the Shivans will vaporize every single inhabited planet).
-
The problem I see with blockading is, you'll need to commit a huge fleet for every single node. I do not believe the GTVA is capable of securing every node including unstable ones since the Shivans appear to be able to travel through some of the move unstable nodes.
-
Why not destroy the nodes you cant afford to blockade?
-
because that would be a disaster for the GTVA while i dont like to admit it the GTVA is as much dependant on the subspace nodes as the shivans are! In fact much more so! Reopening a colapsed node is quite a drain at the moment for the GTVA !
Also what i was sugesting is nothing like a blocade where you have a huge amount of receources tied down at one single point whioch is also vulnerable to attacks from withing the sistem itself. Also with the ships packed toghether like that they are vulnerable from rammings by shivan juggs.
While my tactics would resemble a blocade its what you would call an active mobile blocade of the shivans. The GTVA can use its superior defensive capabilaties to not only inflict serious damage to the shivans, but with its superior smaller classes of ships, which seem to become increasingly more powerfull making some of them almost as powerfull as a destroyer, inflict crushing defeats to the shivans. In the end a full scale inavasion by the shivans of GTVA space would not be stopped the GTVA simpli isnt big enough however holding the shivans at bay at least for a few decades till the GTVA can develop new ways of combating the shivans is very much posible even if the shivans threw the entire jugg armada that we saw before at the GTVA they would lose most of them if the armada would be engaged in a cleaver manner.
-
Also what i was sugesting is nothing like a blocade where you have a huge amount of receources tied down at one single point whioch is also vulnerable to attacks from withing the sistem itself. Also with the ships packed toghether like that they are vulnerable from rammings by shivan juggs.
While my tactics would resemble a blocade its what you would call an active mobile blocade of the shivans. The GTVA can use its superior defensive capabilaties to not only inflict serious damage to the shivans, but with its superior smaller classes of ships, which seem to become increasingly more powerfull making some of them almost as powerfull as a destroyer, inflict crushing defeats to the shivans. In the end a full scale inavasion by the shivans of GTVA space would not be stopped the GTVA simpli isnt big enough however holding the shivans at bay at least for a few decades till the GTVA can develop new ways of combating the shivans is very much posible even if the shivans threw the entire jugg armada that we saw before at the GTVA they would lose most of them if the armada would be engaged in a cleaver manner.
And why does a node blockade have to be static? If it were large ships, you could move it (i.e.- fall back to the following node when your losses start to mount to regroup), or have it react dynamically to incoming threats.
The problem I see with blockading is, you'll need to commit a huge fleet for every single node. I do not believe the GTVA is capable of securing every node including unstable ones since the Shivans appear to be able to travel through some of the move unstable nodes.
While there is most certainly the possibility of Shivans coming through unstable nodes, you don't need to blockade every single node.
If anyone has a better idea on how to try to protect civilians, I'd like to hear it. You know, before I start fredding...... lol.
-
One thing that is rather obvious about nodes - they seem to connect systems that are relatively close to each other.
Therefore, you wouldn't need to blockade every single node, just the ones in your territory that border the shivan territory (since shivans can't jump from Capella to Delta Serpentis - there are no such connections...so why blockade DS nodes? )
-
You're wrong about the relation between distance and node connections. Delta Serpentis is about 200 light years from Earth; Luyten, Procyon, Sirius, Barnard's Star, Ross 128, and Proxima Centauri (most of which are in Freespace) are all closer. Earth has no node connections with them. Nodes seem to be arranged essentially arbitrarily.
In any case, Shivans seem to be able to jump wherever they darn well please - at least the Lucifer did. Distance may not be a huge factor.
-
Probably there are MANY uncharted nodes (possibly some forgotten), which the Shivans know about, so our blockade would need to be really mobile.
Actually- I'd let the Shivans in my system without a huge welcome. They'd spread out chasing cruisers, while I'd be hunting down SJ after SJ with a strike force of really fast and mostly corvette/frigate size ships (with a few heavy battleships used as fire support, not main units of the force).
If they don't spread out, well than I could surround them with a 'bubble' thousands of kilometers wider than their formation and let no transports/cargo ships/gas miners through, while picking out some more vulnerable units.
-
All of these battle plans require extraordinary coordination, perfect execution, and good luck: no jump drive failures, no weapons taken offline due to malfunctions, all elements in the right places at the right time with the right supplies. They rely on the Shivans to behave predictably and to exhibit capabilities on par with those of the GTVA.
Military history shows that these are all bad assumptions. No battle plan survives contact with the enemy, and this goes doubly for a complex battle plan.
It's easy for us to play armchair admiral, but I'm inclined to be skeptical as to the efficacy of any of these plans in a real encounter with the Shivans.
-
I would rather intercept ships in the node, then have lots of AWACS searching the system if any ships get through (then send pest control).
-
You're wrong about the relation between distance and node connections. Delta Serpentis is about 200 light years from Earth; Luyten, Procyon, Sirius, Barnard's Star, Ross 128, and Proxima Centauri (most of which are in Freespace) are all closer. Earth has no node connections with them. Nodes seem to be arranged essentially arbitrarily.
In any case, Shivans seem to be able to jump wherever they darn well please - at least the Lucifer did. Distance may not be a huge factor.
RL distance and FS distance aren't necesarily the same. And who said there is a magic distance after which there are no nodes? Given the theoretical knowledge of how subspace works (needs large gravity sources - stars) the greater the distance between two stars, the smaller the chance that a node tunell will exist. Of course, this is also dependant on the mass of the suns and planets in system. So it's either liner or exponential - after some distance the chance for a node connection becomes near 0. So it's obvious some nodes would have great strategic importance, others will not.
