Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: CommanderDJ on May 13, 2010, 08:04:25 am

Title: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: CommanderDJ on May 13, 2010, 08:04:25 am
Hey all,
I was wondering whether we have any canon info as to the crew size of cruisers such as the Fenris and Leviathan? And any others while we're at it. I've checked the wiki pages of those cruisers and there's nothing on their crew size there.
Thanks,
CommanderDJ
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 13, 2010, 08:08:42 am
I think it's assumed that destroyers are crewed by thousands of people. I can't tell more than that, try to check failure debriefings in missions where your are supposed to defend things.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 13, 2010, 08:11:41 am
I don't think that information was ever mentioned in dialogue or a briefing.

However, consider this: A Fenris is about the size of a modern aircraft carrier (which have a crew complement north of 5000).

(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu320/FabianW/carrier_comp_4.jpg)

We also know that an Orion carries a crew of 10000. So, just to pull a few numbers out of my ass, a typical Fenris would like ly have a crew somewhere under 1000 people, 300 to 600 would probably sound right.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: CommanderDJ on May 13, 2010, 08:13:39 am
I don't think that information was ever mentioned in dialogue or a briefing.

However, consider this: A Fenris is about the size of a modern aircraft carrier (which have a crew complement north of 5000).

(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu320/FabianW/carrier_comp_4.jpg)

We also know that an Orion carries a crew of 10000. So, just to pull a few numbers out of my ass, a typical Fenris would like ly have a crew somewhere under 1000 people, 300 to 600 would probably sound right.

That's a pretty kickass picture for scale reference there. Hmm, somehow it looks more than 10 times smaller than the Orion... so yeah, a few hundred should be alright for a rough guide.

Thanks! And I'm stealing that pic btw.

Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 13, 2010, 08:17:23 am
Well, I suppose you could try and derive something from logic.

What are the systems a cruiser has? Sensors, weapons, comms, engine, radar dish?

Sensors presumably takes about 10 people max to operate. Weapons? About the same, perhaps 15 if we're being generous. Comms? Perhaps 5 people. Engine? 8-12? Radar? Let's tie that into sensors.

That gives us about 40-45 people. Now we add logistics and maintainance staff, about 20. Now we add the bridge crew of about 10. 75 people 'round about. Plus a repair crew? 10 people. 85 people.

Keep in mind, when making a carrier comparison/contrast, a Fenris doesn't have pilots, or aviation techies. It doesn't have associated aircrew officers, it definetely does not have a large marine complement. It doesn't have a crew large enough to quantify 100 people paid to peel potatoes. It doesn't need a large bridge crew. It doesn't have a large deck that needs people to coordinate it, it doesn't have any large places besides the enlisted mess that needs people to clean it.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 13, 2010, 08:24:19 am
Granted. But, let's take modern-day frigates as an example. The british Type 23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate) carries a crew of 180. The german F125 Sachsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsen_class_frigate) has a crew of 243. The american Oliver Hazard Perry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate), again, has 170 guys on board.

Given the sheer size of a Fenris, doubling that number just for purposes of damage control etc gives us a number between 300 and 500 guys, which does not sound that unrealistic.

Also, I am kinda assuming that a GTVA cruiser performs the same kind of policing/anti-piracy missions current frigates do, so you'd probably want a couple of warm bodies to do boarding actions and stuff like that.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 13, 2010, 09:30:00 am
Also, I am kinda assuming that a GTVA cruiser performs the same kind of policing/anti-piracy missions current frigates do, so you'd probably want a couple of warm bodies to do boarding actions and stuff like that.
Now explain me how you want to board things with a frakking cruiser.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 13, 2010, 09:34:18 am
By docking with them?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Thaeris on May 13, 2010, 09:36:37 am
Indeed. Use the docking ring.

:p
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 13, 2010, 10:00:55 am
I am so picturing a Fenris maneuvering to present its side docking ring to a disabled Poseidon and then sliding to dock, when it would be so easy to call for an Elysium full of marines.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: -Norbert- on May 13, 2010, 10:17:34 am
Remeber the Hallfight video?
The marines could just jump out of the airlocks and then use their magneticed boots to fix themselfs on the hull of the enemy ship, even if the cruiser can't dock. They might also have specialized troopers with a harness of manouvering thrusters for such operations.

And what is a poseidon? The only ship by that name I remember at the moment is a non-canon EA carrier form Babylon 5.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: General Battuta on May 13, 2010, 10:21:43 am
Remeber the Hallfight video?
The marines could just jump out of the airlocks and then use their magneticed boots to fix themselfs on the hull of the enemy ship, even if the cruiser can't dock. They might also have specialized troopers with a harness of manouvering thrusters for such operations.

And what is a poseidon? The only ship by that name I remember at the moment is a non-canon EA carrier form Babylon 5.

Terran freighter. Quite small.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 13, 2010, 10:27:10 am
Hum, point. Especially for boarding small pirate ships like freighters or gunships. Still, I don't think the GTVA is short on Elysium for those tasks.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: kaloonzu on May 13, 2010, 11:49:23 am
Cruisers probably have a rather large crew. You have to take into account that every person probably has an 8 hour shift, so two others doing the same thing, and also some backups for that position in addition to the standard crew. PLUS, I believe it is generally accepted among the community that turrets (at least some of them) are manned. Oh, and support crew would be rather large, even on a cruiser. They are designed as the patrol craft when the Shivans aren't messing around in the backyard. So crew of around 400-750 sounds good.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 13, 2010, 12:23:48 pm
Hum, point. Especially for boarding small pirate ships like freighters or gunships. Still, I don't think the GTVA is short on Elysium for those tasks.

They don't have to be short on them for one not to be available in the next ten minutes for a boarding action on a fleeing pirate. :P
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Thaeris on May 13, 2010, 12:29:54 pm
Remeber the Hallfight video?
The marines could just jump out of the airlocks and then use their magneticed boots to fix themselfs on the hull of the enemy ship, even if the cruiser can't dock. They might also have specialized troopers with a harness of manouvering thrusters for such operations.

And what is a poseidon? The only ship by that name I remember at the moment is a non-canon EA carrier form Babylon 5.

That's always bothered me. Pilots have (assumably) fully-sealed pressure suits, where the visor would probably snap out then back in very rapidly to seal the atmosphere inside the suit so as to prevent the pilot from dying. Marines however? Why do they not get full pressure suits? Reason: most likely budget and time restraints.

From watching "hall fight," one would assume the Shivans were within... almost a Terran environment, or at least one with an inert gas providing enough pressure to keep those marines alive... before they were barbequed, of course. Unless, of course, marines have a type of fielding which encloses an atmosphere about them, which is heinously impractical...
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 13, 2010, 12:37:51 pm
They don't have to be short on them for one not to be available in the next ten minutes for a boarding action on a fleeing pirate. :P
You don't try to board a fleeing ship, you disable them before. That's what Disruptors and Akhetons are for.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 13, 2010, 12:41:22 pm
That's not really the point.  The point is, possible time constraints make relying on Elysiums impractical at best, and catastrophic at worst.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: ChronoReverse on May 13, 2010, 01:23:23 pm
I'd compare these ships to submarines actually.  An Ohio class submarine has a crew complement of 155 already.  So a number at minimum twice that doesn't seem too far off.  They'd have to have at least three shifts (if not four) to continuously operate in those conditions.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 13, 2010, 01:35:57 pm
i'd think about 300-500 crew (not counting marines) would be about right, assuming 3 shifts, plus damage control techs, etc. and no, they wouldnt need flight crew, recovery equipment, less extensive fire  supression as a carrier, but would still need it. i also read somewhere that the orion has 10k crew, and we know from the command breifings of fs2 that the hecates (maybe just the flagship aquatane) have 10k crew also
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 13, 2010, 02:20:11 pm
If it was 10k for a flagship, I'll bet that the other Hecates have smaller crews (by even many hundred- after all, a flagship needs more facilities for mission planning etc).

Also notice that the Hecate isn't exactly smaller than an Orion, it's also far better armed, IIRC has a few times more engines, and more strike craft, yet the crew is the same.

Makes me wonder if the Aeolus had an increase in crewmembers over the old cruisers, and how many more people served on corvettes.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 13, 2010, 02:26:59 pm
Most destroyers are flagships.  It's practically in their job description (it might be, actually).
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 13, 2010, 02:34:32 pm
Well, since each fleet has more than one GTD/GVD, I'll assume that only one is a flagship per fleet.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 13, 2010, 02:35:12 pm
Well, since each fleet has more than one GTD/GVD, I'll assume that only one is a flagship per fleet.

