Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Solatar on November 23, 2009, 02:45:48 pm
-
I was trying to find some time to FRED the other day, making a few late TV-war era missions. I was trying to decide if it was worth it to add a .tbm with a few extra weapons to spice things up a bit. It got me to thinking; at what rate is new technology introduced? We know that in the space of a few months (Great War) we go from unshielded Apollos and ML-16s to Banshee and Prometheus wielding ass-kicking machines.
How long was the ML-16 in service? If weapons were kept as long as they were useful, for example, then why did the Subach HL-7 replace the Avenger?
-
avenger is described as a .45 cal ballistic cannon so it has the issue that (though not implemented) there would be a limited ammo whereas the hl-7 is a laser (i am not getting into the laser/plasma argument) type so has unlimited ammo
secondly there might be maintenance or other cost issues with avenger, also after the great war avenger might have been retired for some reason so HL-7 would then replace the ML-16
-
.45 cal
lolno, it's not a handgun. More like 45mm.
-
Technological progress IMHO speeds up considerably when a real threat is introduced. During "normal" times (that is, times of either peace of perpetual war) technology advances only as much as how much is feasible.
Note how there were relatively few innovations between 2335-2367, but in the period of a few weeks/months over the course of FS2 a whole load of technologies were dumped on the table.
-
Well, given that the ML-16 and Prometheus are both described as lasers (the Prometheus has an additional scanner device to make its next shot(s) as destructive as possible) it's highly likely that most of the weapons unveiled during the Great War were in or near final stages of development. Hell, the Hades wasn't built from scratch during the Great War! The Harbinger just reinforces this idea even more- the version that killed the Lucifer was adapted from an already existing design. I would propose that most of the new toys that Command lets us use on the Shivans were green-lighted because the stakes weren't simply economic- the survival of the alliance as species depended on it.
So, short answer- the tech development rate likely did not speed up dramatically during the months of war with the Shivans.
-
The Avenger question is easy. Expendibles; all that ammunition is a significant drain on logistics capablity. The weapon itself probably requires more frequent maintaince and parts replacement than energy weaponry as well.
Some advancements, like the Ursa and Banshee, were probably Shivan-inspired. Some, like the Tsunami, were clearly already in the works. Overall I would say the arrival of the Shivans did push the technological establishment into high gear, but this is based more than anything on my belief that by the time they arrived, the T-V War was still ongoing in name only. Neither side was willing to risk major fleet units any more in recognition of the fact that while they could not win the war, they could still lose it through a major screwup, so they didn't risk their core assets of cruisers and destroyers except in small, replaceable numbers. There was no rush to win; they hoped to wind the war down.
-
Not to mention that the GTVA has lost a large source of resources, namely the Sol system, where we can assume, the Terran's at least, got a large portion of their resources. We could postulate that some of those resources where only available in Sol and these rare resources where needed to make the Avenger cannon.
-
We could postulate that some of those resources where only available in Sol and these rare resources where needed to make the Avenger cannon.
If you remember correctly, it's the argument for the Promy R, it would be a little "copy-paste" to apply it to the Avenger.
But I think the idea of maintenance costs and ammunition are the more likely ones. The Avenger was rushed into service and mass-produced only because it was the only weapon able to penetrate shields, not because it was a cheap weapon. For what we know, it is absolutely possible (even if there is no evidence of it) that it was a very expensive weapon to produce, and the the GTA/PVN put a large part of their resources to produce it only because of the Shivan threat.
If one consider the whole theory of the GTI conspiracy and investigations made in Ross 128 by a certain GTSC Einstein, it is possible the Avenger has been designed from the beginning solely for anti-Shivan purpose, even if there were prototypes before the end of the T-V War.
-
I believe that there must have been many technologies that were around at or before the start of FS1 that the player never encountered; things like early bombs, other primary weapons besides the ML-16 and Disruptor (although they would be just as useless against Shivan ships), aspect-seeking missiles, Terran bombers and assault fighters, and possibly heavy anti-capship weaponry (why else would they even try to engage a Demon-class destroyer with a cruiser as stated in the FS1 tech fluff?).
-
why else would they even try to engage a Demon-class destroyer with a cruiser as stated in the FS1 tech fluff?).
Hum... Because the fusion mortar was the most powerful weapon back in this era ? :D
-
Well thinking about it, there are what, 32 years between the wars. That is from 1977 to now. If we look back at the military advances from then, we can see new weapons and vehicles, with much improved capabilities.