FYI I did some FRED tests of a good node blockade - a Sath dies in under 50 seconds and I didn't even use that many friendly ships.
-
It appears that you're trying to argue that only closely related stars have node connections, and that, as you said:
the greater the distance between two stars, the smaller the chance that a node tunnel will exist.
This is false. There is no observable relation between distance and the presence or absence of a node tunnel, unless you decide to arbitrarily rearrange the cosmos (as you propose.)
Occam's Razor. Until we have evidence that Freespace universe distances are in fact different from real-life distances, the simplest explanation is that node connections have no relation to distance between stars.
There's no reason to believe that Volition created a fictional universe in which the names are the same as in ours, but the actual stars are different. If you did that you could hypothesize anything and claim it was valid.
I will acknowledge that there are definite differences between star systems in the Freespace universe and their real-life counterparts, such as the presence or absence of binaries, but there's no reason to extend this to actual stellar position.
-
Take a look at the nodemap (3d one - the 2D one is a bit deceptive) As a general rule close starts are usually connected. There are exception, but I guess the stars are massive or something.
Very far away stars never seem to be connected.
-
On the nodemap.
But the distance between stars on the nodemap has very little connection to their distance in real life. On the nodemap, Delta Serpentis is closer than Ross 128; in real life, Delta Serpentis is almost twice as far away as Ross 128. Furthermore, nearby stars like Lalande and 61 Cygni aren't even on the nodemap despite being within 50 lightyears, as compared to Delta Serpentis which is almost 200 light-years away.
I'll quote Herra Tohtori in a past discussion of the topic:
I think it's supposed to emphatize the fact how subspace is so alien compared to normal space that conventional distances have absolutely no meaning there, and jump nodes form more or less randomly between two star systems that can be wide apart.
-
With all due respect to Herra, but his theories have no barring on canon FS. Canon FS is the nodemap - if the nodemap doesn't show 61 Cygni, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist in FS2 universe (at least not under that name). If it shw Ross128 and Earth close to each other, then they are.
What happens in Rela Life (tm) is irrelevant to FS.
Nodemaps are 3D representations of star systems, thus have 3D coordinates that would logicly be on their right position. Can you supply me a single reason why one wouldn't just draw nodelines on a normal map?
And FYI, methinks your'e not getting what Herra realyl ment by that comment.
-
Can you supply me a single reason why one wouldn't just draw nodelines on a normal map?
Because they'd be really hard to read, criss-crossing and such?
-
No, I'm not saying Herra's theory is canon, I'm saying that I agree with what he said.
So, Trashman, you're arguing that in the Freespace universe stars have been repositioned as compared to our own universe?
-
He (Trashman) does have a bit of a point. Many of the stars in FS have different colors, are different sizes, etc than they are in real life. The most obvious example is of course Capella, which is a yellow star apparently much like Sol in FS, but in real life is actually a set of multiple stars that would make a habitable planet next-to-impossible due to erratic orbit. So I don't find it all that unlikely that :v: would have changed the positions of stars as well.
But I happen to agree with Battuta. I don't believe the nodemap represents real-space distance, but rather subspace distance.
If you want to check out nodes drawn on a real-life map, one was made and posted on HLP a while back. I'll see if I can't find it.
-
You're wrong about the relation between distance and node connections. Delta Serpentis is about 200 light years from Earth; Luyten, Procyon, Sirius, Barnard's Star, Ross 128, and Proxima Centauri (most of which are in Freespace) are all closer. Earth has no node connections with them. Nodes seem to be arranged essentially arbitrarily.
In any case, Shivans seem to be able to jump wherever they darn well please - at least the Lucifer did. Distance may not be a huge factor.
Given the theoretical knowledge of how subspace works (needs large gravity sources - stars) the greater the distance between two stars, the smaller the chance that a node tunell will exist.
Technically the canon sources on subspace travel only explicitly mention the requirement of a gravity well for in-system jumps, not travel between systems via jump nodes. It could still be a factor of course, you just don't have a firm canonical source to point to in an argument for that point.
-
Notice that the maps shown in FS are not scientific, they are military.
It dose not matter if they are accurate if they show all the information needed. Along those lines, it shows the routes between systems with nodes, and what ones connect to each other.
(yes I know some military maps are accurate, but most used for briefing purposes are not)
-
Can you supply me a single reason why one wouldn't just draw nodelines on a normal map?
Because they'd be really hard to read, criss-crossing and such?
You really think it's hard to read? Every tried playing SOTS as human? I have little trouble looking up nodlines in a 200 star galaxy, and GTVA space in FS2 is far less crowded. I don't see it as complex. Besides, 3hy would you use 2 different maps instead of one?
the destinations are in real space anyway, and subspace is basicly a tunel. there is really no simpler way to represent it than just draw lines between connected system. Instead you think moving star system around and making a special map is somehow easier and more intuitive????
-
*shrug* We've hit the point where we can't do anything but argue in circles.
You believe that stars in the Freespace universe are positioned differently than in our own.
I and a few others believe that subspace links have no relation to actual distance between stars.
We have no evidence to decide either way; only supposition.
I prefer my explanation. I think the Freespace universe is more powerful as a work of fiction if it can be seen as our own universe in the future. It certainly can't be viewed that way if the stars have all moved around.
But if your preference is for a fantasy universe divorced from our own - less plausible, perhaps, but still workable - that's fine.
-
Actually, no.
The simplest and most logical solution is a single, normal starchart. Absolutely nowhere is it even suggested that the nodemap representations are not real ones.