Source please.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 13, 2010, 02:43:29 pm
it's also far better armed
Now that is funny. And I guess the Aten is more powerful than the Lilith too.

But yeah, we can safely guess that each fleet has several destroyers, given the number the NTF is using : no less than 8 are canonically depicted in the main campaign - and the NTF fleet is supposed to be only made of the 6th fleet and possible defectors. Even if they recommissioned some old Orions or build a couple of them in the Regulus shipyards (I don't think you can build half a dozen destroyers in a few months, let alone train the crew to man them), that still make for several destroyers in a standard fleet.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 13, 2010, 02:56:39 pm
However, we don't know canonically if any of those destroyers were operating in flagship positions that weren't necessarily fleet size formations.  Task forces, task groups, and flotillas still need a command ship, and destroyers fit the bill like no other ships in FreeSpace.

Slightly more concise version:  We have no canonical evidence that those destroyers were not operating in flagship roles.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Kie99 on May 13, 2010, 03:06:27 pm
The Orion has more firepower, undoubtedly, but the Hecate has far better anti-fighter defences.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 13, 2010, 03:14:22 pm
Quote
However, we don't know canonically if any of those destroyers were operating in flagship positions that weren't necessarily fleet size formations.  Task forces, task groups, and flotillas still need a command ship, and destroyers fit the bill like no other ships in FreeSpace.

Slightly more concise version:  We have no canonical evidence that those destroyers were not operating in flagship roles.

Never said the contrary. When I think flagship, I think fleet flagship. Like, one per fleet, coordinating the whole fleet. The point of my previous post was about the canonical evidences of there being several destroyers per fleet, not at all about which one were flagships or not.

I don't think task group or flotilla "flagships" have special crews and/or command systems. It's just a temporary assignment for the operation the task group/flotilla is formed for.

Quote
The Orion has more firepower, undoubtedly, but the Hecate has far better anti-fighter defences.
Given the ability to deploy fighter cover from the hangar bay, it's not as much an issue as the lack of direct anti-capship firepower. In most standard engagements (I mean, fleet engagements, where you are likely to be against any class and any kind of ship), an Orion will always be able to defend itself against medium to relatively high bomber raids with its few AAA and its fighter cover, but the Hecate can suffer a lot more damage from capital ships (even corvettes or cruisers) before its bomber complement and its few beams negate the threat.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Iranon on May 13, 2010, 03:40:56 pm
I've always got the idea that cruisers had a fairly large complement, with an emphasis on the ability to carry out long missions with minimal support rather than cramming the biggest amount of power into the smallest possible ship.

The Lilith may have been built along very different lines, only referred to as a cruiser because it fits for a vessel of the size: Extensive automation to make room for armour, bigger weapons and the power plants to operate them. Probably less able to act independently for extended periods of time.

Afaik, there is no canon information to support this speculation though.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 13, 2010, 03:59:36 pm
Canonically, a Sobek has 8000 crew.
So I'd guess some of the larger cruisers have one or two thousand? I donno.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: DOCTOR DOOM!!! on May 13, 2010, 08:47:13 pm
I thought the Orion had a crew of 8000 and the Hecate had a crew of 10000!
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: SpardaSon21 on May 13, 2010, 09:22:00 pm
Nope, listen to Rear Admiral Koth in Feint! Parry! Riposte!.  While doing the evil speech thing from the bridge of his Orion he mentions he has ten thousand men ready to die for Neo-Terra.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 13, 2010, 09:50:07 pm
Also the Carthage is listed has having 10k, in the same mission that sobeks are listed as having 8000.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: headdie on May 14, 2010, 02:51:43 am
I've always got the idea that cruisers had a fairly large complement, with an emphasis on the ability to carry out long missions with minimal support rather than cramming the biggest amount of power into the smallest possible ship.

The Lilith may have been built along very different lines, only referred to as a cruiser because it fits for a vessel of the size: Extensive automation to make room for armour, bigger weapons and the power plants to operate them. Probably less able to act independently for extended periods of time.

Afaik, there is no canon information to support this speculation though.

Traditionaly as employed in the real world yes a cruiser is a warship designed to operate for prolongued periods away from friendly terretory but in FS the squewed designation scheme i would place a cruiser in the corvette/frigate/destroyer bracket operating as a more home defence and support role.  thinking about it if you went far enough pre T-V war you would probably find ships of cruiser size designated as such and the designation stuck to ships of that size bracket insted of its role.

personaly i would favor crews in the region of 200-300 with only a tiny number of marines to counter bording actions
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 14, 2010, 03:40:31 am
Granted. But, let's take modern-day frigates as an example. The british Type 23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate) carries a crew of 180. The german F125 Sachsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsen_class_frigate) has a crew of 243. The american Oliver Hazard Perry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate), again, has 170 guys on board.

Given the sheer size of a Fenris, doubling that number just for purposes of damage control etc gives us a number between 300 and 500 guys, which does not sound that unrealistic.

Also, I am kinda assuming that a GTVA cruiser performs the same kind of policing/anti-piracy missions current frigates do, so you'd probably want a couple of warm bodies to do boarding actions and stuff like that.
Fair enough, but you're forgetting those vessels employ between one and two helicopters as well. So that's about 20 crewmen, not including pilots you've got on those figures.

I don't really see the logic in doubling the size of the crew just for sheer size. I mean, an aircraft carrier has a deck, several hangars, and lots of aircraft. Therefore it does make sense for them to have a large crew more or less. The largest part of a cruiser would probably be the enlisted mess, and it only has a few systems that need manning.

I've never, ever, seen a Fenris attempt to dock with another cruiser directly. I mean, there's the *small* problem of the ship getting torn to pieces by the 'dockee' vessel's defensive armament. That said, having a small complement of marines on-board to counter boarding actions in the event the vessel is stripped of its armament makes sense as previously stated. But even then, I'd suppose the GTVA might have a policy similar to the US Marine Corps, or the ADF, in which all members are trained in some basic IMT to provide local security, so in the event of a boarding action, those not on shift would comprise the armed crew complement. 

The most valid argument I can see for a larger crew would be so you have 2-3 crew rotations. That would up the figure to about 200 people max, I think that makes sense.

Most destroyers are flagships.  It's practically in their job description (it might be, actually).
Fair enough, Fleet CO usually resides on a destroyer. It makes very, very, little tactical sense to have a ship class dedicated for your Fleet Commander. So now if your destroyer were to bite it, you have no place within the fleet to coordinate operations, and the single largest weapon in the fleet is gone. It makes sense to have perhaps 2-3 destroyers, I mean, they aren't called destroyers for nothing! When there are concurrent offensives, or different parts of the system that fall under a fleet's jurisdiction, it makes sense to deploy more than one. Although, I'd imagine the Flagship had more C3 duties than the other destroyers.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 14, 2010, 09:02:16 am
Whenever I see a Fenris or Leviathan, the first number that comes into mind when I guess their crew count is 250.

On a side note, HLP's active members could man the GTC LoneWolf. :p
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: jr2 on May 14, 2010, 09:57:42 am
I don't think you can build half a dozen destroyers in a few months, let alone train the crew to man them), that still make for several destroyers in a standard fleet.

Yay for the Ready Reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_Reserve) (drilling reservists) and Individual Ready Reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Ready_Reserve) (non-drilling former active duty or drilling reservists filling out the rest of their contract; they can be called back into active duty if necessary).
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 14, 2010, 11:17:47 am
Yay for the Ready Reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_Reserve) (drilling reservists) and Individual Ready Reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Ready_Reserve) (non-drilling former active duty or drilling reservists filling out the rest of their contract; they can be called back into active duty if necessary).
I was talking about the NTF here. I don't think a rebel organization which have only been operating for a few months would have that many reservists.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 14, 2010, 11:18:24 am
Well **** the reserves, I think they'd want everyone on active-duty. :P
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: jr2 on May 14, 2010, 11:54:24 am
NTF?  Yeah.  They would.  I was thinking GTVA.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 14, 2010, 12:01:20 pm
Well, since each fleet has more than one GTD/GVD, I'll assume that only one is a flagship per fleet.

Source please.
A quick look at the wiki and I find that may be a bit hard to prove...
it's also far better armed
Now that is funny. And I guess the Aten is more powerful than the Lilith too.
I was thinking more on the lines of number of turrets rather than beam firepower.

