Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Killer Whale on April 16, 2009, 06:28:59 am
-
If you had to rebuild the GTVA fleets, what would you do? Would you continue mass producing the out-dated Colossus? Would you mass-produce Terran Maras (if that's possible? Would you build frigates, Carriers and Dreadnoughts, or Juggernauts? Would you build prototypes of heaps of differant ships getting better and better and never mass produce anything. Would you upgrade your present fleets before building newer ones? Would you continue refurbishing your fleet such as before capella? Would you make sure, once and for all, to quell any signs of that damn draining rebellion? Or would you sit back trying to get your hands on as much money as possible and hope the shivans have disappeared forever?
What would you do?
- What I think -
Personally. I think it would be smart to update the Colossus design a little to make it more modern, such as a Colossus DH, less slashers, more BGreens, a couple of beams the equal of a BFGreen or LRBGreen. A little faster, a differant rotation point and rapid-fire lasers such as Morning Stars rather than terran turrets. Mass produce that.
Build a heavy anti-capital ship destroyer, eg. Hatshepsut or better Raynor. A small but feisty warship, eg. Deimos or better Iceni. Build a few of them.
Build a long range, high powered beam with a few engines slapped on, eg. Apothess. Build a few of them.
Build a carrier class destroyer, eg. Miniature Warlock. Build a few of them.
For very important nodes or very threatened ones, slowly construct large, heavily armoured and armed instillations around them. Smaller than a Melia but similar.
Replace the great-war era Arcadias with beam armed instillations with instillations like the Arcas, except a little less powerful cause I think they fall under Inferno R1 syndrome.
Build a new transport such as that GTL Anemone to be able to withstand harder punishment.
For fighters, concentrate less on them, but building good fighters such as Terran Maras (if that's possible), Erinyes, Perseuses, rather than bothering with better and more advanced fighters.
Abandon cruiser construction as was already started by FS2
Abandon Hecates, they just are too badly designed to defend, are hard to be familiar with and are not great anti-capitally.
Abandon warships that fall under: all in one, one of a kind, uber-powerful, but quick to be destroyed by shivan warships.
-
Bring the Aeolus back, perhaps updated, or develop a cut-down cheaper version with similar capablities and fewer anticapital beams. Cruisers can be built and crewed more quickly than corvettes.
Halt the decommisioning of older destroyers and cruisers. Recommisioning and refit. (My own Leviathan Block 2 and Orion Block 3 classes are based on this concept.)
Development of modular ship classes to allow adaption for mission-specific roles with minimal effort if possible. (The modeled but never completed H-class corvettes and Mercury-class cruisers I have.)
Emphasis on further development of the ETAK project with a view towards its use as Signals Intelligence in the next war.
Compeletion of scheduled and already under construction Mentu and Hectate-class ships, prior to retooling for different designs; a keel-up modernized rebuild of the Orion would be a good start for the Hectate.
Development and deployment of a small, preferably fighter-deployable, weapon capable of collapsing a subspace node.
Tactical and strategic reemphasis; offensive operations must be stressed against the Shivans as the GTVA cannot fight them defensively and hope to win. If possible they must be located and fought well beyond the GTVA's borders.
Development and exploration of Knossos technology with an eye towards using it as a door-shutter on subspace nodes, if possible.
Massive military spending with an eye towards improving the GTVA's current military infrastructure and ability to mobilize as much of the populace as possible in case of need. (Note the "possible" as opposed to "reasonable"; leaving your civilian economy in ruins is acceptable. Extinction is not. Being able to mobilize one adult in three for military service should be the objective.)
-
What's a hectate? Hecate or a user-made ship I haven't heard of?
PS. I'll be away for 10 days in case anyone's wondering why I haven't replied.
-
Build the GTC Boreas (http://www.lares.dti.ne.jp/~hamano/FS/bore01.htm).
-
Something I think would be useful are "monitor"-vessels, like the Lilith. Imagine a Mentu with a BVas on the front. They could operate in groups and have a double subspace drive; imagine four/five of these jumping onto a Ravana, firing their beams and destroying it in a matter of seconds, then jump out again before the Shivans can send reinforcements.
The Hecate would do very well for a system-wide command vessel, dispatching fighters and bombers to anywhere needed. It would be escorted by some Deimos and/or Sobek corvettes.
The Hattie is very useful as an all-round heavy ship, combining the role of battleship and carrier. For heavy engagements, these would certainly come in handy. They're (fairly) well defended against fighters/bombers, it has quite some firepower and it can deliver fighters and bombers directly on the place of the battle.
-
I thought the Sobek was the Vasudans' monitor.
-
Build the GTC Boreas (http://www.lares.dti.ne.jp/~hamano/FS/bore01.htm).
Rapidfire BFGreen on a Cruiser?!! That's so unbalanced.
-
If we assume the Shivans are going to return with their Sath fleet, I'd build something for hit-and-run strikes. It's clear that there is little to no way you're going to be able to defend against the entire Shivan fleet, it's simply not viable as an option.
Large ships like the Colossus are absolutely useless really, they're far too big and not nearly versatile enough. They can only be in one place at one time, they're a huge target, the Shivans will obviously attack it and it's a hard ****er to defend. If I had a choice between having 10 Deimoses or 1 Colossus, despite the Deimoses being weaker in a one-on-one battle, I'd take them. They can do more things at once.
When the Shivans return with their Saths, what we have to think about is guerrilla warfare. Just think about it. The Shivans have 80 juggernauts - We don't have half a hope in hell of fighting that monstrous armada in a normal fight. If we fight a war of attrition and bog down the Shivans, we'll have much more of a chance driving them off and surviving.
Creating a fleet of small, versatile hit-and-run ships on a similar basis to the Ravana is the best way to go. But instead of sending these guys on suicidal missions and making them sitting ducks, we send them in to attack a target, and then have them retreat into an asteroid field or some such. Go where the Shivans aren't likely to follow.