Extraordinary claims require extraordianry proof, so the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Secondly, even if the starts positions do not match, it doesn't make FS universe any less believable - the humans could have easily re-named most of the stars
-
If the nodemap representations aren't real ones, how is that Delta Serpentis is many times closer to Earth than it is in real life? The distance on the standard nodemap is comparable to that between Earth and Luyten, yet in reality Delta Serpentis is many times farther away.
By appropriately 'bending' the node links on the 2D map, you might be able to move Earth and Luyten a reasonable distance together. You might even be able to get Vega close enough (it's a lot closer than Delta Serpentis.) You might even manage to get Regulus closer than Delta Serpentis, as it is in real life.
Yet still, look: the length of the subspace link-bar between Sol and Delta Serpentis is longer than that between Regulus and Polaris, even though the latter two stars are almost twice as far apart. Clearly there's some inconsistency, somewhere in the map.
Does this qualify as a suggestion that 'nodemap representations are not real ones'?
Star positions don't match. Your fallback suggestion is that humans have 'simply' renamed the stars - swapping around existing names to new stars, yes?
-
Occam's Razor suggests the map is only showing relative distances through subspace. There would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to even consider using accurate astrogation charts detailing the exact location of stars for an map of the galaxy in use by the military: They're million of light-years apart!
There's astronomy for it's own sake (what we do, as we can pretty much just stare at the sky), and there's practical matters of astrogation in a fictional universe. Except since all travel between stars is done via Jump Nodes, we don't actually need to know where anything is in relation to anything else (yay!) in real space, just the locations of the nodes and what's in that particular system. Subspace makes distance almost meaningless, there's no real reason to worry about preserving it on a map.
-
No, the other way around. Occams razor. Why using two maps when you can use one? Why have abstract representation when you can have real ones that humans can more easily correlate to?
What's stopping you from drawing node lines on a normal starchart? Nothing.
Is it any less understandable than the map you propose? No.
If the nodemap representations aren't real ones, how is that Delta Serpentis is many times closer to Earth than it is in real life? The distance on the standard nodemap is comparable to that between Earth and Luyten, yet in reality Delta Serpentis is many times farther away.
FS is NOT EQUAL to real life. Even a casual look at the star chart would tell you that - half the systems that exist in RL aren't there. Those that do really exist are completely different in FS regarding their size and composition. And somehow you draw the conclusion that their stellar positions MUST correlate to Real Life, even tough there isn't even a hint that the FS system called Delta Serpentis is our RL system counterpart.
Additionally, the travel time tough subspace nodes seems to be approximately 10 minute or so (at least for Sol-Delta Serpentis). Absolutely nowhere is it even suggested (again) that travel time trough subspace doesn't correleate with star distance.
So if your theory is to be correct, a system that's twice the distance would therefore have twice the travel time and consequently the nodeline would be drawn twice as long - if it's a representation as you say.
Do a little check in RL distances of systems and check if the node lenghts correlate. Guess what - they don't.
-
You're misunderstanding Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor dictates that, given a set of solutions, the simplest one is the one you should select. It is simpler to accept that a map has been reorganized than to accept that a large number of stars have been reorganized.
You ask what's 'stopping you from drawing node lines on a normal starchart'? Please understand that it is impossible. Given its proportions the current nodemap cannot be a normal starchart. Do you understand this? The distances between the stars are not realistic.
...unless, of course, Freespace does not equal Real Life, which you're suggesting. There's nothing we can do about that; you believe it, I don't. There's not really any evidence either way.
At no point did I suggest that the travel time through subspace nodes correlates with distance, and that's certainly not a part of my theory. In fact, when you say:
Do a little check in RL distances of systems and check if the node lenghts correlate. Guess what - they don't
You're essentially stating the main thrust of my theory
This should be enough to resolve the argument: we've reached an irreconcilable difference.
-
Also my point was that a normal start chart is essentially useless for purposes of strategic planning. Having more then 1 map is entirely logical, my city map doesn't show me the names of every building in the city (as well as their location) anymore then a map of interstate highways will show all the side streets in the country.
100% accurate maps aren't maps anymore, they're photographs.
Why we wouldn't be using the "accurate" map of the universe as a baseline for a node map? There is no usable information contained in the accurate map for purposes of planning travel between the stars. You really need to understand that point: No "Hyperspeed" means it doesn't matter where stars are in relation to each other, since the answer is always "so far away an entire civilization could rise and fall dozens/hundreds/etc of times before you got there". Transit between the stars apart from using subspace nodes might as well be impossible for all the good it would do us.
And who would be making the "accurate" map of the universe that we're just adding node lines to? We make star charts (not accurate in the slightest of course) now because they're handy for navigation, but since every star system would have an altered perspective of the sky it wouldn't do you much good outside of Earth. Mapping the positions of things we can't get to because of staggeringly huge distance considerations strikes me as a really big waste of time devoid of any practical benefit (we do it anyways now in the hopes that the "can't get to it" part might change). Especially when you consider that scientists can now actually study objects impossibly far away from earth up close and personal.
In short, normal star charts, in a universe setting getting around the lightspeed issue via fixed tunnels, are a colossal waste of time and effort to produce data that has no relevance to anyone (but nerds). The people producing maps wouldn't be focusing on the universe, they would be mapping the objects in individual systems.
-
Incidentally, in the same vein of the logic that since Capella isn't a yellow star in real life, the FS one is a different star, the Capella in Supreme Commander is also a yellow star so it's entirely possible that it's the same star as the FS one =P
-
You're misunderstanding Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor dictates that, given a set of solutions, the simplest one is the one you should select. It is simpler to accept that a map has been reorganized than to accept that a large number of stars have been reorganized.
What in FS universe the stars have been as tehy are on the map all the time. FS universe in NOT our universe.
If there was no reorganization then it's far simpler.