Also- the Aten has 2 AAAf beams, vs the Lilith's single AAAs, so there is at least one category where the Aten is more powerful- antifighter beams. :p

P.S. Who would create a cruiser which can't really stop a wing of SFr Asmodeuses?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: -Norbert- on May 14, 2010, 12:28:57 pm
Considering that the Lilith AAA turret has a much better field of fire, on top of the missle launchers and a lot of blob turrets (not to mention WAAAAY stronger armor) I'd say that tiny little advantage is no advantage at all....
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 14, 2010, 12:39:24 pm
Considering that the Lilith AAA turret has a much better field of fire, on top of the missle launchers and a lot of blob turrets (not to mention WAAAAY stronger armor) I'd say that tiny little advantage is no advantage at all....
^ This. I just tend to think the Aten is a gunship and the Hecate an heavy carrier. They are not underpowered, they just have the wrong designations.

Also, I guess the Hecate, being a newer design, is probably less expensive to maintain than the Orion.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Aardwolf on May 14, 2010, 07:13:49 pm
Considering that the Lilith AAA turret has a much better field of fire, on top of the missle launchers and a lot of blob turrets (not to mention WAAAAY stronger armor) I'd say that tiny little advantage is no advantage at all....

Ah, but in FS1 the Aten was actually a threat (on higher difficulties, anyway). And it doesn't even appear in FS2 (iirc).

From a lore perspective, though, the AAA turrets on the Aten might have just been an attempt to refit it with whatever they could.

Perhaps it isn't even intended for front-line deployment any more when FS2 takes place... re-tasked as an anti-pirates ship or something. After all, with the newer weapons tech everything else was using versus the older hull tech of the Aten, it'd probably be safer to mount a heavy beam on a new ship than on an Aten, where its effectiveness would be limited by its much shorter lifetime. That said, rather than scrap all of the Atens in service, they stick the two AAA's on it and re-task 'em with fending off those lousy space-pirates.

All of that of course depends on the Aten being weaker (defensively) than any of the newer Vasudan warships.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Thaeris on May 14, 2010, 07:55:17 pm
Recall that the Aten is the fastest cruiser in FS1, and its speed is still respectable, especially in light of its Great War-era Terran counterparts (which are/were still in service during FS2 to a fairly substantial degree). Thus, due to its permissable armament, the Aten would make for a respectable escort ship for convoy work in light to medium intensity theaters of operation. Unless equipped with some better beams or Fusion Mortars/Flux Cannons, however, the ship is not going to do as much else. Hence the ever-reliable Fenris to the rescue...

...On a side note, the Aten at first gives the impression of being quite durable... it has 18,000 hit points! (compared to the 8,000/10,000 of the Fenris) Of course, that just really means it gets to get pummeled for a while longer while being completely defenseless... :p
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 14, 2010, 10:04:32 pm
Quote
...On a side note, the Aten at first gives the impression of being quite durable... it has 18,000 hit points! (compared to the 8,000/10,000 of the Fenris) Of course, that just really means it gets to get pummeled for a while longer while being completely defenseless...

it gives the crew ample time to put their heads between their knees and kis their asps goodbye.

Quote
Perhaps it isn't even intended for front-line deployment any more when FS2 takes place... re-tasked as an anti-pirates ship or something. After all, with the newer weapons tech everything else was using versus the older hull tech of the Aten, it'd probably be safer to mount a heavy beam on a new ship than on an Aten, where its effectiveness would be limited by its much shorter lifetime. That said, rather than scrap all of the Atens in service, they stick the two AAA's on it and re-task 'em with fending off those lousy space-pirates.

And lo, the Mentu is born!
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 15, 2010, 02:20:40 am
The Mentu's performance is pretty debatable. It has 67 000 HP, which is much more than any other cruiser, but I don't find it particularly fearsome. A Moloch could obliterate it any day.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: headdie on May 15, 2010, 07:11:10 am
Comparing the mentu to the mol is not fair, for starter the mol is a corvette to the mentu being a cruiser a corvettes prey
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 15, 2010, 07:16:47 am
Perhaps to a Vasudan a cruiser is a small ship that eats hits while more fragile fighters do the damage? Something like a 'tank' in MMO's.

In the times before shields such an idea wouldn't be as retarded as it may seem, but in the era of shields and big bombs, a flying turtle without big guns would become obsolete.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 15, 2010, 07:57:47 am
Comparing the mentu to the mol is not fair, for starter the mol is a corvette to the mentu being a cruiser a corvettes prey

Okay, that probably wasn't the best comparison I've made in my life. I was thinking in the realm of the Aeolus, which can go toe-to-toe with the Moloch and not get killed on certain occasions, and the Moloch's anti-capship weapons, which are somewhat limited for a corvette.

Perhaps to a Vasudan a cruiser is a small ship that eats hits while more fragile fighters do the damage? Something like a 'tank' in MMO's.

In the times before shields such an idea wouldn't be as retarded as it may seem, but in the era of shields and big bombs, a flying turtle without big guns would become obsolete.

Now that you mention it, don't you find it strange that while Vasudan warships are more robust than their Terran counterparts, the Terrans make stronger spacecraft?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Klaustrophobia on May 15, 2010, 08:17:55 am
maybe i'm just mis-remembering, but it seems like blasting away with primaries and tempests on the mentu did damage far faster than on a lilith or leviathan.  are there any multipliers at play?  i really don't know how the tables work.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 15, 2010, 08:57:29 am
maybe i'm just mis-remembering, but it seems like blasting away with primaries and tempests on the mentu did damage far faster than on a lilith or leviathan.  are there any multipliers at play?  i really don't know how the tables work.

Well, the Mentu would obviously take damage faster than the Lilith, since it has 13 000 less HP... :rolleyes:

I have no explanation for the Leviathan taking less damage than the Mentu, though. There are no ship armour variants in retail tables, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Klaustrophobia on May 15, 2010, 09:13:09 am
someone had said the mentu has the highest of any cruiser, sorry.  again, i don't know the tables.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 15, 2010, 09:19:45 am
You don't need to know the tables, you can just browse the wiki.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 15, 2010, 10:15:10 am
someone had said the mentu has the highest of any cruiser, sorry.  again, i don't know the tables.

I did, and because I didn't check the Wiki beforehand, I overstated the Mentu's HP by 7000.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Thaeris on May 15, 2010, 12:48:42 pm
Well, another possible use of the Aten could possibly be one of armed/armored transport or boarding craft. This actually is a fairly reasonable role for the ship, as smaller and lighter ships may not be all that survivable in the face of heavy opposition - a criuser could get close enough to not only deploy maries, but a sizable quantity of them.

Also, a Fenris/Levy may not seem to take as much damage on an attack run as the ships are actually reasonably defended, meaning that you'll be doing more jinking than just straight strafing. An Aten, having only six turrets, is much less a threat to you than a Terran cruiser, which can bring a much more substantial weight of fire to bear, with better coverage to boot.

:p
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 15, 2010, 03:49:21 pm
A cruiser has a full complement of 1500-2000. The number of people actually needed to fight the ship is probably half to a third of that.

The simple reasoning for placing the number so high is that FS ships, like modern aircraft carriers, operate independently for extended lengths of time and are capable of conducting large-scale self-repair. That raises the crew complement significantly because it requires specialists and their equipment to fabricate parts and provide necessary maintaince for things that would not require attention with regular yard refittings.

(You're all also greatly underestimating what's considered sufficent crew for effective damage control.)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 15, 2010, 05:35:32 pm
I don't know, I'd imagine that in the future where we have giant spacecraft, we'd have been able to automate quite a bit that is currently operated by people.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 15, 2010, 06:04:33 pm
Err, yeah. That's the point. A bit upthread, I stated that a Fenris is about the size of a Nimitz class supercarrier. Normally, those have a crew complement of ~3000 (+2000 guys doing stuff for the air wing). An FS2 cruiser using a tenth or a fifth of the crew sounds about right, given our expectations about what cruisers do, but considering that Cruisers are running a greater risk of being damaged during a normal patrol than your average Carrier, they would want as many people to do DC duties as possible. Especially considering that they usually do not operate in an environment where humans can survive for long, and especially especially considering that your standard FS2 cruiser does not come with the attendant fleet a Carrier has.

In the end, unless they are really, really confident in their automated systems' ability to keep the ship running even with catastrophic damage, the crew numbers NGTM1R suggested sound realistic.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Trivial Psychic on May 15, 2010, 06:25:40 pm
To solve the problem of the Mentu's limited firepower, perhaps if/when someone Hi-Polies the ship, they could add a button beam turret right between the forward prongs, and make it an optional subsystem, just as was done to the Moloch.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 15, 2010, 07:10:05 pm
Playing EvE really screws up my sense of scale, but just think, how many people are actually needed?

In the bridge, maybe 20-30, another 30-40 engineers in the engine, probably one crew for each turret, I was about to say turrets are AI but then what if weapons subsystem gets fried?.