A group of small ships with a lot of initial firepower is a lot more likely to survive than one hunking big target.
-
I think it was intended that ONLY the Colosseus had the firepower do destroy a Sath completely, anyone else could only damage it.
I would build a lot of (updated) Aelous' and Sobeks, together with fighters - don't underestimate the cost of large ships. Hecate as pure carriers, scrap that anti-cap weapons on the ship. Or Orions, they were pretty good carriers.
If I would build a giant ship, I would concentrate on armor. If it looks dangerous, the enemy (the shivans) will concentrate their fire on it, it just needs to buy time for the rest of the fleet to obliterate the enemy.
As secondary ability either fighters/bombers or a single, heavy beam cannon for finishing blows, recharge time doesnt matter.
Well. but Sobek is a strong ship vs other caps, probably quite cheap and still decent anti-fighter capability, while Aeolous is the death to all fighters, so I would make them the backbone of the fleet - a lot of them.
-
I would mass produce 80 new Colossus D.H.s (they're DH because they're black and have skulls on them and have all-beam cannons) and then fill them with 600 wings of terran maras each, all using kaysers and trebuchets. The Shivans and Vasudans wouldn't stand a chance.
-
Hang on, we've just lost our adopted home planet, lost many many members of the GTVA and civilians as well as lose a proportion of our active flight crew and ships...and there is the slight problem of the many thousands of refugees from Capella still in Deep Space. I've said it before, rehoming these nomads is the GTVA's priority. I feel the GTVA should instead of rebuilding the fleet for years to come, they should focus on the task of building an operational Knossos in Delta Serpentis.
The Shivans are supposedly locked in Capella, they are the least of our worries.
-
If the Shivans want to kill you, you're not going to survive a fight. The only realistic medium-long term solution is to place at least one decommisioned destroyer in every inhabited system, fill them with Meson bombs and fit them with subspace drives, and once Shivans are found coming out of a node, detonate the destroyer in the node.
-
I would mass produce 80 new Colossus D.H.s (they're DH because they're black and have skulls on them and have all-beam cannons) and then fill them with 600 wings of terran maras each, all using kaysers and trebuchets. The Shivans and Vasudans wouldn't stand a chance.
Oh come now, don't be a silly Billy. :P
But srs. I'd emphasize mobility and versatility. My super corvettes would probably have (albeit limited) fighter deployment facilities too (to increase its tactical and strategic ability).
-
If the Shivans want to kill you, you're not going to survive a fight. The only realistic medium-long term solution is to place at least one decommisioned destroyer in every inhabited system, fill them with Meson bombs and fit them with subspace drives, and once Shivans are found coming out of a node, detonate the destroyer in the node.
That sentiment should be a good indicator of the fact that we were really in the Shivans' way during the events of FS2. But, yeah. Hit-and run ships. I personally think a large number of smaller capital ships built around oversized beam cannons would be our best bet- think Ion Cannon Frigates from Homeworld. We *need* a Colossus- type ship. Why? Inspiration, firstly, but also as something that can challenge a Juggernaut one-on-one. Perhaps build an oversized Ravana- something that can swoop in from the poorly-defended rear of a Sath, blast it, and scram before more hostiles show up. Hit-and-run juggernaut... I'm liking the idea more as I think about it.
Beam cannons changed the face of capital ship combat irreversibly. Fights are a LOT faster with beams in play, and strike craft carry far more potent weapons now. I say our best bet is to emulate our foe's tactics.
-
How about getting some Vasudan engineers to optimize and supercharge the reactor they designed for the Deimos. Then replace it's 4 Tslash beams with Vslash beams and all AAAf's get replaced with ULTRAaaa's too. Deimos Armada!
-
Focus on more specialized ships
- Apothess type destroyers with two large, long range beams and redundant subspace drives. One to jump in, destroy a Juggernaut, and jump out instantly.
- Carriers-type ships, light-medium weaponry and many point-defense turrets
- Aeolus type cruisers with many anti-fighter weapons.
- More corvettes, all with small fighterbays, one design focusing on escort, the other on hit-and-run, a smaller Apothess.
- Complete integration of the Terran and Vasudan fleets.
- Massive colonization and exploration efforts.
- Research on ETAK.
- Ships focusing more on reactor power and survivability.
- Node fortification, with 360o firing solutions on ships as they exit.
- A reliable way to quickly collapse nodes, present redundantly in every system.
- Knossos technology research.
- Decommissioning of older ships rather than upgrading, focusing on producing and achieving a majority of modular, uniform and easily upgradeable ships.
- More specialized fighters, super-fast interceptors, maneuverable yet powerful assault fighters, well-defended bombers.
- several well-designed, easily defensible super juggernauts, think SCa Shiamak; super powerful, massive fighter bays, and small-ship production facilities.
- better evacuation and colonization procedures and technologies, more defensible/defense-capable installations.
-
Why no upgrading?
-
Older ships get more and more maintenance heavy, and are not as modular (from what we can see from the GTVA) I don't mean stop altogether, but once the amount of new ships is on par with the old, start phasing them out and recycling them.
-
Do we even know why the Aeolus stopped production?
-
I think it was stated that it was expensive, and that it was horribly outgunned or something (which isn't the case, it's the best-armed non-shivan cruiser, and it can even beat a Rakshasa.)
-
Doesn't it end right about when the NTF starts? Could it be a result of some kind of pressure put on the shipyards and not a problem with the ship itself?
-
Yeah, it couldn't have been about combat performance.
-
Thing is, I don't think RNI shipyards at Laramis are anywhere near the NTF systems...
-
They could have cut production to move resources elsewhere. Maybe that shipyard makes something else that command wanted more.
I dunno, it's never really stated. But is it ever stated they stopped making them because they sucked?
-
Perhaps it was the shenanigans of a rival manufacturer.