You ask what's 'stopping you from drawing node lines on a normal starchart'? Please understand that it is impossible. Given its proportions the current nodemap cannot be a normal starchart. Do you understand this? The distances between the stars are not realistic.
:wtf:
Are you trippin or something? What do you mean you can't do them..of course you can. F'course, the systems themselves are represented bigger for clarity (more like systems boundries, alltough enlarged. The gist of it is that the center of hte systems are in the right positions), since the fs nodemap shows only a small part of the Galaxy (explored systems)
I cna draw nodelines on any starchart in the world. Heck I cna pull one from the internet and draw them.
...unless, of course, Freespace does not equal Real Life, which you're suggesting. There's nothing we can do about that; you believe it, I don't. There's not really any evidence either way.
Actually there is, but you conveniently choose to ignore it.
Face it, [V] made no effort to make it real, it didn't go into star system details such as size, number of suns/planets or even sun color.. it's a fictional universe, RL system are missing, there are some that don't exist. And yet you still claim it corresponds to real life.
Use Occam Razor here - given that ALL OTHER attributes of star systems are off, is it more likely that the positions are RL ones or that they too are off?
Pure delusions.
@Marcus viper - the military in general uses maps with similar data. All positions and relations correlate to reality.
Why NOT use an "accurate" map of the universe as a baseline for a nodemap? Will it be any more confusing? No. Any more difficult to read? No.
You have a bunch of green dots representing systems connected with lines in both version. They are computer maps, and travel time can easily be displayed in various way, even assuming it's not connected with distance (which is nowhere confirmed b.t.w.)
-
Real
distance
is
meaningless
and
therefore
irrelevant.
I'm going to stop arguing because it's clear you just aren't getting my point, which is details like actual light year-distance are only preserved in a mapping system if it's relevant to the purpose of the map. Faster then light travel (and this is the key point here) doesn't use real space and travel between the stars requires an existing tunnel. The only relevant information for a map of the universe intended for navigational purposes then would be systems and node connections, with length possibly indicating longer travel time (perhaps that has something to do with relative stability of the node, it's age, etc).
Preserving a real space map of the universe and using that as the basis for navigational charts and maps would be utterly pointless!
As for the fictional aspect of the setting, it's far easier to believe that Volition looked up a bunch of cool stars/used familiar stars and didn't bother too much with researching what type they were/how the system should appear. We're already giving them fictional license to generate planets, moons, etc, so why would we expect them to get the details of each celestial body 100% accurate? But considering they're using real star names, it's WAY more likely they're intended to represent the real world counterparts, rather then identically named and arbitrarily repositioned dopplegangers.
Your average gamer might very well be familiar with a few of the names that the game rattles off, and it helps to create a setting where you feel like it's your own universe, just in the future. But how many gamers would know offhand whether the star in each system is accurate? I rather doubt most of us fired up a mission in Capella and looked around for the binary star: we probably found out Capella was a binary system because we play this game and got curious. Making each star system correspond to it's real world counterpart in appearance is a luxury most people won't have noticed and/or appreciated anyhow, so it's no surprise they didn't bother. Time is money.
-
Why hasn't anybody mentioned that it's more plausible to consider the node chart a measure of subspace travel due to the fact that it's absolutely daft to try and plot a set of 3 dimensional coordinates on a 2 dimension map?
-
I'm going to stop arguing because it's clear you just aren't getting my point, which is details like actual light year-distance are only preserved in a mapping system if it's relevant to the purpose of the map. Faster then light travel (and this is the key point here) doesn't use real space and travel between the stars requires an existing tunnel. The only relevant information for a map of the universe intended for navigational purposes then would be systems and node connections, with length possibly indicating longer travel time (perhaps that has something to do with relative stability of the node, it's age, etc).
WRONG!
It's not irrelevant. I for once like to know the exact stellar location of every system, since it's handy to know in what region of space it's located or if shivan space is next door (possible unstable jump nodes).
You assume that's how a map would be made. Why not use a real map and have travel times represented with a number?...That's assuming travel times differ in any significant way. If they don't then there's no point in having lines of different length at all unless it's actual stellar distance.
You have yet to prove that a "real coordinate" nodemap would be any less usefull than the one you propose.
As for the fictional aspect of the setting, it's far easier to believe that Volition looked up a bunch of cool stars/used familiar stars and didn't bother too much with researching what type they were/how the system should appear. We're already giving them fictional license to generate planets, moons, etc, so why would we expect them to get the details of each celestial body 100% accurate? But considering they're using real star names, it's WAY more likely they're intended to represent the real world counterparts, rather then identically named and arbitrarily repositioned dopplegangers.
Or they just wanted to use cool sounding names.. they only used some star names that exist in RL. And they used a lot that don't. How does that fit into your reality plan?
Even if if they represent real world counterparts, who said they are in the same location? (since a lot of other things aren't accurately represented)
FS universe is not our universe anyway.
But how many gamers would know offhand whether the star in each system is accurate?
How many would know if the location is accurate? [V] didn't bother with it, they didn't go after accuracy since they were making their OWN universe, so hanging so desperatly to our real universe regarding stellar cartography makes little sense.
Why hasn't anybody mentioned that it's more plausible to consider the node chart a measure of subspace travel due to the fact that it's absolutely daft to try and plot a set of 3 dimensional coordinates on a 2 dimension map?
The nodemap is 3D.... ;)
-
I'm going to stop arguing because it's clear you just aren't getting my point, which is details like actual light year-distance are only preserved in a mapping system if it's relevant to the purpose of the map. Faster then light travel (and this is the key point here) doesn't use real space and travel between the stars requires an existing tunnel. The only relevant information for a map of the universe intended for navigational purposes then would be systems and node connections, with length possibly indicating longer travel time (perhaps that has something to do with relative stability of the node, it's age, etc).