I would assume in such an advanced society as the GTVA, robots will be at least slightly more advanced. And we already have robot janitors and microwave ovens.

So the 10k pple in the orion I think counts the pilots, marines who are using it as their base, and they probably even have factory farms where they grow chickins in a test tube. And what better place to carry out R&D than a heavily armored orion?
So 10k people die if an orion is ambushed and destroyed. Probably much much fewer if it was already in battle stance.

Bottom line: not counting marines and fighter pilots (though so few fighters were ever scrambled in FS, not the dozens a single orion can hold), I don't see the need for that much crew.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 15, 2010, 09:42:12 pm
To solve the problem of the Mentu's limited firepower, perhaps if/when someone Hi-Polies the ship, they could add a button beam turret right between the forward prongs, and make it an optional subsystem, just as was done to the Moloch.

Are you referring to that red eye on the HTL Moloch's front?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 15, 2010, 09:50:29 pm
Quote
And what better place to carry out R&D than a heavily armored orion?

The obvious answer is anwer is to do all your critical research for the war effort on a Faustus-class cruiser with a hull made of wet cardboard
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 15, 2010, 09:58:43 pm
Actually I believe the faustus cruiser is only for field research. Gathering data and then running. Exploring and analyzing new space. Discovering stuff. Highly volatile stuff that could blow up any second where the lives of a dozen geeks are worth less than a destroyer.
If you want to do any STABLE research in 0-G, the orion or a station is the place for you. But most stations will have gravity...
So the obvious choice is:
Faustus if your 'reserch' can frickin explode at any second
Big destroyer if it is top secret military stuff
Military research station
Planetside heavily armored fort

But seriously. 10,000 crew. What are they doing? Making everything squeaky clean? Growing vegetables? And I also don't see the need for the destroyer to be so... big either...
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: SpardaSon21 on May 15, 2010, 10:07:29 pm
Because bigger is better, especially if your "bigger" is over 2km long. ;)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 15, 2010, 10:29:05 pm
Allright, now imagine an appolo fighter. Now, make it 1/10000 of its size. Now give it 999999999999999^9999999999999999999999 armor. Now give it one hit kill guns with AOE damage. Now send in 10000000000 saths.

Seriously bigger means it can actually tank less. Because one breach in the hull thats it. It doesn't matter that you have 5m of armor plating all over the ship. Point is, once there is one hole, its over.
So if the orion can take 3 beam hits to the same spot before going down, a fenris with 5m of the same armor can also take 3 beam hits to the same spot. And it is more likely to evade.

Only reason to make it big is fighter bays and weapons may take a little room. Same for engines and reactor. But seriously... it is a little too huge even for just that.
Therefore, get a REAL carrier like the aquataine. Modern aircraft carriers aren't meant for head to head fighting. In conclusion, FS has no sense of scale :D
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 15, 2010, 10:35:02 pm
So if the orion can take 3 beam hits to the same spot before going down, a fenris with 5m of the same armor can also take 3 beam hits to the same spot. And it is more likely to evade.

Except that beam weapons never miss. They are the most accurate weapons system in the game; if you're in the field of fire of a beam turret, you will get hit, no matter how maneuverable you are. (If you're in a capship that is; fighters are a different story)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 15, 2010, 10:41:03 pm
All right, so they still will be able to get the same amount of hits.
Now imagine you had a block of chocolate. You could melt it down and make it into an easter egg sort of thing, hollow inside. That is your destroyer. Or, you could make it into a big lump like how I like to fill up my easter eggs with nutella and freeze them. Which is going to crack first?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 15, 2010, 10:44:47 pm
All right, so they still will be able to get the same amount of hits.
Now imagine you had a block of chocolate. You could melt it down and make it into an easter egg sort of thing, hollow inside. That is your destroyer. Or, you could make it into a big lump like how I like to fill up my easter eggs with nutella and freeze them. Which is going to crack first?

My mind, while trying to decode your analogies. What the hell are you trying to say?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 15, 2010, 10:47:34 pm
The reason why cruisers have crap armour as compared to destroyers, though, is because they're small, and they're meant to be small. With so little space, you can't exactly cram lots of armour along with all the necessary machinery and walking space required to operate a cruiser.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Herra Tohtori on May 15, 2010, 10:49:37 pm
...

...

How does the fact that a solid object has more structural integrity than a hollow object have any bearing on space ships and their armour?

It would be sort of unfeasible to make the space ships out of a single lump of whatever material they use to build them.

Aside from that there are multiple other issues, like maneuverability, propellant consumption, propellant storage, energy production, weapons placement, crew quarters, hangar decks etc. Where do you put them if the ship is a solid mass? On the surface? All the enemy needs to do is bombard the surface and you're done.

You can't make a destroyer filled with nutella.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 15, 2010, 10:57:13 pm
I'm saying, a destroyer is going to take a lot more metal to make solid than a cruiser made solid. So I was saying we could have 5m of plating on a cruiser so that it is kinda filled up, except small cavities for necessary systems.
Destroyers have to be hollow cos they house things in them. What things require 2m of space is up to speculation, a hangar doesn;t reeally take that much space.
So I was proposing scrapping the hangar and filling it with hull instead.

So its like the hollow easter egg = our orion. Inside, instead of toys, are fighters (ok my kinda toys)
THe egg filled with nutella (which symbolises the armor plates) is my proposed new destroyer.

But its getting kinda off topic, sorry for that. I was in both threads and mixed up the collosus thread and this one.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 15, 2010, 10:59:47 pm
You can't make a destroyer filled with nutella.
Especially when you're allergic to nuts. :P
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 15, 2010, 11:07:09 pm
So its like the hollow easter egg = our orion. Inside, instead of toys, are fighters (ok my kinda toys)
THe egg filled with nutella (which symbolises the armor plates) is my proposed new destroyer.

So, you want to remove the one asset that makes an FS2 Destroyer as versatile and powerful as it is? Great plan, I can certainly see how removing a good deal of your firepower and your first line of defense make sense. There is nothing that could go wrong with that, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Herra Tohtori on May 15, 2010, 11:09:29 pm
I'm saying, a destroyer is going to take a lot more metal to make solid than a cruiser made solid. So I was saying we could have 5m of plating on a cruiser so that it is kinda filled up, except small cavities for necessary systems.
Destroyers have to be hollow cos they house things in them. What things require 2m of space is up to speculation, a hangar doesn;t reeally take that much space.
So I was proposing scrapping the hangar and filling it with hull instead.

Obviously, you do not have any sense of scale regarding how big the cruisers are in FS2 universe. Five metres of armour wouldn't make them anywhere near "filled up".

(http://www.freespacegalaxy.de/forum/upload/carrier_comp_4.jpg)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 15, 2010, 11:11:03 pm
No, I'm suggesting let destroyers be destroyers and a second line of ships as carriers. And is the orion 2Km? Looks a hell lot more than 2m in that picture. Seeing an aircraft carrier is already 1km

Anyway, so imagine an aircraft carrier filled up with armor and guns, and far far away, an aircraft carrier with next to no armor, alligned and ready to warp out at the slightest sign of trouble. As weak as a faustus. More cost effective that way, big items take more armor.

Thing is, I'll say again, 5m of armor is going to resist the same amount of damage, no matter how big the sheet is. Its how thick that counts. so you can get a lot more tank outta your metal with smaller, filled up ships than large filled up easter eggs.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Herra Tohtori on May 15, 2010, 11:15:10 pm
I see you have no sense of scale at all, period.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 15, 2010, 11:17:16 pm
Well I wiki'ed it. Sorry about that, a nimitz carrier is about 330m. So the pic is accurate.

Quote
Thing is, I'll say again, 5m of armor is going to resist the same amount of damage, no matter how big the sheet is. Its how thick that counts. so you can get a lot more tank outta your metal with smaller, filled up ships than large filled up easter eggs.

Sorry edited the post on top.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Herra Tohtori on May 15, 2010, 11:23:15 pm
Except that the power requirements for bigger weapons require bigger reactors, and bigger physical size requires bigger engines, and bigger ships require bigger crews with larger crew quarters.

Your lump cruisers would certainly have some use as stationary weapons platforms but aside from that they would have no usefulness whatsoever. What sort of pew pew weapons could you possibly mount onto them? What sort of propulsion system, if you want the thing to be mostly solid?


Just surviving long doesn't make a ship effective... it also needs firepower and maneuverability.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: General Battuta on May 16, 2010, 12:11:17 am
No, I'm suggesting let destroyers be destroyers and a second line of ships as carriers. And is the orion 2Km? Looks a hell lot more than 2m in that picture. Seeing an aircraft carrier is already 1km

Anyway, so imagine an aircraft carrier filled up with armor and guns, and far far away, an aircraft carrier with next to no armor, alligned and ready to warp out at the slightest sign of trouble. As weak as a faustus. More cost effective that way, big items take more armor.