-
The reason I ask, if someone decided to do a post Capella campaign and deal with new Aeolus cruisers, would they have to say why they were started again? Or could they imply that production stopped for some other reason?
-
That already happened, I think it was Derelict that stated it.
-
That already happened, I think it was Derelict that stated it.
I kinda meant more canon sources :doubt:
-
Canonically, we don't know. All the tech room says is that production ended in 2365 (two years before the NTF rebellion) with no reason given. Lots of people have assumed that they were too expensive, but that's never stated anywhere.
Personally, I assume that the tech room entry was written before the NTF rebellion began, as the Aeolus would have been highly useful to both sides in FS2. (Not to mention that something like 18 of them appear in canon missions.) With this in mind, here's the tech room entry I wrote for Scroll:
The GTC Aeolus, originally seen as an extravagant peacetime expense when it was designed during the Terran Reconstruction, decisively proved its worth in the Neo-Terran Rebellion and the Second Shivan Incursion. Aeolus-class cruisers are used throughout the alliance to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings. They also serve effectively as escort cruisers complementing larger warships such as the Deimos.
-
Then it just appears to be expensive. Doesn't it also mention only 24 being made? Or did I make that up.
-
I hesitate to jump on the "expense" bandwagon so quickly. Recall from the Deimos' tech room description that cruisers (Terran cruisers anyway) as a group were being phased out in favor of corvettes. It could be that the Aeolus came along late to the cruiser game, just before fleet doctrine changed.
-
The current scheme of fleet-building works okay for conventional warfare (in FS terms), but since the Sathanas tactics of the shivans are definitely not on with the Terran-Vasudan standards for waging war, and it would kill our available resources to build our own Sathanas-like fleet, I suggest deviating from the norms. Rebuild fleets half with standard vessels and half with a new class of vessel: The Strike Cruiser/Corvette/Destroyer. Normal size but with fewer guns and less armor in favor of more speed, maneuverability and heavy weapons. Imagine replacing the front of a Deimos with a beam cannon. The ships would not be made for prolonged engagement and would rely on fighter cover for defense, but they would be capable of striking from long ranges and for massive damage. 2-3 corvette-sized ships could take down a Ravana or a Demon, 4 could declaw a Sathanas. In terms of stopping Shivan invasions like this, they would prove an invaluable, cost-effective asset.
They get in, hit their target, and get out, giving the "standard" vessels their window of opportunity.
-
if i had the opportunity,
i wouldnt mass produce the colossus, i personally think its a one time jugger,
maybe a new type of juggernaut which is comparable to the sathanas, armed with LRBgreens and a new slash beam with the power of the BFgreen, ;)
the juggernaut will be assisted by a new generation of destroyers,
and then deimos class corvettes will then assist the destroyers, where a new generation of light bombers will compliment heavy bombers, etc etc...
-
The reason I ask, if someone decided to do a post Capella campaign and deal with new Aeolus cruisers, would they have to say why they were started again? Or could they imply that production stopped for some other reason?
That already happened, I think it was Derelict that stated it.
That already happened, I think it was Derelict that stated it.
I kinda meant more canon sources :doubt:
Kinda hard to tell. You asked about someone doing a post-Capella campaign, which would not be canon.
-
Given the kind of damage sustained by the Alliance after Capella and the resulting disruption to the normal flow of commerce and trade plus millions or billions of refugees and displaced due to the NTF and Shivan conflicts you would probably have several years where the GTVA will be somewhat weaker than it was prior to the conflict.
My feeling is that the Alliance would continue and manage to rebuild but it would be close to the brink for a while. Lots of opportunists would try and take advantage of the situation. So likely the GTVA fleet would sustain a number of other losses before a true revival could take place.
What I think would happen would be that Fenris and Leviathan classes of ships...even the Orions would become rare. Anything from the Great War would disappear. Some of the newer designs would persist. Special use types like the Pegasus, Erinyes and Ares would remain limited production/experimental. There would probably be quite a few other experimental types. They wouldn't disappear but they would be like the F-22s today which are the cream of the crop but expensive and production would end.
In the ensuing peace time the military capacity would decrease and more average and cheaper types would be out there. Technology and R&D would continue and there would be lots of the latest tech prototypes ready for another Shivan incursion but not fleet wide.
Thats how I generally see things Terran side. The Vasudans are a different bag....their social patterns seem to be quite different based on the limited fiction that is available. They would probably continue to produce large quantities of the types that were new in FreeSpace 2 and continually add improvements.
-
But what if the shivans return? The Alliance could barely contain an outbreak in one system, resorting to collapsing nodes in order to seal the them off as a last resort. I think military spending would continue, (perhaps less obviously) because you can bet your bottom dollar that there are people (and aliens) in the highest echelon who's sole purpose is ensuring the survival of the our combined races if the shivans ever return - a possibility that can't be discounted.
-
One of the first things they need to do is to replace all the useless blob laser with flaks, AA beams and missile launchers...
-
But what if the shivans return? The Alliance could barely contain an outbreak in one system, resorting to collapsing nodes in order to seal the them off as a last resort. I think military spending would continue, (perhaps less obviously) because you can bet your bottom dollar that there are people (and aliens) in the highest echelon who's sole purpose is ensuring the survival of the our combined races if the shivans ever return - a possibility that can't be discounted.
Yeah, look at the Colossus. That definitely wasn't small-time R&D spending.
-
But the Colossus was a colossal mistake. Srs. One big, vulnerable target that just screams "SHOOT MEEEEEE"!!
-
I know, I'm just pointing out that they're not going to go into hibernation. The Great War had a much greater effect, and look at how they overcame that.
-
Sounds like Derelict...
-
:wtf:
Explain...
-
But the Colossus was a colossal mistake. Srs. One big, vulnerable target that just screams "SHOOT MEEEEEE"!!
Except that it performed exactly as advertised until it was faced with an opponent it was never designed to defeat. And had it gone against the opponent it was designed to defeat, it would have wiped the floor with it.