If we apply this to FS we see a similar thing, with the Orion being replaced with the Hecate and the Typhon being replaced with the Hatshepsut.
Also things like the HL-7 some in and replace the ML-16 and the avenger. Even if the avenger was an easy weapon to produce, over 32 years, new weapons would come in to replace it.
-
A fusion mortar is actually pretty good.
It's better than a SGreen.
-
Also things like the HL-7 some in and replace the ML-16 and the avenger. Even if the avenger was an easy weapon to produce, over 32 years, new weapons would come in to replace it.
The problem with the HL-7 is not that it replaced by the Avenger, but that it replaced the Avenger while being worse than the Avenger. The Avenger is better in virtually every way than the HL-7.
-
why else would they even try to engage a Demon-class destroyer with a cruiser as stated in the FS1 tech fluff?).
Hum... Because the fusion mortar was the most powerful weapon back in this era ? :D
And why do no other cruisers aside from the Fenris have the Fusion Mortar? Why do no destroyers have it, despite having massive amounts of space that are far in excess of what's needed to carry 150 fighters around? Where did FS1 ships (Typhon aside, but even that's borderline) find the energy to fire weapons hundreds of times as powerful as what they used to have? I prefer to think that the beam cannons on FS2 simply replaced existing heavy anti-cap weapons (whether they be INF:A style railguns, torpedo launchers like the Fusion Mortar, or other heavy weapons). The Fenris is perhaps the only non-Lucifer capship in FS1 that isn't ludicrously, hilariously underarmed. These ships had the size and power to mount huge anti-cap weapons of some sort, it's insane to think that they could and did not.
Other things that corroborate my theory:
* The destruction of the GTD Eisenhower and her escorts was attributed to the design of the PVD Typhon herself, and not her fighter and bomber wings.
* The GTD Bastion tried to chase the SD Lucifer into the DS-Sol jump node. This indicates that the Bastion intended to bring heavy weapons to bear on the Lucifer while her shields were down; otherwise there would be no point.
Evidence suggests that the FS1-era Terran and Vasudan warships mounted considerable anti-capital weaponry and were powerful vessels in their own right, but less powerful than their FS2-era retrofit versions. Essential parts of the plot and backstory pretty much require this to be true.
-
Also things like the HL-7 some in and replace the ML-16 and the avenger. Even if the avenger was an easy weapon to produce, over 32 years, new weapons would come in to replace it.
The problem with the HL-7 is not that it replaced by the Avenger, but that it replaced the Avenger while being worse than the Avenger. The Avenger is better in virtually every way than the HL-7.
In game numbers and combat results yes but we can do a little thinking and come up with a perfectly reasonable assumption that logistically the Avenger was not as cost effective as the Subach HL-7 was for normal peacetime operations so they ditched the Avenger.
It's like the US Navy and the Tomcat versus Super Hornet. In 2009 it would still be a top fleet defender with it's old but powerful radar and video capabilities (not to mention performance)... but ... it costs a bundle to keep flying. So the US Navy went with the F-18E/F Super Hornet instead. Not as capable but cheaper and easier to maintain.
-
* The destruction of the GTD Eisenhower and her escorts was attributed to the design of the PVD Typhon herself, and not her fighter and bomber wings.
Quoth the table entry: "Should be Vasudan Flux Cannon." for the fighterkillers. These are improved fusion mortar weapons.
* The GTD Bastion tried to chase the SD Lucifer into the DS-Sol jump node. This indicates that the Bastion intended to bring heavy weapons to bear on the Lucifer while her shields were down; otherwise there would be no point.
Assertion does not follow; the Bastion could have deployed more fighter wings if it entered the tunnel after the Lucifer, deployed a support ship, allowed Delta's Ursas to land and rearm if the support ship option was not viable, or simply have closed to point-blank range much as the Tantalus did to it and provided a distracting target for the Lucifer's fighter wings and turrets to help Delta.
The fact the Bastion did not deploy such heavy weapons against the SD Tantalus puts that argument to bed, as even if you try and state they were short of ammo or something, not deploying the weapons runs the risk the Bastion will be unable to do any of the above as well as possibly be destroyed, rendering the strike against the Lucifer impossible.
-
If they could have deployed additional fighter wings against the Lucifer, they would have. The window for launching fighters wasn't much smaller than it would have been if things had proceeded as planned; they could have sent three or four wings of Ursas out the door. They didn't. Why? My guess is they didn't have that many and they were planning to use their main guns.