WRONG!
It's not irrelevant. I for once like to know the exact stellar location of every system, since it's handy to know in what region of space it's located or if shivan space is next door (possible unstable jump nodes).
You assume that's how a map would be made. Why not use a real map and have travel times represented with a number?...That's assuming travel times differ in any significant way. If they don't then there's no point in having lines of different length at all unless it's actual stellar distance.
You have yet to prove that a "real coordinate" nodemap would be any less usefull than the one you propose.
My point is that I don't have to, and that the burden of simplicity in explanation rests on my side.
As for the fictional aspect of the setting, it's far easier to believe that Volition looked up a bunch of cool stars/used familiar stars and didn't bother too much with researching what type they were/how the system should appear. We're already giving them fictional license to generate planets, moons, etc, so why would we expect them to get the details of each celestial body 100% accurate? But considering they're using real star names, it's WAY more likely they're intended to represent the real world counterparts, rather then identically named and arbitrarily repositioned dopplegangers.
Or they just wanted to use cool sounding names.. they only used some star names that exist in RL. And they used a lot that don't. How does that fit into your reality plan?
Even if if they represent real world counterparts, who said they are in the same location? (since a lot of other things aren't accurately represented)
FS universe is not our universe anyway.
It says to me that Volition wanted to use familiar systems mixed in with entirely fictional ones, as a basis for universe creation that lets the viewer bring their own knowledge of the stars with them (to a certain extent). Think of it as background color that helps flesh out a setting, while not requiring any more work then entirely made up names would. This way we have a sense of familiarity right from the start.
I never once argued that Volition placed or even intended stars to occupy their positions in the real universe: I argued that they didn't intentionally place them in the wrong coordinates to create a mirror universe. Which seems simpler? 1. Volition uses familiar names to create a setting and doesn't bother spacing them accurately because apart from the names 99.99999% of the audience wouldn't know they weren't in the right space.
2. Volition takes familiar names, but deliberately sets them up in positions that conflict with their real life counterparts, in order to create a subtly altered universe that nobody is going to notice anyways except ultra nerds who spend years poring over the in-game fiction.
Is it really so hard for you to believe Volition just didn't bother getting their positions right, rather then intentionally getting them wrong?
But how many gamers would know offhand whether the star in each system is accurate?
How many would know if the location is accurate? [V] didn't bother with it, they didn't go after accuracy since they were making their OWN universe, so hanging so desperatly to our real universe regarding stellar cartography makes little sense.
There are no star maps ever presented in any canon Freespace materials, and node maps are maps of nodes, not maps of the universe itself and everything in it. Saying that Volition didn't bother with accuracy and then assuming that the result was intentionally different from the real universe is far less likely then "Volition didn't bother about accuracy in positioning."
Once again: Occam's Razor suggests Volition intended systems to correspond with their real life counterparts, but didn't put the effort into recreating them with 100% accuracy. We know that travel time along a jump node's path isn't instantaneous. It's not unreasonable to assume that longer lines between systems indicates longer travel time. Therefore given the distances on the node map don't correspond to distance in real life, two explanations present themselves. 1) The node map is itself inaccurate, or 2) The node map isn't measuring distance.
Pardon me if I prefer an elegant explanation that doesn't involve a deliberate plan to place stars in odd positions and that let's [V] off the hook for not doing extensive research.
-
Marcus, you (and hopefully I) have made your point clear to everyone except TrashMan. If he doesn't get it, don't worry about it. There's no point in turning this into a potential flamewar in an effort to convert one person.
Let's just agree to disagree.
-
youre joking right??? When did this topic became related to subspace nodemaps?? We are suposed to be talking about milatary tactics and fleets ! Now i have yet to understand how employng carefully planned fire zones to kill off fast and with little to no casualties at all any shivan warship is resembling in any way to a node blocade whre you have all major milatary assests tied down in one place with little to no room for manouvering!
Can anione explain this to me?
-
My point is that I don't have to, and that the burden of simplicity in explanation rests on my side.
Nope. It's on mine.
I never once argued that Volition placed or even intended stars to occupy their positions in the real universe: I argued that they didn't intentionally place them in the wrong coordinates to create a mirror universe. Which seems simpler? 1. Volition uses familiar names to create a setting and doesn't bother spacing them accurately because apart from the names 99.99999% of the audience wouldn't know they weren't in the right space.
2. Volition takes familiar names, but deliberately sets them up in positions that conflict with their real life counterparts, in order to create a subtly altered universe that nobody is going to notice anyways except ultra nerds who spend years poring over the in-game fiction.
Is it really so hard for you to believe Volition just didn't bother getting their positions right, rather then intentionally getting them wrong?
3. Volition just took a few cool sounding names for star system without worrying if they are real or not. or without worrying about any details. After all, tehy are creating their own universe here.
Is it really so hard for you to believe that what you see and hear in game is what you get and that RL should be kept out of it.
There are no star maps ever presented in any canon Freespace materials, and node maps are maps of nodes, not maps of the universe itself and everything in it. Saying that Volition didn't bother with accuracy and then assuming that the result was intentionally different from the real universe is far less likely then "Volition didn't bother about accuracy in positioning."
I don't see only nodes there.. I see system and planets and ALL information on a nodemap. Take a look on many briefings when a nodemap is zoomed on a system you see the number of stars, planets and their orbits. The nodemap is a 3D, computer generated map in a relatively far future. Putting ALL the data into such map is not only highly likely but also very easy and possible, especially with the computer tech in the future. Why have 10 maps when you can have it all in one? But for that you'd need some common point of reference - aka. star systems and their positions.