-
:wtf:
Explain...
Derelict takes place after the Second Shivan Incursion, at a point where the GTVA seemed incapable of handling the pirate threat. Then there was the problem of resettling the Capellans.
-
But the Colossus was a colossal mistake. Srs. One big, vulnerable target that just screams "SHOOT MEEEEEE"!!
I think its a bit much to call it a colossal mistake. It was probably created as a show of force. The implied danger of the colossus would keep systems in line, and prevent them from going renegade or falling into anarchy and being pirate controlled. It was a giant expensive piece of furniture that was meant to show off and say "We're Not Weak". In that, it succeeded up until the shivans invaded again.
-
Kinda sounds like a Death Star
-
But the Colossus was a colossal mistake. Srs. One big, vulnerable target that just screams "SHOOT MEEEEEE"!!
yeah i kinda agree, i think the alliance should focus on high powered beam weaponry on next generation destroyers, instead of one time juggernauts
-
But the Colossus was a colossal mistake. Srs. One big, vulnerable target that just screams "SHOOT MEEEEEE"!!
Except that it performed exactly as advertised until it was faced with an opponent it was never designed to defeat. And had it gone against the opponent it was designed to defeat, it would have wiped the floor with it.
Sure, it would have performed well against the Lucifer. But if you ask me, I'd rather have a fleet of Hecates and Orions rather than one stupid flagship. It was an absolute logistical nightmare (Into the Maelstrom - If that was just after ONE combat deployment, I shudder to think how many convoys were needed to supply the Colossus' entire campaign). It was harder to defend than most ships since it was a large target, you'd need an entire support fleet to protect it. Really it was more of a liability than a real asset - It's like walking around with a ten-ton rocket launcher on your back. Sure it packs a lot of firepower but you gotta lug it around with all its ammo.
-
I think the Colossus was also a symbol of pride. It showed what the Terrans and Vasudans could do working together. Its destruction was also symbolic too though...
-
Sure, it would have performed well against the Lucifer. But if you ask me, I'd rather have a fleet of Hecates and Orions rather than one stupid flagship. It was an absolute logistical nightmare (Into the Maelstrom - If that was just after ONE combat deployment, I shudder to think how many convoys were needed to supply the Colossus' entire campaign). It was harder to defend than most ships since it was a large target, you'd need an entire support fleet to protect it. Really it was more of a liability than a real asset - It's like walking around with a ten-ton rocket launcher on your back. Sure it packs a lot of firepower but you gotta lug it around with all its ammo.
I was under the impression that the supply convoys in Into the Maelstrom were intended to be for a long-term full-scale outfitting, much as a modern aircraft carrier would require. (And even they need constant resupplying while deployed.) I would guess that its initial deployment in The Sixth Wonder was done before it was fully stocked, due to Command's feeling that it was the appropriate time to unveil and use it. After that initial test drive, there would be time to properly outfit it and prepare it for the extended campaign to come.
And as for defense...just what are you defending it from? People have FREDded up missions which pit several capital ships at once against it, far more than we ever see in one place at one time in-game, and it still manages to come out on top, with hull integrity to spare. Even a few wings of bombers attacking it at once wouldn't do substantially more than dent the armor somewhat, and its copious supply of fighters could presumably handle such an attack with ease. In all normal circumstances, the Colossus was essentially unassailable; it took the abnormal intervention of a Sathanas (and a Ravana...and a FRED-induced disabling) to finally destroy it. Outside of that, it could essentially do as it pleased.
-
Yeah, I'm curious as to how, exactly, the Colossus managed to get itself disabled. I recall it being mentioned in a briefing, something about a Shivan destroyer...evidence for good Shivan tactics, I guess.
-
Well kay fine the Colossus wasn't that big a mistake, but I still don't think making another one would be a good idea.
-
Well kay fine the Colossus wasn't that big a mistake, but I still don't think making another one would be a good idea.
I do agree that building another Colossus-esque ship after Capella wouldn't be an efficient use of resources, but from where the GTVA sat during the Reconstruction era, I think it was a reasonably smart decision. What I'd like to see the GTVA do in the post-Capella era is work on their quick-strike capabilities, focusing on concentrating as much firepower as possible on a single target and then getting the hell out of there before a counterattack. Something along the lines of a "beam with engines," even as unsophisticated as a beefed-up Mjolnir towed by a freighter, might be a good option for this strategy. It'd be even better if it could be coupled with the "double-jump" capability that a few other people mentioned earlier. Figuring out a way to deploy a redundant set of jump drives, or a set of pre-charged capacitors to recharge the existing jump drive in a hurry, would go a long way toward improving survival rates for allied ships. And the more ships you can keep alive, the more firepower you can target at an opponent like a Sathanas.
And common thought is that :v: was forced into disabling the Colossus because they couldn't get it to behave properly during the course of the mission otherwise; there's actually a series of waypoints for it in the mission file that are never used. The in-mission dialogue certainly suggests that it should have been physically able to jump out rather than be destroyed.
-
I think it was smart with the intel they had they didn't want to **** around, they wanted to kill Lucies as soon as they appeared, without any chance of failure.
-
That's a long time to build one though.
-
And for a long time there were no Shivans.
-
Destroyers should be built less along the design of the Orion and more along the design of the Hecate: non-direct combat platform. Everyone says the Hecate sucks because the Orion easily outguns it with beams. The Hecate holds more fighters, and those fighters and bombers can easily vaporize an Orion (see NTD Vindicator) The last place these destroyers should be is the front line. A Destroyer should never be alone. It should have a 'battlegroup' formation it travels with.
Build more Deimos corvettes and upgraded Aeolus as well as Sobeks. The Colossus should never be built again. It was big, it was expensive, it housed alot of people, and Alpha 1 killed more ships than the Colossus did in the campaign. Fast, tough, and versatile should be the motto of new ship design. I think the Deimos should keep the Slash beams... they are awesome at taking out turret hardpoints, but maybe have 1 BGreen on it.