The fact the Bastion did not deploy such heavy weapons against the SD Tantalus puts that argument to bed, as even if you try and state they were short of ammo or something, not deploying the weapons runs the risk the Bastion will be unable to do any of the above as well as possibly be destroyed, rendering the strike against the Lucifer impossible.
Fluff > gameplay. If fluff and gameplay contradict, fluff wins (I also take the 80+ turret configuration of the Colossus and the triple beam cannon armament of the Lucifer as the true configurations, and I believe that Talania did exist). The fluff and plot indicate that capital ships do have the ability to destroy other capital ships without bomber support. Any gameplay behavior must be taken with a large grain of salt.
And this is leaving aside the idea that it's completely ludicrous that a ship of that size would not have heavy weapons. It's insane.
My opinion remains that all FS1 capital ships except for the Lucifer (and maybe other Shivan caps, but that's a stretch), had some form of pre-beam heavy weapons, possibly torpedo launchers like the Fusion Mortar or other weapons. Nothing else makes sense. If there were no such ships, someone would have built a torpedo-laden capital ship because of the overwhelming advantage it would give versus ships not so equipped. To think otherwise is to think that all humans and all Vasudans are incredibly, amazingly, mind-blowingly, colossally stupid. Even if you just had laser weapons, you could just build a more powerful laser with more wattage and a bigger lens and bolt it to your new destroyer.
-
Hmm, with the FS1 turrets, the Orion could probably push out about 250 damage per second (assuming 2 huge turrets and 4 turrets) with the right broadside. That's sufficient to destroy another Orion within 7 minutes. Am I doing this calculation all wrong?
With that said, I've always thought that the firing rate of the blob turrets should be equal to the fighter versions (but with the same punch per shot). That alone would make the capital ships of even the FS1-era quite a threat. I do not think that capital ships would have wielded heavy bombs though. Large bombs invariably move slowly and would be next to useless if launched from a capital ship.
-
That's still equivalent firepower to a single Hercules, which is pathetic.
-
Yes, that's why I said I believe that ought to have fired at the same rate as the regular Prometheus. That would provide over five times the numerical firepower as well as greatly increasing the hit-rate against fighters and bombers.
I rather think of it being slow for the same reason the Shivan's have wimpy lasers (as opposed to the Kaysers they should be armed with); so that we pilots don't get shot to pieces super quick.
-
Though, I figured I would mention that a lot of the new technologies that were introduced were experimental and needed to be rushed out to provide an improvement over the other weapon. This new weapon is of course followed by research into another one
Avenger came out, but was replaced by a better Prometheus
This was probably mentioned before, but hey, I'm not always current
-
Yes, that's why I said I believe that ought to have fired at the same rate as the regular Prometheus. That would provide over five times the numerical firepower as well as greatly increasing the hit-rate against fighters and bombers.
I rather think of it being slow for the same reason the Shivan's have wimpy lasers (as opposed to the Kaysers they should be armed with); so that we pilots don't get shot to pieces super quick.
...and here we come to why gameplay is a poor reflection of a fictional universe--it is heavily abstracted and "balanced" at the expense of realism, logic, consistency, or just plain making any goddamn sense.
Fun fact: The FS1 Leviathan is supposed to have stronger weapons than the FS1 Fenris. Considering that the FighterKiller is weaker than the Fusion Mortar and the general superiority of fluff over gameplay, it must have some other main armament.
EDIT: Going back to the FighterKillers on the Typhon that are supposed to be Vasudan Flux Cannons, those are terrible places to put the ship's main guns. Sorry, that's not enough to make the original Typhon equal to a whole Terran fleet. (OK, I think I got the wrong FighterKillers. The other batch just upgrades it from "terrible" to "lame", especially in head-on and side-on engagements).
-
Well, you also have to compare them to the weaponry that fighters had before the Shivans came along to force ahead more advanced weaponry. The ML-16 can't match the DPS of even the uber slow Terran Huge Turret for instance (a hypothetical Hercules fighter with ML-16's in the T-V War would take half an hour of uninterrupted firing to take down an Orion). While the fighters got huge upgrades during the Great War, thus drastically improving their efficacy, capital ships didn't seem to get the same.
However, imagine flying an unshield Apollo against capital ships firing blobs at full rate. Not an impossible task of course, but the margin of error is incredibly slim especially since every other hit would certainly fry a subsystem. A single hit on the engine and it's death.