Thing is, I'll say again, 5m of armor is going to resist the same amount of damage, no matter how big the sheet is. Its how thick that counts. so you can get a lot more tank outta your metal with smaller, filled up ships than large filled up easter eggs.

The whole analogy is faulty and stupid.

Ships are compartmentalized. A blowthrough in one area won't do anythingg.

Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 16, 2010, 01:32:14 am
Oh but a blowthrough in the reactor section is going to screw you over BAD.
Also, I meant cut out the fighter bays, make a more slimlined agile beam ship.
And carriers are not meant to fight in the front lines. See how the hectate fights. I think the hectate minus the beam guns will be great.

So at the front we have destroyers with none or limited (1-2 wings) fighter bay. At the back we have long range beam ships. And far, far away we have the carriers who just warp in, deploy fighters and warp out. Cram in more flak guns, they can't do crap but they can defend against bombs. Just enough armor to survive one or two hits.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: General Battuta on May 16, 2010, 01:42:57 am
It's spelled 'Hecate'.

A hit on a fusion reactor won't actually do anything in real life. Fusion reactors don't explode.

The specialized warship concept is actually used in a few mods, like Inferno and Blue Planet. However, the notion of 'fragile carriers' really doesn't work as they'll be one-shotted in a tragic manner.

Your understanding of Freespace weapons is poor. Flak weapons are very bad against bombs. You want rapid fire blob turrets for that. Furthermore the suggestion that they 'can't do crap' suggests you don't play on difficulties that don't give the player a magical damage buffer.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 16, 2010, 03:03:55 am
Heh thing is, the flak guns on the sath took care of bombs at long range. And at higher difficulties, bombers just spam bombs further away. Thats where they come in. Either force bomber to come really close and eat flak, or tear the bombs up really bad. Thing is, the carrier should deploy further away and fighters warp to destination themselves. You see many missions where we just start off in space? That is how I presume its going to work. Let carriers be carriers, and destroyers should get more firepower. The first few shots of the battle already determines who wins in a cap VS cap battle. The beams should be targeted at the other ship's beam turrets.
And difficulty does not matter, the flaks don't do anything to the enemy fighters either especially if they run once shields are hit. You need AAA beams.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 16, 2010, 03:13:11 am
Maybe on your carrier, instead of setting it up for a one-beam-kill, armor the carrier and just forego the heavy beams?

That way it can withstand any bomber or sneak attack long enough to escape, deploy fighter cover, or call for help. And without suffering devastating internal damage.

Everybody's happy that way.

On topic, it's hard to realize how big these ships are because you're always flying around in fighters and are unable to see anything to give you a sense of scale. But if you look closely at, say, the HTL Fenris you can see where the bridge is, and estimate scale from that. When you do things like that, it's easier to imagine 300-600 crewmembers living there.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Narwhal on May 16, 2010, 04:39:17 am

Thing is, I'll say again, 5m of armor is going to resist the same amount of damage, no matter how big the sheet is. Its how thick that counts. so you can get a lot more tank outta your metal with smaller, filled up ships than large filled up easter eggs.
That's what warship designers of late XIX / early XXth century thought, until the HMS Dreadnought was produced. And then, it made all the previous ships obsolescent.
Compartimentalisation and smart positioning of the "cells" is as or more effective then pure volume of armor. Also, mixing armor plate of "different" angles allow to direct damage to the place you want (more).
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 16, 2010, 05:59:43 am
But seriously. 10,000 crew. What are they doing? Making everything squeaky clean? Growing vegetables? And I also don't see the need for the destroyer to be so... big either...

As previously stated, a Nimitz carrier hold ~5000 crewmen.  An Orion is roughly 100 times the size of a Nimitz.

EDIT:  And I just realized this post is two pages out of date. :ick:
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 16, 2010, 06:07:04 am
I don't know, I'd imagine that in the future where we have giant spacecraft, we'd have been able to automate quite a bit that is currently operated by people.

They GTVA doesn't seem to make large-scale use of robotics aboard warships for starters, so repairs would have to be carried out by people. This makes sense, because with a total inability to predict type, scale, and location of damage before it happens, asking a computer to orchestrate damage-control or repair efforts is just too much. Only a human or a true AI in a humanoid platform has all the ingredients mental and physical to be an effective repairman or damage control expert, unless you resort to the expedient of simply swapping out modular components wholesale.

Which isn't a practical solution for conducting major repairs to the ship when you're on a budget in room for carrying spare parts. (Because after all, at some point it starts interfering with your ability to fight the enemy.)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 16, 2010, 07:40:34 am
For an comparrioson,the BB 61 Iowa (276m in length) has a full crew complement of 1600.

Given that FS2 cruisers are roughly the same size, 2000 sounds about right.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Trivial Psychic on May 16, 2010, 08:22:37 am
To solve the problem of the Mentu's limited firepower, perhaps if/when someone Hi-Polies the ship, they could add a button beam turret right between the forward prongs, and make it an optional subsystem, just as was done to the Moloch.

Are you referring to that red eye on the HTL Moloch's front?
That is correct.  A slight change to the tables and addition of subsystem data in the model itself and you have a 3rd beam cannon on that ship... great spot for an SRed.  I'm proposing doing the same for the Mentu... add the submodel but don't activate it (no table entry, no in-model subsystem data) by default so it retains complete compatibility.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: General Battuta on May 16, 2010, 10:59:51 am
Heh thing is, the flak guns on the sath took care of bombs at long range.

Inefficiently compared to blob turrets. Flak is bad against bombs.

Quote
Thing is, the carrier should deploy further away and fighters warp to destination themselves.

The carrier itself will be attacked and destroyed. Something like Blue Planet's Titan or Inferno's Warlock is a much better design than the eggshell with a hangar you're proposing.

Quote
And difficulty does not matter, the flaks don't do anything to the enemy fighters either especially if they run once shields are hit. You need AAA beams.

You clearly do not play on Insane. Or use Fury's AI.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 16, 2010, 02:44:54 pm
Quote
And difficulty does not matter, the flaks don't do anything to the enemy fighters either especially if they run once shields are hit. You need AAA beams.

You clearly do not play on Insane. Or use Fury's AI.

Or played PI... :nervous:
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 16, 2010, 09:15:33 pm
I don't touch insane much, but everything hurts in insane. And an AAA in insane is still more deadly than a flak in insane.

And the aim is to strip the carrier of all offensive capabilities, it can only launch fighters and defend itself. Armor shouldn't be as thick, though enough to sustain a few beam hits. It is meant to stay safe, away from the front lines. So we take two orions. Take away the long range weapons on orion 1, put it on the orion 2. Take the fighter bay from orion 2, put it on 1. The defensive capabilities are still the same. But I will even go so far as to suggest stripping some armor off the carrier as it is not going to engage in capship to capship combat and only needs to fend off a few bombers. Cram in some AAAs and flaks/blobs oughta do it.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 16, 2010, 09:20:35 pm
But what happens if the carrier is ambushed?  It dies, without much fight at all.  Say goodbye to your fighter escort, the other destroyer will now be destroyed by waves of bombers it can no longer fight effectively.

Overspecializing invites defeat in detail.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 16, 2010, 09:28:29 pm
Yep. Especially in FreeSpace, where there are ships that are heavily optimized for jump ambushing (Lilith, Ravana, Sathanas). A more generalized ship that is capable of defending itself is a much better option than specialized eggshells.

IronForge, you should think a bit about the tactical realities of the FreeSpace universe. Basically, the most valuable tactical asset you have is a ship that has not yet entered battle. As soon as a ship is located, it can be ambushed via subspace. A fragile eggshell ship like the one you are proposing has no real chance of evading, let alone fighting off such an ambush if and when it occurs.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 16, 2010, 11:27:54 pm
The most critical and first understanding he needs to absorb is that there are no safe places and no front lines. Every area in the system can be reached by any ship there in a matter of seconds.

You can't hide your carrier from the enemy, at least not for too long, nor can you physically bar the path to it with either obstacles or other warships.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: General Battuta on May 17, 2010, 12:01:15 am
I don't touch insane much, but everything hurts in insane. And an AAA in insane is still more deadly than a flak in insane.

Wrong. A flak on insane is more deadly than an AAA in an optimal situation. With Fury AI a flak on insane becomes more deadly than two or three AAAs.