Nothing is stopping you from adding node data and drawing nodelines on a real starmap, but it' doesn't go that well vice-versa.
Once again: Occam's Razor suggests Volition intended systems to correspond with their real life counterparts, but didn't put the effort into recreating them with 100% accuracy. We know that travel time along a jump node's path isn't instantaneous. It's not unreasonable to assume that longer lines between systems indicates longer travel time. Therefore given the distances on the node map don't correspond to distance in real life, two explanations present themselves. 1) The node map is itself inaccurate, or 2) The node map isn't measuring distance.
Pardon me if I prefer an elegant explanation that doesn't involve a deliberate plan to place stars in odd positions and that let's [V] off the hook for not doing extensive research.
Pffft. You have no idea what Volition intended. The ONLY thing from real life that corresponds to FS is a FEW star names. and from that you deduce that [V] wanted a correlation with a real universe.
Thats like having a charachter in a game named John Kerry, that doesn't look, talk or act like the politicians namesake and who is janitor in teh game, and than claiming that the game designers wanted to portrait the real life person there., while it's far more likely the designers that had to name 100 charachters simply took a few names that sounded cool, or maby they took it randomly. You don't have a endless pool of names with a meaning in the setting you're trying to create anyway, so there's bound to be some repetition, a name you heard somewhere else. Does that automaticly mean it HAS to correlate to RL?
-
[Grabs brain in pain]
no no no, I think what Occam said was "ahh, so far off subject"
...
:nervous:
-
Here is another thing that could be used with fast fleet formations! Well its not in game but i was just wondering could it be posible to plant or deploy ships that act as subspace inhibiters so that when a ship jumps in a designated area it is trapped there for as long as the subspace inhibitors are there?
This would make the shivan subspace tech advange 0 and would allow the GTVA to crush to pieces any and all shivan warships that are trapped in that area. This would also hinder any subspace comunications as well so that the shivans wont be able to call for help or advise anyone of the new threat!
What do you think?
-
Subspace jumps are caused by a ship "vibrating" in multiple dimensions within a specific frequency to match subspace.
I don't see how any kind of tech would be able to remotely stop a ship from vibrating...
Although perhaps it could send out a signal to scramble the sensors on a ship's drive and prevent it from matching subspace...
-
I've been doing a little checking on node travel times... after checking the breifings, debriefings and the missions themselves all numbers I got were in the 10-15 minutes range - regardless of the node distances.
Sol-DS takes 10 minutes
The jump from the nebula to the shivan system takes 15 minutes. (the nebula is a huge one and apparently the shivan system is very far away)
All other travel times derived from events in-game also seem to suggest 10-15 minutes.
This leads me to conclude that nodeline lengths on the map don't represent travel time.
-
I agree, although I'll point out that it took the Lucy about 20 minutes to arrive at Sol (10 while the player is catching up in Delta Serpentis, 10 more in the node itself). So, apparently slower ships means longer travel time (I know that sounds like a "DUH!", but this is subspace after all, where not all the normal laws of physics seem to agree).
-
It's kinda strange that the Lucy didn't move in subspace, but the fighters did. Most campaigns I've seen that have a subspace missions feature moving capships.
But I agree that all observed node travel times fall between10-20 minutes (I forgot to factor in the Lucy time in subspace)
-
Here is another thing that could be used with fast fleet formations! Well its not in game but i was just wondering could it be posible to plant or deploy ships that act as subspace inhibiters so that when a ship jumps in a designated area it is trapped there for as long as the subspace inhibitors are there?
I would imagine that most ships have failsafes that force the ship out of subspace when they get too close to a planet. Therefore, creating a gravity well should not only force ships out of subspace, but should keep ships from entering subspace until they override the system.
-
Thing is, you'd need a planet-sized gravity well ;7
-
well i got the idea of a subspace inhibitor from the way the second knossos interfered with the subspace jump of the Psamtik ! So just imagine a subspace inhibitor coupled with fleets of fast poket size destroyers,corvettes, friggates and battlecruiser ! Man im drooling here! Can anyone say shivans for breakfast lunch and dinner???? :D
-
IIRC, the Knossos didn't stop the Psamtik from jumping, it just made it miss slightly (8000m is VERY little in space terms). The further from the knossos, the more accurate the jump.
Makes sense really, as energy requirements for a subspace jump increase exponentially outside of the gravity well of a solar system. In the same vein any inhibiting effect would fall off at the same rate, since it would require impossible ammounts of power to cover that large a area.
IMHO, I think you'd need redicolusly large amounts of power to actually prevent a subspace jump.
-
we dont know that for sure! Also the psamtik was off by 13km if im not mistaken!
Also we dont know exactly how the subspace portal managed to make the psamtik exit subspace so far off target but we know that it did! I was thinking of some sort of adaptation of the said interference to make it so that ships can not jump out/in of a specific area! However that would mean that the GTVA would have to increase its subspace tracking capabilaties at the same time!
-
First and foremost it was 9000 meters.
Secondly, it was in a nebula (which is a bit different enviroment than what the GTVA ships operate in normally)
Thirdly, just couse it caused a ship to slightly miss it's jump doesn't mean that same effect can be increased.
Insane amounts of power sounds like a logical conclusion, knowing the power levels needed for a subspace jump in the first place.
-
TMan not to be annoing or anithing but we have no idea of the power requirements for a subspace jump! Also I do agree that a nebula was something that GTVA ships are not used to operate in but then again nebula or no nebula it had nothing to do with subspace interference now does it?
The cause of the "small" 9 km off target jump was because of the knossos if im not mistaken even the commander of the Psamtik ssaid so!