Scrap all Fenris and Leviathan cruisers.. they are totally useless and are glorified coffins for the people in them.
Mass produce Helios bombs.
Build a Knossos device.
But maybe the Shivans wont return.. perhaps it was Bosch's intervention that stopped the Juggernaut fleet from raping the GTVA completely. Or it could be that the Shivans do not intend to wipe out humanity. I think this war brought the GTVA off its arrogant pedestal it had sat on when it built the Colossus.
-
I still think build a Terran Ravana and use it tactically and strategically with redundant subspace drives. Also a lot of fighter capabilities.
-
I like DS9er's thinking. Keep the damn destroyers off the front line and always keep them with their escorts! Losing a destroyer is a horrible expense and loss of life. Keep them on the defensive. Use smaller strike craft combined with fighters and bombers to take down enemy ships and installations.
-
I still think build a Terran Ravana and use it tactically and strategically with redundant subspace drives. Also a lot of fighter capabilities.
How about then building a Terran Sathanas then instead? ;)
-
That's a long time to build one though.
Yeah, well for all they knew the Shivans could've returned at any moment, and they wanted to have a surefire way to just kill stuff at the jump node as it poked out.
-
I still think build a Terran Ravana and use it tactically and strategically with redundant subspace drives. Also a lot of fighter capabilities.
Terran Apothess, way better than a Ravana, with a huge range. That way it wouldn't be vulnerable, as launched fighters would be homeless and the Apothess gone before they even got halfway to it.
-
How about building a Terran Orion, since those already are fine.
-
Destroyers should be built less along the design of the Orion and more along the design of the Hecate: non-direct combat platform. Everyone says the Hecate sucks because the Orion easily outguns it with beams. The Hecate holds more fighters, and those fighters and bombers can easily vaporize an Orion (see NTD Vindicator) The last place these destroyers should be is the front line. A Destroyer should never be alone. It should have a 'battlegroup' formation it travels with.
This misses a fundemental point. If a destroyer's antifighter defenses are tested, things have already failed. The best defense against enemy fightercraft attack is your own intercepting fighters. However, escorting fightercraft cannot reasonably be expected to deal with attacking hostile capitals (witness what happened to the Aquitaine repeatedly in the nebula).
Therefore, the optimal efficency for a destroyer design should be more like the Orion; anti-bomb point defense for the leakers and enough heavy beams to lay the smackdown on any uppity cruisers or corvettes that show up.
-
Why? AAAf beams are an extremely potent deterrent to bomber and fighter attack, and thin antifighter defenses are probably the number one killer of destroyers.
I don't think that deprecating antifighter defenses is going to help.
-
AAAf beams are only deadly on smaller craft where they have large FOFs and opposing fighters can't approach from blind angles.
A block with no guns and four fighter wings defending it will probably last longer against multiple waves of bombers than a Hecate and a single fighter wing given they have the same HP. Though I haven't really tested it, from what I've seen, wingmen are a lot more proficient at intercepting bombs and bombers than AAAfs and flak.
-
Admittedly, I'm working off my memories of bombing runs on Insane...but I was never particularly scared of Orions.
-
Orion's aren't fearsome, not to bombers at least.
No flak guns and no AAA coverage on both its broadsides (in fact, no blob coverage either except for one on the hangar side) makes it pretty easy to disarm if you approach from its blind angles (which you start in in both The King's Gambit and Sicilian Defense). It's shape does give what few AAAs and blobs it has some workable coverage from other angles.
It needs a fair number of escort fighters to defend it, which it is pretty much lacking in most missions they show up in. The thing main thing is the Hecate isn't that much better. I've seen Shivan bombers hang around in its numerous blind spots.
If you combine the Hecate's armament on an Orion-shaped ship though, I think it'd be fairly proficient at defending itself. The Orion has a good shape which is easy for turrets and escorting fighters to cover, but not enough turrets. The Hecate has good defensive armament, but is let down by it's awkward shape, making it difficult for it to utilize it's defensive armament to its full potential.
-
The shape of the Hecate also serves as a pilot's navigational headache.
-
The shape of the Hecate also serves as a pilot's navigational headache.
Especially in those nebula missions...
-
I still think build a Terran Ravana and use it tactically and strategically with redundant subspace drives. Also a lot of fighter capabilities.
Terran Apothess, way better than a Ravana, with a huge range. That way it wouldn't be vulnerable, as launched fighters would be homeless and the Apothess gone before they even got halfway to it.
Well my initial idea was basically StratComm's Chimera, but with a small-ish fighterbay. You send 2-3 of them against a destroyer, kick some ass, then quickly high-tail it out of there before the Shivans even know what happened.
The fighters don't even need to be deployed in that situation.
-
Hmmm, the answer is tricky, but solution is quite simple.
Build NO offensive capships (or next to none).
Why?
They are big, slow, expensive and have to be crewed by the thousand.
Instead, concentrate on developing small, quick craft, that can be manufactured in massive quantities, on small instalations, not requiring so many resources.
Imagine, if throughout all those 20 years, instead of building and fitting the Colly the GTVA concentrated on fighters and bombers. They would be built in hundreds of thousands, able to overcrowd any Shivan fleet in a matter of minutes. 80 Saths? No problem, we send 800 bombers with an escort of 1600 fighters (two fighters per bomber) and they take care of SJ's one by one. Impossible? I don't think so.
Think about it, all that would have to be built would be carriers, and since fighters posess the ability to jump to subspace, they wouldn't even need to be brought close to the battle scene. They could be masked by the stealth technology. Take the mass of the Colly and distribute it among fighters and bombers. Imagine this thing dispersing ^^
Of course, Shivans could do the same, but then they wouldn't have the capability to destroy planets (Lucy) or stars (Sath). Sure, they could overwhelm us pretty much with fighters, but they would accomplish nothing. For the defensive army, which in fact the GTVA is, this course of action would prove the most profitable I think.