Since you play on difficulties below Insane, you benefit from magical damage resistance and hobbled AI.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 17, 2010, 12:02:56 am
The most critical and first understanding he needs to absorb is that there are no safe places and no front lines. Every area in the system can be reached by any ship there in a matter of seconds.

You can't hide your carrier from the enemy, at least not for too long, nor can you physically bar the path to it with either obstacles or other warships.

You'd have to have it sit one system back, where the "line" would be the jump node (since it is a chokepoint).
Pretty worthless and senseless.

Wrong. A flak on insane is more deadly than an AAA in an optimal situation. With Fury AI a flak on insane becomes more deadly than two or three AAAs.

Since you play on difficulties below Insane, you benefit from magical damage resistance and hobbled AI.

Statistically I find this hard to believe. Here I'm thinking that higher difficulties allow weapons to perform closer to their statistical values due to less fire rate hindrance and accuracy modifier.

AAAs can basically instagib certain fighters on insane though since they punch straight through shields, notably shivan ones with high shield low armor (especially since you don't have this "magical damage resistance").
Flak still has to contend with several hundred odd points of shield.

Look at what the statistics say:
193 combined damage per pulse is more than enough to end Scorpions, Dragons, Astaroths, Manticores, Basilisks, and Aeshmas (as well as the Ulysses, Anubis, Horus) basically instantly. Standard Flaks with their optimal 30shield-30hull dps takes several seconds to even chew through the shields of a Dragon. Much less end it instantly. Killing something in the opening salvo is always preferred as something dead stops shooting you while something at 1% armor can still unload tempests and maxims into whatever its shooting (a result of critical-existence failure model in games, which FS has).

Even assuming that only one of three pulses of an AAA will hit (and even on lower difficulties, more generally do), three AAAs are still far more effective than a single flak dealing absolutely every point of damage to a SF Dragon.

When you take into account that a AAA hit usually fries several subsystems whereas flak has an abysmally low subsystem damage rating further adds to the effectiveness of AAAs. Even if something surivives it is usually left without sensors or weapons (or those systems take crippling damage). At the very least, that is what happens when I get hit by an AAA on insane. If you make it so that they can't shoot you back, its pretty solid plan.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 17, 2010, 01:51:45 am
I thought flak cannons are supposed to even the damage out across the entire target and have a wider area of effect than AAAs.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 17, 2010, 05:41:54 am
Specialized vs. multi-purpose ships?

Both have prons and cons.

If you have battlefield control (can utilize your ships effectively) specialized ones are better.

If not, general purpose ones may be better.


Destroyers are a battleship/carrier hybrid.
Would a fleet of specilized carrier and battleships be better? That depends.

I can submit to you scenarios where it would be, and scenarios where it wouldn't.

Either way, a TRULY diverse fleet would have both kinds of ships anyway.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 17, 2010, 05:45:41 am
Having an entire fleet of "specialized carrier hybrids"... In other words Destroyers, is prohibitively expensive, and takes a massive amount of people to man, when you include the additional squadrons you need to have going to staff its air wing.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 17, 2010, 05:59:21 am
The fragile eggshell I'm proposing is supposed to remain hidden, and alligned to warp out. Its engines are primed, it hits the 'warp' button at the slightest sign of trouble. Patrols ensure the area is clear. Since jump drives on fighters arn't feasible to put on every ship, the eggshell serves only ONE purpose. Bring the fighters into the system, launch, hide behind a destroyer escort/installation or head back to secure space.
It isn't supposed to fight. But if that isn't your cup of tea, how about an eggshell made of iron. Same tank as a destroyer. Just instead of weapon systems, more fighter bays.
The goal is to have hard hitting ships with less crew that can take even more damage at the front lines.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 17, 2010, 06:00:58 am
IF, you're missing the fundamental issue here.

You cannot hide in space.
You cannot hide in a universe where the enemy can jump into your backyard.
Your only alternative is to keep your pieces together and able to provide local security.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 17, 2010, 06:05:40 am
But you CAN warp to a secure location defended by an installation. You CAN hide behind a line of destroyers, launch, get the hell out of there.

Like dilmah said, destroyers are useful in some situations, but having your entire capital fleet composed of them will not work. I'm now no longer suggesting egg shell thin carriers. I'm suggesting carriers that can survive long enough till a destroyer can come in to assist. Plus, it has a hold full of bombers. It should tank long enough for the scrambled fighterbombers to knock out enemy beams.

Point is, we want more beams and tank on the ships at the front line. There is no reason ships at the front should have large fighterbays when we can launch fighters from a distance. THe space can be put to better use mounting more weapons and hull.

EDIT: I must say egg shell thin carriers still have their uses though.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: QuantumDelta on May 17, 2010, 06:16:06 am
If you have to have destroyers babysit these things you may as well just use the destroyers as they are, while some variation isn't a bad thing overspecialisation always is, these things would be easy targets and logistics ships as seen in aoa are vulnerable enough even with a full battlegroup escort. In fs1 your idea might have worked but in fs2 with subspace tracking and high precision high power beam cruisers, corvettes and destroyers.... On the battlefield no matter how armoured you are only a target without cover. In space and subspace there is no cover. A surgical strike would gut such a ship.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: headdie on May 17, 2010, 07:40:10 am
i would have to agree with QD a comparatively defenseless ships in the FS universe as we understand it are nothing but big bullseyes, even with beams available to me i would probably prefer to just send a couple of wings of Medusas or even Zeus with a fighter escort and would expect to at least cripple the target ship, cyclops torpedoes are pretty powerfull. 

My battle plan against a carrier ship (assuming it has around corvette durability) would be to torp/stiletto the nav sub system on arrival to trap the ship, pick off any AAA beams and bomb the **** out of it, as secondary/bonus objectives for the pilots to destroy the engines and weapons subsystem. 

attack force would comprise of:
8 bombers with 4 in reserve to do the brute work,
8 heavy fighters to provide close fighter cover for the bombers and stiletto assault platform to maximise torpedo payload on the bombers again 4 in reserve.
4 interceptors to provide bomber escort by racing off to pick off threats before they get in weapons range with 4 in reserve.
I would also have a Lev or Aeolus in reserve with 4 superiority/intercept fighters for escort in case the enemy carrier has significant proportions of its fighter wing on deck/ready to launch or near by and we need to suppress their activity
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 17, 2010, 07:56:31 am
But you CAN warp to a secure location defended by an installation. You CAN hide behind a line of destroyers, launch, get the hell out of there.

No. Not when the enemy can warp out right on top of you. See "Their greatest hour" for reference.

Quote
Like dilmah said, destroyers are useful in some situations, but having your entire capital fleet composed of them will not work. I'm now no longer suggesting egg shell thin carriers. I'm suggesting carriers that can survive long enough till a destroyer can come in to assist. Plus, it has a hold full of bombers. It should tank long enough for the scrambled fighterbombers to knock out enemy beams.

You want another Destroyer then. One that, in addition to an integral fighter wing, carries enough heavy weapons to engage enemy ships at range with enough dps to destroy them. Because as we know from the game, it takes a long time to launch a fighter strike.

Quote
Point is, we want more beams and tank on the ships at the front line. There is no reason ships at the front should have large fighterbays when we can launch fighters from a distance. THe space can be put to better use mounting more weapons and hull.

There is no front. There are ships that are engaged and ships that are not.
While a dedicated capship killer might have a use, it's usually a good idea to carry at least a smallish figher wing to do Bomber intercept etc.

If you look at retail FS2, the two terran Destroyer classes can be divided into two categories. Hecates are Carrier ships, and Orions are dedicated ship killers. Note that the Hecate is so specialized in the Carrier role that it fails as a frontline combat ship. It is incredibly hard to defend, it has poor anti-capital armament, and her best defence is to turn tail and run away. Which would be fine, if Command used them appropriately. Instead, they get used in frontline deployments, in areas where an Orion or Hatshepsut might do better.


In conclusion, specialized ships are not a very good idea in a universe that does not allow for cover. If you lose one of your specialists, you suddenly lose all of the capability that ship provided. If your carrier gets gutted, you suddenly have nop air wing anymore. If your anti-ship ship gets hit, you lose your short-range defense and engagement platform. Building hybrids that can do well in both roles is a much, much better plan.

Quote
EDIT: I must say egg shell thin carriers still have their uses though.

Yes, every military has a need for live-fire target practice.


i would have to agree with QD a comparatively defenseless ships in the FS universe as we understand it are nothing but big bullseyes, even with beams available to me i would probably prefer to just send a couple of wings of Medusas or even Zeus with a fighter escort and would expect to at least cripple the target ship, cyclops torpedoes are pretty powerfull. 