-
You know, you're talking to a person who is making an FSPort campaign where you fight the first 10 missions with no shields, right? :D
-
Not that it has any bearing on the matter. I only talk numbers here since that's the question.
Certainly in-game, the capital ships are woefully under-armed. Given the range of technologies we've seen though, I feel the most reasonable "out-game" modification is increased firing rate of the blob turrets (and somewhat optionally, more of them). It seems that effective (against the existing armor) ballistics don't exist yet or are still experimental (Avenger and the future Maxim). Meanwhile, heavy bombs travel extremely slowly. However, there's no in-universe explanation for the extremely low firing rate of the blob turrets. Therefore, it feels more reasonable to make the existing guns fire faster rather than create new weapons altogether.
Having the effect of both increasing numerical firepower as well as improving anti-fighter/bomber effectiveness is cake.
-
They could also mount fighter weapons on capships...
Imagine if a bunch of quad-barrel kayser turrets were mounted all over a cap ship that fired at near the same rate they did for fighters. It's quite possible, since a fighter reactor could support that (if for a short time), so a turret or 20 bolted to a ship that probably has fusion reactors should be completely fine.
Except then any mission with any cap ship higher than cruiser would almost be BoE-like, where the entire point of the mission is to stay out of range of any cap ships and wait for said cap ship to be owned by your own cap ships, since bombers wouldn't do squat to it due to mounted morning stars/maxims. See Procyon Insurgency's AAA-spam destroyer for the level of frustration I'm talking about, but applied to almost any mission with hostile cap ships.
So yes, definitely balance > realism.
(Someone should make a box studded with kayser turrets that fired at normal rates, just to see how many wings of fighters it could shred through)
-
The thing is, when you're talking about the universe, the formula is reversed: realism > balance. A video game is a very abstracted, unrealistic view of the world it is set in--if you look at the world outside of the context of playing a game, it won't make sense if everything is the same. If you think Warhammer 40,000's universe is silly as it is, it would be absolutely retarded if the whole universe followed the tabletop mechanics. Therefore, the actual universe, as shown in the novels and other media, does not follow the tabletop rules, and FreeSpace's fluff and plot often has things that wouldn't work using the game mechanics, like the Leviathan having "more powerful" weaponry than the Fenris in FS1, the Bastion trying to engage the Lucifer itself, or a PVF Horus taking off from Vasuda Prime and quickly reaching escape velocity (which is many, many times faster than a Horus can go in the game) in the Vasuda Prime command brief footage in FS1.
-
Fluff > gameplay. If fluff and gameplay contradict, fluff wins (I also take the 80+ turret configuration of the Colossus and the triple beam cannon armament of the Lucifer as the true configurations, and I believe that Talania did exist). The fluff and plot indicate that capital ships do have the ability to destroy other capital ships without bomber support. Any gameplay behavior must be taken with a large grain of salt.
This doesn't work. If we were talking novels or something like that and then the game, it might make sense. But FS is a game first and only, and therefore your stance is madness. (And guess what? 40k fans think my way, bad example.)
It is doubly madness because fluff gives the existence of no such heavy weapons as you posist, so you don't even have a leg to stand on to begin with.
The things you cite are also broken; The Leviathan usually does have more powerful weaponry, if you pay attention, because the mission designers made it so; the Horus makes its own escape velocity, because we know FS spacecraft can create or nullify their own gravity (for that matter, we don't actually see it make escape velocity, the CB ani shows it fleeing a city in level flight not climbing); we don't know that the Lucifer's antiship and bombardment weapons are the same thing, and there is good evidence they are not from the CB anis.
-
IIRC the Horus was seen escorting a Satis-class freighter (or was it a Ma'at?) in the very next scene. Also since when could FS ships "nullify their own gravity"? They have never been shown to do this. I might recall one hovering a few feet above the flight deck while taking off or landing, but that could be using thrusters or simply artificial gravity either being absent on the flight deck or switched on and off. It makes far more sense to assume that it reached such incredible speeds under its own power--if it could generate enough energy to create a shield capable of softening the blow of multi-kiloton (almost certainly nuclear) missiles, it could probably do that as well. And then there's space, where top speed does not exist, period (and your velocity is entirely relative, anyway. One observer could see you moving at 5 m/s and another at 5000 because they have different reference points).
(And guess what? 40k fans think my way, bad example.)
No, they don't. When fluff conflicts with gameplay, fluff wins. Ever been to Spacebattles?