If there is a flaw in my way of thinking, I'd be glad if somebody pointed it out :)
-
I agree about the "no big useless capships" but the way I see it a large bomber fleet would be a logistical nightmare too.
I still think a small group of advanced corvette monitor thingies which come out of nowhere and splash the enemy is the best way to go.
-
Corvettes still need a base of operations, especially in deep space missions where the nearest outpost is a few jumps or a node away.
Destroyers also can carry a heck lot more resources.
I agree that more corvettes would definitely be the way to go, but destroyers also fill an important role.
-
A few corvettes would be the "Irregular Fleet" (ie. guerrilla fighters) while the normal fleet, consisting of the normal mix, would be the conventional GTVA fleet.
-
Have a large 3-4km destroyer flagship with a "fleet" of strike-corvettes, all with their own fighter and bomber compliment. Large ships have fast rechargeable jump drives. Destroyer has many more wings of fighters and bombers to protect itself while some corvettes explore in pairs or threes with their escorts.
-
The problem with a massive fighter/bomber only fleet would be to keep them supplied, and keep the pilots from being fatigued.
You would need some sort of mobile platform from which fighter pilots can launch from, and return to after a mission and live on. Otherwise, you have the logistical nightmare of shipping bombs and missiles through several systems, having pilots to make multiple jumps to get to a repair station after a strike, etc (read: not a good plan).
Instead of making an offensive warship, you'd then need a carrier type ship, which is big, slow, and expensive, with thousands of people on board to repair and refuel the fighters, amongst other things. It's own fighter wings provide the bulk of offensive and defensive measures, but it'd be unwise to not have any weaponry on it at all. If it gets jumped by something like a Lilith with it's fighter wings away, it's going to get pummeled. It's either going to need escorts (ie. WW2-style Carriers with escort), or have heavy guns of its own (FS2 Destroyer).
-
A mix of everything. All ships have their place and role and situations where they shine and situations where they don't.
It's not merely the size or number of your guns...but also how you use them. Tactics are a massive force multiplayer.
-
Imagine, if throughout all those 20 years, instead of building and fitting the Colly the GTVA concentrated on fighters and bombers. They would be built in hundreds of thousands, able to overcrowd any Shivan fleet in a matter of minutes. 80 Saths? No problem, we send 800 bombers with an escort of 1600 fighters (two fighters per bomber) and they take care of SJ's one by one. Impossible? I don't think so.
Except that each Sath probably houses several hundred fighters/bombers, which would mean that those 2400 GTVA space crafts would be facing at least 10000+ fighters.
-
Why? AAAf beams are an extremely potent deterrent to bomber and fighter attack, and thin antifighter defenses are probably the number one killer of destroyers.
I don't think that deprecating antifighter defenses is going to help.
The answer to a fightercraft is another fightercraft. This is implicit in the existence of interceptors. Fightercraft are not somehow seperate from a destroyer's armament; they are integral parts of it. I am not in favor of deprecating the antifighter defense, I want to see the emphasis shifted off the destroyer's hull; anti-bomb point defenses rather than trying to stop the attack unassisted. After all, how many escort missions have you played where the ship you were escorting killed more enemy fighters than you and your wingmates? (Aside from the convoy in ST:R when I was testing it, I admit I have not played the finished campaign, I can't think of any.)
-
Why? AAAf beams are an extremely potent deterrent to bomber and fighter attack, and thin antifighter defenses are probably the number one killer of destroyers.
I don't think that deprecating antifighter defenses is going to help.
The answer to a fightercraft is another fightercraft. This is implicit in the existence of interceptors. Fightercraft are not somehow seperate from a destroyer's armament; they are integral parts of it. I am not in favor of deprecating the antifighter defense, I want to see the emphasis shifted off the destroyer's hull; anti-bomb point defenses rather than trying to stop the attack unassisted. After all, how many escort missions have you played where the ship you were escorting killed more enemy fighters than you and your wingmates? (Aside from the convoy in ST:R when I was testing it, I admit I have not played the finished campaign, I can't think of any.)
Oh, by no means are fightercraft useless, but the fact is that if destroyers could get the same density of flak and AAA coverage as corvettes and some cruisers do, that'd be a real boon to survivability. And since these defenses all prioritize bombs, it's not going to hurt point defense.
If we got more ultraAAA and TAG setups, for example, bombers would have a much harder time.
Consider 'Slaying Ravana' (on Insane, the most realistic.) Those fighters preying on you are certainly difficult to handle, but the Ravana's flak and AAA are not by any means pushovers either. The two together make a deadly combination.
-
Fightercraft are necessary for any large ship. There have been quite a few real-life examples, such as the case of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.
No fighter cover = [size=9]DIE[/size]
-
No fighter cover = [size=9]DIE[/size]
QFT
-
Fightercraft are necessary for any large ship. There have been quite a few real-life examples, such as the case of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.
I wouldn't use that sea analogy really.
For one, the PoW and Repulse didn't have jump drives (the abillity to almost instantly jump to a friendly base).
Secondly, the were attacked by every fighter and bomber the japs had in the area. Which was a LOT. They still took quite a few fighters/bombers down and lasted surprisingly long, given the strength of the attack.
Either way, ships like the Aeolus are really effective agaisnt AI fighters. Not so much against human pilots, but then again, if you had human gunners on the Aeolus, it would be far more deadly too.
It depends on what is attacking you and in what numbers. But having a fighter cover is definetaly a GREAT boon to your defense.
-
4 Artemis vs. 1 Aeolus
Winner: Artemis.
-
I beg to differ.
-
Orly
-
I thought the Artemis class was "GTB Artemis"? AI fighters are different.