My battle plan against a carrier ship (assuming it has around corvette durability) would be to torp/stiletto the nav sub system on arrival to trap the ship, pick off any AAA beams and bomb the **** out of it, as secondary/bonus objectives for the pilots to destroy the engines and weapons subsystem. 

attack force would comprise of:
8 bombers with 4 in reserve to do the brute work,
8 heavy fighters to provide close fighter cover for the bombers and stiletto assault platform to maximise torpedo payload on the bombers again 4 in reserve.
4 interceptors to provide bomber escort by racing off to pick off threats before they get in weapons range with 4 in reserve.
I would also have a Lev or Aeolus in reserve with 4 superiority/intercept fighters for escort in case the enemy carrier has significant proportions of its fighter wing on deck/ready to launch or near by and we need to suppress their activity

You have a lot of confidence in your fighter pilots.

Basic reasoning here is that if you can send a Fighter, you can also send Cruisers (Lilith says hi!), Corvettes (BP's Bellerophons, for example) and Destroyers (Ravanas were built for this). Those ships can probably do the job faster and with fewer losses.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 17, 2010, 08:03:21 am
i would have to agree with QD a comparatively defenseless ships in the FS universe as we understand it are nothing but big bullseyes, even with beams available to me i would probably prefer to just send a couple of wings of Medusas or even Zeus with a fighter escort and would expect to at least cripple the target ship, cyclops torpedoes are pretty powerfull. 

My battle plan against a carrier ship (assuming it has around corvette durability) would be to torp/stiletto the nav sub system on arrival to trap the ship, pick off any AAA beams and bomb the **** out of it, as secondary/bonus objectives for the pilots to destroy the engines and weapons subsystem. 

attack force would comprise of:
8 bombers with 4 in reserve to do the brute work,
8 heavy fighters to provide close fighter cover for the bombers and stiletto assault platform to maximise torpedo payload on the bombers again 4 in reserve.
4 interceptors to provide bomber escort by racing off to pick off threats before they get in weapons range with 4 in reserve.
I would also have a Lev or Aeolus in reserve with 4 superiority/intercept fighters for escort in case the enemy carrier has significant proportions of its fighter wing on deck/ready to launch or near by and we need to suppress their activity

You have a lot of confidence in your fighter pilots.

Basic reasoning here is that if you can send a Fighter, you can also send Cruisers (Lilith says hi!), Corvettes (BP's Bellerophons, for example) and Destroyers (Ravanas were built for this). Those ships can probably do the job faster and with fewer losses.
As do I. A cruiser or corvette may be able to engage a larger vessel and get the job done, but these vessels may be in use in other operations, perhaps to divert enemy attention away from the destroyer? So really, sometimes you can't send in a cruiser if you can spare 2 squadrons. /being a pain in the ass.

Agreed on all other counts, though.

Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: General Battuta on May 17, 2010, 10:10:46 am
But you CAN warp to a secure location defended by an installation. You CAN hide behind a line of destroyers, launch, get the hell out of there.

No you can't. There are no secure locations, and nowhere to hide. The enemy can jump anywhere.

Quote
There is no reason ships at the front

Front? What front?

Quote
EDIT: I must say egg shell thin carriers still have their uses though.

Target practice?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: jr2 on May 17, 2010, 10:25:00 am
I think part of the problem here is people confuse inter and intra system jumps.  Once you're in a system, you can jump practically anywhere within that system with ease... So, you can easily jump to a position where you would be able to surprise attack a weak vessel once you know where it is.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BlueFlames on May 17, 2010, 11:02:56 am
Quote
Specialized vs. multi-purpose ships?

Both have prons and cons.

Whatever it takes to keep crew morale high, right?  ;)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 17, 2010, 04:43:14 pm
For an comparrioson,the BB 61 Iowa (276m in length) has a full crew complement of 1600.

Given that FS2 cruisers are roughly the same size, 2000 sounds about right.

Well the CG-47 Ticonderoga (173 meters long) has a crew of 387.

The Kirov class CB has a crew of 710 while being 252 meters long.

The GTD Orion has a crew of 10k and it's 2000 meters long (and it's also a big carrier).

I'd go with the estimates of a few 100 crewmembers per cruiser.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Trivial Psychic on May 17, 2010, 06:41:32 pm
I must say, all these "there's no where to hide" and "they can get you anywhere" arguments are a bit overstated.  Several times in FS, it has taken quite a lot of effort to locate an enemy cap-ship.  For example, if Command could simply jump to the NTD Repulse's location, there wouldn't have been the need for that elaborate set-up.  What it comes down to is whether the enemy knows the location of your cap-ship.  There is evidence for some degree of cap-ship tracking through subspace... and I'm not talking about tracking the Lucy, as this was an inter-system jump... I'm referring to the tracking of the Bellasarius after it ran the blockade.  I guess the best way to keep your ships safe would be to always double-jump out of any situation where the enemy might be able to track your escape.  Jump out to predetermined co-ordinates, then quickly jump to a second set of co-ordinates.  By the time the enemy has calculated your first jump and gone after you, you've already jumped again, preventing anyone from monitoring your 2nd jump and pursuing you further.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 17, 2010, 11:00:51 pm
Quote
I must say, all these "there's no where to hide" and "they can get you anywhere" arguments are a bit overstated.  Several times in FS, it has taken quite a lot of effort to locate an enemy cap-ship.  For example, if Command could simply jump to the NTD Repulse's location, there wouldn't have been the need for that elaborate set-up.  What it comes down to is whether the enemy knows the location of your cap-ship.

only a fool will engage the enemy on a battlefield of their enemy's choosing
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 18, 2010, 02:49:46 am
Quote
You want another Destroyer then. One that, in addition to an integral fighter wing, carries enough heavy weapons to engage enemy ships at range with enough dps to destroy them. Because as we know from the game, it takes a long time to launch a fighter strike.

Well I think the hecate is a good idea but for heavens sake DON'T send them to attack another capital ship. And orions were the carrier in FS1. THey gotta have a lot of fighter bay. I think no more than 8 fighters should be in a destroyer.
Right now, I'm imagining a hecate with no beam and anti capital ship turrets. It should have flaks and smaller defenses, plus some AAAs. And it should always be guarded by two corvettes or at least 2 cruisers. The specialised hecate should hold the line just long enough for its warp drives to recharge and run away. It is not a stand your ground ship.

Now, the orion is basically going to have about two wings of fighters, which is good for when it gets ambushed.

Point is, while some jack of all trades ships are good, having your entire fleet composed of them is a bad idea. They will be good in some circumstances, and plain terrible in others.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 18, 2010, 03:04:13 am
I think no more than 8 fighters should be in a destroyer.

Eight fighters is nowhere near the amount it would need to effectively defend itself from even decent sized patrols.  Recall in Feint! Parry! Riposte! the two cruisers you were pounding had a full squadron of fighters between them.  Just two cruisers!  Then when the Repulse actually jumps in, it launches approximately eight fighters before going down.  Those eight fighters do the next best thing to evaporate in the face of six friendly fighters (and the cruiser, if you let them get close enough).

Then in The Sicilian Defense, your squadron (I think six-eight craft, total) assaults the Vindicator, which is guarded by at least one wing of fighters, probably two.  The wings of fighters are woefully inadequate to defend the destroyer.  If there were, say, twenty or thirty fighters, instead of 3-8, the battle might turn out very differently indeed.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: el_magnifico on May 18, 2010, 03:47:08 am
No, just no.
8 fighters may be enough to defend something like a Moloch-class corvette. It is in no way enough to defend a destroyer.

However:

Quote
Right now, I'm imagining a hecate with no beam and anti capital ship turrets. It should have flaks and smaller defenses, plus some AAAs. And it should always be guarded by two corvettes or at least 2 cruisers.

That's probably what the GTVA required when they commissioned the design of the Hecate.
It sounds good on paper, but it's not that easy to actually implement.

Quote
The specialised hecate should hold the line just long enough for its warp drives to recharge and run away. It is not a stand your ground ship.

100% Agreed. That is exactly the purpose a standard Hecate serves right now.

Quote
Point is, while some jack of all trades ships are good, having your entire fleet composed of them is a bad idea. They will be good in some circumstances, and plain terrible in others.

Jack of all trades? Excepting for the Hatsheput and the Demon, all other destroyers in canon Freespace are specialized. The Typhon (FS1) and Hecate are carriers, the Orion and the Ravana are battleships. Specialization doesn't means complete disregard for everything else.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 18, 2010, 05:08:18 am
Well allright, calm down everyone, hows this.

You take the hecate. You remove EVERYTHING. You put in a massive fighter bay. You put in a **** load of AAAs and flaks, and if you like, blobs. It will be no less capable of defending itself.