You keep givvibng me the problem with power requirement now then i dont believe it can be more then powering up a 6 km long warships sending it through subspace or powering dozens of weapons sistems beam cannons etc. Think dedicated ship!
If the power requirements are that high then just biuld a ships which is basicly one giant powerplant in order to power such a device!
As i said such a feat like the one in the nebukla would be very dificult to replicate let alone make it work under normal circumstances and in a specific area! But since we already saw it happen once then we can safely asume that perhaps it can be done again this time to be somewhat more powerfull and used on command. Like a 20km area whre ships would be alowed to exit but not leave there at least not in one piece!
It doesnt have to be the size of a solar sistem just big enough to be a death trap to enemy warships. :D
-
Not as large as a solar system, maybe some sort of construct built around a node?
with power disrupters on it to lock down any enemy ship that exited.
tell me if this is retarded.
-
I dont think it is. Laying a ring around a node sounds pretty logical. Imagine a huge grid of Mjolnir Beam Cannons! Toasted Sathanas! :eek: :eek:
-
TMan not to be annoing or anithing but we have no idea of the power requirements for a subspace jump!
Read the techroom a bit. Even large capships need a minute or so to charge their jumpdrives for a NORMAL jump, let alone a inter-system one.
Fighters need 15 minutes to charge their drives for such a jump.
Also I do agree that a nebula was something that GTVA ships are not used to operate in but then again nebula or no nebula it had nothing to do with subspace interference now does it?
Possibly. Does nebula have any gravitic effect at all? It has mass, since it's made out of stellar matter...
You keep giving me the problem with power requirement now then i dont believe it can be more then powering up a 6 km long warships sending it through subspace or powering dozens of weapons sistems beam cannons etc. Think dedicated ship!
Logic. It takes a planet to generate enough gravity to stop a ship from jumping close to it (and I don't even think this is canon, is it?) We know that it takes a huge mass - star sized mass - for jumpnodes to bet created.
We're talking about artificially creating enough gravity to mimic a star. Best case scenario, to mimic a planet. By ANY Logic, that would require HUGE, HUGE amounts of power.
If the power requirements are that high then just biuld a ships which is basicly one giant powerplant in order to power such a device!
If it only were that simple....
But since we already saw it happen once then we can safely assume that perhaps it can be done again this time to be somewhat more powerful and used on command. Like a 20km area where ships would be allowed to exit but not leave there at least not in one piece!
I doubt such a high level of control can be established to create opposite effects. We know susbspace jumps are gravity related. So I doubt you could make it both allow jumping in and block jumping out at the same time - it's like wanting gravity of the planet to pull you down and push you up at the same time.
If it's a gravitic distrurbance of high enough magnitude, then jumping in our out would be impossible. BUT, in theory you could wait for the enemy to come and then turn the device on...
-
I dont think it is. Laying a ring around a node sounds pretty logical. Imagine a huge grid of Mjolnir Beam Cannons! Toasted Sathanas! :eek: :eek:
Wow, finally somebody likes one of the ideas I put in here! :D
The next question is, what types of ships to support it? Light fast ones, or heavy slow ones? :p
-
Heavy slow ones. I just looked it up - Actually, a BFGreen, which the Collosus has in High Noon when overloaded, can destroy a GTC Leviathan. And one hit of a BGreen - fired by the Collosus when in non-overload mode - Can destroy a GTC Fenris in one hit and seriously damage a Leviathan, actually like 3/4 of 35'000 Hit Points will be gone. And a 4 hits of a BGreen will destroy a GTCv Deimos.
-
A node blockade is about killing off enemy ships as quickly as possible - so they don't overwhelm you, and so they do as little damage to you as possible.
Ergo, ships with the most firepower are prefered. Orions and Hatties.
-
well TMan the idea came to me when thinking of the Knossos! However i do agree that witgh the still limited subspace tech available to the GTVA they could not pull something like that however i do believe that perhaps shivans or even the Ancients could of pulled something like this ! Maybe not by creating a huge gravity well but in some other way! Also for a node blocade i do agree you would need large heavy warships however the problem with the node blocade is that if you can not take out the enemy fast enough then youre pretty much done. Especialy since were talking about the shivans. They have a much more massive fleet then the GTVA all they need to do is bring in a Sath .
And since the Sath travelles further after exiting subspace then a smaller ship they can imediately jump in a Ravana Even if you manage to take out the sath in 3 shots minimum and the Ravana gets hammered down by GTVA warships the ravana would still be able to shoot at least once in theory and when the ravana fires at least once you loose one destroyer! Basicly if the shivans want to bust through a node blocade in the end they will succced unless you can hold out long enough for theyr reserves to run out which is highly unlikeli!
Then again if you somehow managed to birn a couple of Collossus size warships with the abilaty to fire all its beam cannons at once you could in theory beat the shivans no matter how much reserves they have.
-
Or if you bring 12 Orions :P
-
Well that would bring those orions to about the firepower that 3 maybe 4 collosus class warships couldd bring to bear ! The only difference is that all those beam cannons would fire at once and most of them would BG or overloaded version of the BG such as the BFG or the LRBG .
Also i was thinking about the whole overloading the beam cannons thing. I mean would it be possible to arm destroyers or friggates with overloaded versions of the BG beam cannons?? Or better yet can the vasudan beam cannons be overloaded. I seem to remember they can but im not exactly sure I believe the Psamtik did it once.
The reason i was asking this was because if you can mount overloaded beam cannons on smaller sized vessels without the inherent risk of blowing up the beam cannons or reactors then that would make smaller classes of ships even more deadly and usefull then i believed.