-
Orly
(http://www.forumspile.com/O_RLY-Quite.jpg)
-
Yes,
Orly
(http://www.forumspile.com/O_RLY-Quite.jpg)
I'm too tired; can't be bothered with some senseless argument about fighters and bombers are different...
-
Run a few tests. Almost invariably, the Artemises will win.
-
Artemises, yes, but they are bombers (and FAST bombers at that). Meaning, they carry anti-cap weapons.
Throw four fighters (Hercs, Myrmidons, Perseuses) and they will be wiped out without a fuss...
That is when AI controls both the cruiser and the fighters. Like TrashMan said, the tables would turn if we put human gunners/fighter pilots in the ships. Four players in Myrmidons can wipe the Aeolus out without a problem. And it's safe to say, that 4 human gunners in Aeolus (anti-fighter beams, flak) would send AI Artemises to oblivion in no time.
Wasn't it all about fighter cover anyway? :confused:
-
Try 6 Hercules Mark II with Hornets vs. an Aeolus then. :rolleyes:
-
That's a closer match.
But you must not forget, that FS2 is a game where the player is a fighter pilot. If the player was a capship pilot, the game would be balanced quite differently.
The FS2 universe and FS2 game balance are 2 completely different things.
-
6 is too much.
I just tested it and 5 wipes out the Aeolus, though barely (only 1 Herc II survived)
-
Remember to run multiple tests.
-
How about five wings at once?
-
Do it on Insane!
-
Yes yes, it was on Insane. Aeolus gets pummeled. Sometimes more than one fighter remain (depending I think on how close to the blast they are when the cruiser goes down).
5 wings? Boring. The cruiser would be down withoug destroying a single fighter.
-
Basically, the thing is, a cruiser is no match for fighters/bombers.
-
But you must not forget, that FS2 is a game where the player is a fighter pilot. If the player was a capship pilot, the game would be balanced quite differently.
The FS2 universe and FS2 game balance are 2 completely different things.
-
Basically, the thing is, a cruiser is no match for fighters/bombers.
Well, if a cruiser can take on four wings (16) assault fighters, it's doing a lot better than a real life cruiser would...
-
You do understand of course that a cruiser is not supposed to take on the enemy in such massive numbers. A cruiser is usually escort for corvette or destroyer dint you ? Rather its canon fodder so that the said destroyer survives. I mean you have bombers that are almost half the size or even bigger then half the size of a cruiser.
Also if you wanna talk AAAF defence then please do test out the Deimos !
Also going away from conventional destroyers? Well OK then I'm just curious what are those pilots gonna do when a ravana or a demon jumps in and as usual they are outgunned and outnumbered. Since the shivans do have a nasty habit of overwhelming the enemy . You Gui's do remember that don't you ?
The Orion is superb as a capship killer but sucks at defending itself . the Hecate is pretty good at defending herself but sucks at taking out capships. I say we marry the two.
Modify the Orion so that it actually HAS AAA defences to speak of. It doesn't really need a larger carrier capacity since its pretty decent at about 100 !
Just use the bombers and fighters to engage the enemy then jump in with the Orion main guns and take out the enemy capship after its been disarmed.
Also build Iceni type ships. FAST and really powerfull. Slap on some dual jumpdrive on it and you're good to go. I mean if you want to escort it then send 2 wings of fighters along for the ride. Have them provide fightercover while the things takes out enemy capships.
Also mass produce the Deimos and the Sobek (improve on the Sobek a bit if you can ) ! Slap 1 BGreen on the Deimos and one BVas on the Sobek and you're all good !
-
Basically, the thing is, a cruiser is no match for fighters/bombers.
Well, if a cruiser can take on four wings (16) assault fighters, it's doing a lot better than a real life cruiser would...
It can't. I didn't send 5 wings (20 machines) but 5 actual fighters. Aeolus was history in one minute or so.
Comparisons to real-life warfare are out of place here.
First, because they can't harness subspace (:P)
Second, they don't use beams
Third, they fight on far greater ranges than FS2 ships.
Fourth, because the nomenclature is messed up. Cruisers should be the biggest ships around and corvettes the smallest, destroyers being somewhere in the middle. Besides, all of them can carry several fighter wings, something which existing ships can't do (1-4 choppers and that's it)
-
Old news, friend.
-
Basically, the thing is, a cruiser is no match for fighters/bombers.
Well, if a cruiser can take on four wings (16) assault fighters, it's doing a lot better than a real life cruiser would...
If 10 cruisers can take out one fs2 fighter their doing a lot better than a real life cruiser. Read: Fury = several kilotonnes
Would a bgreen or an ultra-antifighter-beam take more energy, because you could have an orion, replace it's BGreens with UltraAAAs and clear the reactor space out for fighters or channel the remaining power into a forward LRBGreen that's designed to be overcharged.
Strap 4 mjolnirs onto a large asteroid, slap on a couple of engines and a jump drive and you have a strike craft. Or have outerspace bunkers made of huge asteroids with a reactor at their center that powers a bgreen and have them floating around in space for a sath to pound away on while a GTVA fleet attacks it and provides fighter cover.
You could spread out through many, many, many systems so losing a couple to supernovas and planet bombardment does't matter so much. But you'd have to have a fleet too to stop them spreading too fast.
Blow up any node you see and rely on traversing space very slowly rather than subspace.
Or you could use the money for the colossuses, frigates, upgrades, corvettes, carriers, fighters, bombers, meson bombs, destroyers, personell, mjolnirs, etc. for having a good time because you think they're gone for good or you believe your doomed if the shivans come again with a greater force anyway.
-
I know what choice you'd make... ;)
-
Well, if a cruiser can take on four wings (16) assault fighters, it's doing a lot better than a real life cruiser would...
A Slava or a Tico could probably do that...
-
Well, if a cruiser can take on four wings (16) assault fighters, it's doing a lot better than a real life cruiser would...
A Slava or a Tico could probably do that...
Let me go game it in Harpoon!