Since FS is a game and game only, the actual workings of the universe and real behavior of various things must be derived from fluff and conjecture, you cannot trust game mechanics.
As far as I'm concerned, capital ships in FreeSpace must be much more heavily armed than depicted in the game because there is no reason whatsoever given their size, mass, and power generation ability not to be much more heavily armed. It would be utterly foolish for a ship the size of an Orion not to have many times the firepower of a fighter; thousands or even millions (what the Lucifer did to Vasuda Prime makes a pretty good case for "millions", and bombs are stated to be tens/hundreds of thousands of times as powerful as basic missiles).
The relationship between ships/weapons in FS gameplay is so utterly broken from a storytelling/worldbuilding perspective as to be completely unacceptable.
EDIT: Just thinking about FreeSpace "canon" makes me mad. Interplay needs to license a FreeSpace novel so someone can straighten it out.
-
NGTM-1R beat me to what I was going to say, but I fully agree with him. There's a good reason that holding "fluff" over in-game evidence is a rather massively unpopular opinion around here. You can pretty much write anything you want in a random tech entry, but the in-mission gameplay is our canonical experience of the actual FS storyline. Even if there are elements that are pretty clearly designed a certain way for gameplay purposes (and there are), they're still "real" as far as the player's character is concerned, so you're forced to work with what you have.
Edit: And using Spacebattles.com as valid evidence for anything kind of invalidates whatever point you were trying to make. That whole site is essentially nerdraeg incarnate. :p
-
Is it really that bad? I haven't been there in a long time but I don't recall it being that "nerdraeg" unless it was someone pushing Star Trek vs. Star Wars, 40k, or some other sci-fi 800-pound gorilla. At least they try to make sense of and rationalize what they're given in a sci-fi universe rather than blindly ignore consistency, realism, or common sense (like "bigger ship = bigger powerplant = bigger guns". Even FS2 followed this to some degree, albeit with a really messed-up sense of scale).
EDIT: Complaining About Forums You Don't Like doesn't help your argument either, y'know.
-
I've never actually been to the forum in question, at least not more than once or twice, but I find the whole idea of "vs." arguments to be so laughable in the first place, no matter how much "rationality" is applied to them, that I can't see their use adding weight to any legitimate discussion.
-
The "weight" comes from the fact that the focus of the board is making sense out of often bizarre sci-fi universes, filling in holes in plots and worlds, and reconciling the "rule of cool" with rationality and consistency. Vs. debates are only an extension of that.
-
You do realsie one can find a nicel balance between fluuf and gameplay.. Or one can even go heavily on the realism/fluff side. Sure, ti might make the game more difficult, but who here doesn't like a little challenge?
Whens hte last time you elt thratened by a capital ship?
When I played FS1 port, I edited hte ships and weapons tables, making capital ships better. Giving the heavy guns more range and damage (and prolly setting tothem to fire only at capital ships) makes the fights between capital ships actually look plausibe. Fights still take a lot longer than with beam weaponry, but at least it's going somewhere.
Then bump the rate of fire of small laser turrets and you actually have capital ships worth a damn.
You have wingmans for a reason. A single fighter (player) should NEVER be even nearly enough to take out a capital ship. Sadly, you cna take out a Ravana alone even in FS2 with AAA's. Doesn't that tell you something?
-
Haw. Not on hard or insane mode, you can't.
-
Maybe not insane, but it can be done on hard....
-
Trivial since Maxims outrange anti-fighter weapons of capital ships...
*
Overall rate of progress is interesting.
Small craft generally seem to improve, but not by much. I'd still fly Athenas and Valkyries on occasion in FS2 if I could, but the Apollo is generally eclipsed by the Perseus (the advantages in afteburner capacity and manoeverability along 2 axes are very minor; the speed difference is quite noticeable). The Hercules is still a well-rounded assault fighter but I can't really think of a situation where I'd want to fly it over a newer ship (if the Ares' even worse manoeverability is unacceptable, the Herc is probably not survivable enough either... otherwise, the Ares is a straight upgrade). The Medusa wasn't new at the start of FS1 and is still a fine bomber in FS2 despite having its turret downgraded (boo!).
Primary weapons are strange. Avengers were excellent energy-efficient general purpose weapons, putting Subachs and Prometheus R to shame. Interestingly, it was never improved on... average between hull and shield damage is higher than that of Banshees or original Prometheus. FS1 also had excellent anti-fighter weapons... the Flail is more universally useful than the Morningstar (lower range but a lot more energy-efficient) and the Shield Breaker puts the Circe to shame. 4 Avengers + 2 Flails is a combination I'd often take over anything available in FS2.