-
12 Orions = 12* (4 BGreens, 3 TerSlash) = total of 84 beam cannons (48 BGreen & 36 TerSlash)
6 Colossus = 6*(6 BGreen, 7 TerSlash) = total of 78 beam cannons (36 BGreen & 42 TerSlash)
I'd take the Orions any day for blockade purposes.
-
Well, mainly cooling is the problem. Fusion generator plasma reaches ~100 Million °C, or even more. You need giant heatsinks to support full constant firing, and again huge reactors with big heat sinks to bring the power to the beams.
-
After reading the last page or so of this topic I noticed this:
If the Psamtic failed to jump out in the nebula where it was planned to do, then a subspace tunnel is somewhat like a funnel- you enter the narrow end (jump node) and exit through the wide one (at least up to 9 km from the node marker).
So what happens when the Shivan fleet warps out 5 km's from the blockade on purpose?
-
ERm...the Psamtiks jump in that case was a in-system jump, not a node jump.
-
Ooops... :eek:
//Need to play FS 2 again sometime....
-
After reading the last page or so of this topic I noticed this:
If the Psamtic failed to jump out in the nebula where it was planned to do, then a subspace tunnel is somewhat like a funnel- you enter the narrow end (jump node) and exit through the wide one (at least up to 9 km from the node marker).
So what happens when the Shivan fleet warps out 5 km's from the blockade on purpose?
I doubt they could. The incident with the Psamtik notwithstanding, subspace jumps appear to be highly accurate, at least to within 1 or 2 kilometers. I cite as a bit of proof the fifth (?) mission of FS1 (the "capture McCarthy" mission), in which the briefing states "you will jump in approximately six kilometers away from the exchange"... and then you do. That's what I call accuracy.
Now: Every single jump that has been executed in a node has come out the opposite end in the node, and not even a couple hundred meters away. If it were so easy to bypass a blockade, we would have seen them doing so. The NTF in particular could have used such a tactic when running through mulitple GTVA blockades, but they didn't, and got butchered as a result. I don't think it's possible for a ship to jump in several klicks away from a node when incoming through that same node.
I explain the Psamtik thus: I believe that subspace nodes (and Knossos devices) generate a kind of subspace "turbulence" around them, extending for a couple of klicks in all directions. I see no other reason why the many ships we see travling jump nodes jump in so far away from them. I think the Psamtik might have tried to jump in very close to the Knossos, and this turbulence kinda threw them a few klicks off-course.
-
It's been discussed before that the Psamtik missed the node so it would end up in the Sathanas' narrow fire arc. Or else it would just be... awkward. A Hatshepsut can easily destroy a Sath from the flank. Regardless, there must be some kind of subspace turbulence as you call it around jump nodes, or else transit-to-the-node escort missions like the last FS2 mission would make no sense.
-
Obviously, that's why :v: made the Psamtik miss, but I was looking for a specific in-universe explanation.
-
Obviously, that's why :v: made the Psamtik miss, but I was looking for a specific in-universe explanation.
And it's a good one. Makes sense that the area around the node itself has either some gravitic influence or subspace one.
We never see a ship that's heading towards the node jump a 1000m from it. It's always at least 5 klicks out, if not more.
-
You have a point there, AlphaOne: if the Shivans were truly a post-scarcity society they wouldn't need gas miners.
I won't withdraw my suggestion, but I will admit that it's less likely than I first considered.
Assuming the Shivans use fusion engines like the GTVA does, wouldn't they still need the gas for fuel?
On the jump node blockade thing, I think they do have to jump in on a set point. The NTF obviously had to when they were running the blockades. Given, the Shivans are a lot more advanced than the NTF, but unless they came in through a different node and then jumped onto the node I think the nodal defense strategy is the best one.
A (massive) globe of RBC's backed up with Corvettes and Aeolus class cruisers (for the flak guns/aaaf's) and a strong fighter screen would be my preferred option. Enough RBC's removes the need for destroyers (they aren't good against fighters) on the node, corvettes can help defend against fighter runs on the RBC's. The best anti fighter defense would probably be Ares wings armed with Trebuchet's for breaking up fighter wings, and Erinyes and Perseus fighters for mopping up.
It wouldn't hold indefinitely, but this would kill anything RBC's could target, so anything above fighter/bomber size is instantly history. This leaves fighter/bomber attrition against the RBC's, which would probably be the deciding factor making anti fighter defenses the deciding factor. When, inevitably the Shivans start breaking the blockade I would start throwing robot piloted meson bombs through the node for the Shivans; not to take the node out per se, but I bet the Shivans would have follow up waves parked within 3KM of the other side of the node, and I am not a particularly graceful loser.
That, and not being able to get within 3KM of the node safely should buy enough time for remaining mobile forces to get a good head start to the next node. If the Shivans want to send in capital ships in the meantime then fine, whatever is left of the RBC's should should make that expensive. Finally, periodically dropping those previously robot piloted meson bombs on top of the fallen node should make things interesting for the ships coming through.
Maybe I do play RTS's a little to much. :nervous:
-
Definately NOT a greaceful loser. But I wouldn't want to fight against you :P
Sound strategy. Alltough I would add a Orion or two.
-
I'll just throw in a few ACSC Hopes.
And yes, it IS a insider.
-
Well, the real danger I see to my blockade is fighter assaults so I don't know that Orion's would be able to add a huge amount. Other than more fighters of course.
What the GTVA really needs is a real anti fighter turret thats armed with something better than a couple of plasma blobs/Subach's. Like a bigger platform touting flak guns and an anti fighter beam laser for instance
-
Yup..Or real dedicated defense platfroms..like with 2-3 beam cannons and a dozen antifighter turrets.
Or just Mljonirs + better sentry guns...like my Hydra