...doesn't look too likely.
-
Fury (or was it Tempest?) = 3kt explosion. Hiroshima was only 20kt. Do the math.
-
...buh?
I don't mean a real-life cruiser could take on a bunch of Herc IIs. I mean a bunch of Panavia Tornadoes or whatever.
-
Fury (or was it Tempest?) = 3kt explosion. Hiroshima was only 20kt. Do the math.
Fury in FS1, Tempest in FS2.
3 KT? Yeah, right. It may be written as 3KT, but it's more like 3kg...
Let's see... 3KT, that would be 3 thousand tonnes... A small cruiser made wholly of TNT... Imagine a model of Aten made of TNT exploding... Tempest, anyone?
Besides, the bomb that fell on Hiroshima was 12kt. The other one (Nagasaki) was 20kt.
And you're trying to tell us, that Tempest's strength is like a quarter of that which wiped out a whole city?
I don't think so... Even Helios doesn't get anywhere close to these yields. Or FS2 vacuum is extremely dense...
-
Futuristic, remember? New types of missiles, explosives, etc. And think, a kilogram on uranium can unleash kilotonnes of damage while it's very small, you don't need a thousand tonnes of TNT. In another couple of hundred years it would be a lot more powerful (hehe; alot). And wasn't 640 points = a megatonne due to the habringer's description?
-
Or FS2 vacuum is extremely dense...
What?
-
Fury (or was it Tempest?) = 3kt explosion. Hiroshima was only 20kt. Do the math.
Fury in FS1, Tempest in FS2.
3 KT? Yeah, right. It may be written as 3KT, but it's more like 3kg...
Let's see... 3KT, that would be 3 thousand tonnes... A small cruiser made wholly of TNT... Imagine a model of Aten made of TNT exploding... Tempest, anyone?
Besides, the bomb that fell on Hiroshima was 12kt. The other one (Nagasaki) was 20kt.
And you're trying to tell us, that Tempest's strength is like a quarter of that which wiped out a whole city?
I don't think so... Even Helios doesn't get anywhere close to these yields. Or FS2 vacuum is extremely dense...
You are incorrect. The weapons used in Freespace appear to have yields much greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. The Helios, a compact antimatter weapon, could destroy entire cities -- perhaps more.
It appears that Freespace armor and shields are extremely resilient.
-
Ugh, what I meant is that ok, it can be antimatter and stuff... But hell, look at the wimpy explosion of Tempest (and other warheads). It's like a firecracker. 3kt charge would vaporize everything in like 100-200m radius. And I mean everything. Then there's radiation, shockwaves, heat (far greater than surface of stars), light surge. And Helios' yield measured in MT? It would send the whole Shivan Sath battlegroup to oblivion.
Or FS2 vacuum is extremely dense...
What?
That was just a joke... The explosion of the bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to overcome the air drag and Earth's gravity. In vacuum those explosions would be bigger.
-
Ugh, what I meant is that ok, it can be antimatter and stuff... But hell, look at the wimpy explosion of Tempest (and other warheads). It's like a firecracker. 3kt charge would vaporize everything in like 100-200m radius. And I mean everything. Then there's radiation, shockwaves, heat (far greater than surface of stars), light surge. And Helios' yield measured in MT? It would send the whole Shivan Sath battlegroup to oblivion.
Or FS2 vacuum is extremely dense...
What?
That was just a joke... The explosion of the bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to overcome the air drag and Earth's gravity. In vacuum those explosions would be bigger.
No, untrue; in vacuum there's no blast wave or EMP, so nukes are comparatively less deadly.
And, again, since you have no idea what ship armor is made of, you can't know if the blast would vaporize everything for kilometers around.
Explosions don't have to 'overcome gravity'.
And there's no heat here except that carried by light and the actual plasma generated by the detonation. No convection.
Ugh, real science and Freespace just don't mix, but if you're gonna use real science, make sure you know the real science.
-
Explosions in vacuum are less powerful.
/me calls HerraTohtori
-
More or less powerful, whatever. But not 3kt blast looking like a firecracker.
And that's the major point of my post.
I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I've found NASA publication about that: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/conghand/nuclear.htm
Ok, so true, no blast, less heat and stuff. EMP, however, remains. As does lethal radiation.
The argument about 3kt warhead doing more damage remains however.
As for the blast... No blast from the nuclear warheads, but the ships (with some sort of reactors, I presume) blast pretty well. Inconsistency... Never mind, ppl, this leads nowhere. It's a game after all and some sort of simplification is unavoidable (sound in vacuum, physics messed up etc.)
-
That page doesn't say anything about EMP. EMP is generated by the atmosphere around the blast, not the blast itself. In space, I don't think you'll get any EMP.
Inconsistency... Never mind, ppl, this leads nowhere. It's a game after all and some sort of simplification is unavoidable (sound in vacuum, physics messed up etc.)
Now you're getting it.
-
That page doesn't say anything about EMP. EMP is generated by the atmosphere around the blast, not the blast itself. In space, I don't think you'll get any EMP.
Supercompressed air in the warhead which expands a fraction of a second before the explosives?
-
Maybe? If you purpose-built it.
-
But even then, the surface area of the released-air shockwave would swiftly dissipate via the inverse-square law as it moved away from the point of detonation. At least how I see it, it wouldn't have nearly the range or destructive force as an atmospheric detonation, where the shock wave propagates through a uniform medium.
-
EMP introduces an electrical current to the ships hull, overloading subsystems and scrambling those not disabled or damaged. ;7
-
EMP introduces an electrical current to the ships hull, overloading subsystems and scrambling those not disabled or damaged. ;7
If you're referring to specialist EMP weapons, those are possible in space, but you won't get an EMP off a regular nuke like a Harbinger or an antimatter weapon like a Helios (as you would in the atmosphere.)
-
As for radiation, space is filled with radiation anyway so any space ship would have defences against it.