FS2 offers some awesome heavy hitters if we are not too bothered about energy efficiency though. The Prometheus S is a well-balanced general purpose weapon (especially considering we lost the good anti-shield tools - the Avenger and original Prometheus still outdo it in terms of hull damage) with superior range, and the Kayser plays in a completely different leage and, unlike the Banshee, is arguably worth the energy drain. Finally, Maxims give fighters the ability to engage capital ships safely from the distance and their firepower is also way out of the league of any FS1 anti-hull cannon.
Secondary weapons have improved considerably. Tempests hit harder and are far smaller than Furies, the decrease in range hardly matters in comparison. The newer homing missiles track better than their predecessors. Trebuchets offer long-range firepower and are great at disabling things (often better than the more specialised Stiletto family because they can't be shot down). The only real step down is the anti-subsystem capability of heavy bombs; the Helios doesn't take out any subsystem with 1 hit as the Harbinger did. Still a better overall weapon because it's smaller and has a much bigger boom.
Capital ships seem to have matured a little. Uprated FS1-era ships tend to be about as powerful as those new to FS2, but they have more pronounced weaknesses and less balanced capabilities. Capital ship weapons had a minor revolution... AAA and flak are deadly, and anti-capital beams are a noticable upgrade at least for the ships capable of fielding the bigger ones (a Small Green might have a first strike advantage over a Fusion Mortar, but sustained damage is actually less on default settings).
*
All in all, I'd say there is evidence for slow overall progress, but most changes seem to stem from a chance in design philosophies rather than the ability to build something better. For example, afterburners simply aren't what they used to be for Terran craft and most new ships also don't impress with their handling... there is definitely more emphasis on firepower and/or the ability to survive damage.
I'm not sure how to take this into account for weapons in a prequel though... for one thing, the only thing we'd care for in general purpose weaponry is hull damage. Without shields, fighters are too flimsy for many specialised toys as seen in the games (something like the Flail wold be unnecessary, something like the fighter suppression missiles would be very hard to balance). While unguided anti-capital torpedos would make sense, these would also be hard to balance as well (it's not as if we need the homing to hit capital ships; it's a requirement to keep us from unloading our whole arsenal on them at once).
-
IIRC the Horus was seen escorting a Satis-class freighter (or was it a Ma'at?) in the very next scene.
And of course this is absolutely certainly the same Horus. Not that there was a scene transition or anything. Also see below.
Also since when could FS ships "nullify their own gravity"? They have never been shown to do this.
Sinc :V: said they have antigravity technology in a developer email. There's a whole thread about it, Aldo started it, if you remembered or did a cursory search.
No, they don't. When fluff conflicts with gameplay, fluff wins. Ever been to Spacebattles?
Battlefleet Gothic says lolwhut to you too, sir. Gothic fluff and gameplay don't actually contradict each other much. Sure, the models are huge, but the game rules state outright they're not to scale, they're for good visual representation, and distances are measured to center of the base, and soforth. What little fluff there is for Gothic frequently contradicts each other. (The fluff entry for the Sword-class, for example, states its armament is laser based; later fluff about a Sword talks about jettisoning burning ammo.) Unless you mean my Lunar-class really is longer than the diameter of planet?
More to the point, however, the overwhelming majority of the 40k fanbase doesn't go to Spacebattles, but places like Warseer or Librarium. There, game mechanics trump fluff. Even /tg/ on 4chan says game mechanics trump fluff...usually.
Since FS is a game and game only, the actual workings of the universe and real behavior of various things must be derived from fluff and conjecture, you cannot trust game mechanics.
Why? It's a game. The mechanics are Primary Source, at the core of everything it is or will be.
As far as I'm concerned, capital ships in FreeSpace must be much more heavily armed than depicted in the game
Well that's great, but you don't even have fluff to fall back on here, so that's just going to be your opinion.
Canon, like reality, does not need to conform to your desire for it to make sense.
-
In analyzing "game mechanics" I think a distinction between the player and other fighters needs to be made. I don't normally play on insane (usually medium or hard) but the player is given a distinct set of advantages in lower difficulty levels that make it possible to take down warships, etc. by himself. Given a LEVEL PLAYING field (Insane) these accomplishments are much harder to achieve.