The thing is, if you need to fire the anti capital beam cannon, command, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

Also, I agree 8 fighters is nowhere near enough. No one said they alone would be. The fact is, the destroyer will now pack even MORE firepower, and even more flak guns and AAAs. It will now defend itself long enough for fighters to arrive from the carrier. It will be a red alert style launch no doubt. The 8 fighters are to prevent the large swarm of fighters from the carrier to not be too late. And that is in case of an ambush. If planning an attack, the fighters should arrive BEFORE the destroyer.

The fact is, you've seen the hecate phail because command doesn't use em well. Carrier VS destroyer, GG.

Carrier < Destroyer < Fighters   get it? Carrier gets pwnt by destroyer who gets pwnt by the fighters from carrier. If the carrier is engaged, it has to flee. It should not under any circumstances try to hold.
The destroyer will not survive without a swarm of fighters from carrier. Not the slightest chance if ambushed by more fighters than it has AAAs. The fact is in the event of an ambush, the fighters are going to hit hard. The 8 fighters will probabyly save 8 AAA beams and maybe prevent 8 bombs from hitting. By the time backup arrives, the destroyer will probably be at 50%. BUT WHAT THE HELL IS THE DESTROYER DOING ALL ALONE ANYWAY? It needs some smaller craft to escort it. Its a FLEET. Not a one ship show. I don't know why GTVA never got that. I've NEVER seen how it is supposed to work. Maybe because its an old game and back then computers were crap, more than 20 fighters on screen whole thing freezes and lags.

It should be 1 or 2 destroyers, 4 cruisers, 4 corvettes, 10 wings of fighters, 2 wings of bombers, 2 wings of interceptors. You should never see the carrier as it stays out of range.

If carrier should be ambushed, it scrambles fighters and warps out. Almost immediately, the abovementioned fleet warp in and secure the area, and carrier warps back.

The fact is I still don't see why the carrier will need anti capital ship weapons since it will never have the chance to fire a second shot. It has to survive. NOT kill the enemy. I'm thinking hecate, take away its beams, put more flaks and AAAs. If anything, it will be even harder to take down than the original hecate.

Any more questions? THIS IS A REAL FLEET from google image.

(http://membres.multimania.fr/haristo1/CDG003.jpg)

EDIT I better specify before people get confused. It is a carrier fleet. A bunch of carriers, sticking together for protection. A blob of cruisers surrounding them. In the FS sense, the cruisers will be above and below them as well. Its flak and blobs can shoot down bombs before they hit the carriers.

And as my Fleet Commander in EvE always says:
SUPPORT STAYS TILL CAPITALS LEAVE THE FIELD.
And I'll add:
You are cheap. Your charges arn't.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 18, 2010, 05:26:45 am
Flaks, Blobs and AAA are not effective vs cruiser-sized or larger targets (anything mounting big beams, really). Putting at least minimal amounts of anti-capital firepower on your carrier (aside from the fighter wing) is the prudent thing to do.

Now, while it's nice to have your doctrine state that Carriers and Destroyers should never be alone, operational reality may interfere with that.

For my ideal fleet, I'd like to have a Carrier that can act as a jump ambusher (See: BP's Titan) paired with a Destroyer that carries a large enough fighter wing to defend itself and run offensive operations at the same time (See: BP's Raynor), with an attendant group of Cruisers and Corvettes to do patrols and dedicated AAA support. This way, I can be sure that if one of my big ships is caught off-guard, it has the firepower to, if necessary, fight its way out of anything.

Your proposal effectively puts most of your offensive firepower and patrol/scout craft (your Carrier air wings) into one relatively fragile package. Which is not a very good idea.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 18, 2010, 07:05:40 am

Quote
Flaks, Blobs and AAA are not effective vs cruiser-sized or larger targets (anything mounting big beams, really). Putting at least minimal amounts of anti-capital firepower on your carrier (aside from the fighter wing) is the prudent thing to do.
I told you. They are not to hit other cruiser sized ships. The second a cruiser appears to be warping in, WARP OUT. These are to destroy incoming bombers before they can deal too much damage. We've seen the hecate do its thing, this won't make things any worse.


Quote
Now, while it's nice to have your doctrine state that Carriers and Destroyers should never be alone, operational reality may interfere with that.
Hence the small 2 wings of fighters, to tie over till more arrive. And the carriers as seen in the briefing room cutscenes are usually escorted by at least 2 cruisers anyway.

Quote
For my ideal fleet, I'd like to have a Carrier that can act as a jump ambusher (See: BP's Titan) paired with a Destroyer that carries a large enough fighter wing to defend itself and run offensive operations at the same time (See: BP's Raynor), with an attendant group of Cruisers and Corvettes to do patrols and dedicated AAA support. This way, I can be sure that if one of my big ships is caught off-guard, it has the firepower to, if necessary, fight its way out of anything.
Yes, a few jump ambusher carriers will be nice, but picture this. A destroyer that warps in TOGETHER with a dozen wings of fighters from the carrier which is unengaged.


Quote
Your proposal effectively puts most of your offensive firepower and patrol/scout craft (your Carrier air wings) into one relatively fragile package. Which is not a very good idea.
It isn't very fragile. They arn't any more fragile than our hecate. I'm only scrapping the weapons. And what chance does it have when really ambushed by destroyers or anything anyway? Yes you can win, but carriers are precious assets. It is not worth staying to fight. It is better to run and let your scrambled fighters do the fighting. So hows this. Interceptors protect carrier long enough to warp out. Fighters and bombers are scrambled, which then proceed to hold the area till friendly destroyers can arrive. Some will warp with the carrier in case of a second wave. Support stays till capitals leave the field, or when their carrier is engaged. Then, all ships warp to support the carrier, which is well capable of taking a few blows.

For the trillionth time, I'll say again. Since you don't seem to get my point that the carrier CAN survive.

Aside from the few hybrid ships that serve as both destroyers and carriers, I feel that hecates should scrap anti capital beams and mount more anti bomber weapons. Also, increased fighter bay. It will still be able to take a few blows, certainly enough to tank a cruiser so that its fighters can scramble and take care of it. However, it wouldn't be very wise, as a destroyer might warp in and kill it, so running is the smart thing to do.

Destroyers on the other hand, since they will be warping into engagements with fighters from the carrier, should sacrifice its fighter bays, but still keep enough to fend off an ambush long enough to not be below 50% when help arrives, in the form of a dozen wings of fighters from the modified hecate. Plus, destroyers, with a dozen more AAAs and flaks from the reduced fighter bay, coupled with at least 1.5x the tanking power should be able to survive till help arrives a few minutes later.

So I'm suggesting three battlegroups. One composed of 2-3 carriers which should always be guarded by 2 cruisers and a corvette - the support. And a destroyer group, composed of several destroyers. A third fleet, the 'support' group, composed of cruisers, corvettes. They are used where they are needed, much like now. No point sending the entire fleet when a few cruisers will do.
The groups should be together at all times as a fleet except when destroyer fleet is fighting somewhere. When it comes to warfare, it IS a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.

So yeah don't say the carrier is gona get pwnt. It should warp out. It should not fight.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Spoon on May 18, 2010, 07:16:47 am
And what's stopping the enemy from sending a second cruiser/corvette group after the now helpless carrier group that just ran away?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 18, 2010, 07:41:58 am
One thing you are ignoring, IronForge, is that jump drives have recharge times. If you jump out at the first sign of an enemy, chances are that that enemy can track your jump and vector his other craft to intercept you. You do not want to be caught in a little carrier with no anticap firepower with your drives down.
Oh, sure, you can sortie a CAP, but if you get shock-jumped by a couple of beam platforms (meaning, anything mounting a few anticap beams), the question becomes whether your CAP and your reinforcements will be enough to save your bacon before your carrier gets all asplodey. A hybrid ship (AKA The Battlestar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBattlestar)) has the ability to take down a few heavy beam platforms using her onboard weapons, which is arguably faster than using a bomber wing to do the same. If you can use both at the same time, why, that would be a mighty fine idea, would it not?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 18, 2010, 11:45:16 am
Quote
Flaks, Blobs and AAA are not effective vs cruiser-sized or larger targets (anything mounting big beams, really). Putting at least minimal amounts of anti-capital firepower on your carrier (aside from the fighter wing) is the prudent thing to do.
I told you. They are not to hit other cruiser sized ships. The second a cruiser appears to be warping in, WARP OUT. These are to destroy incoming bombers before they can deal too much damage. We've seen the hecate do its thing, this won't make things any worse.

But then what happens when it gets ambushed?  Sit there and wait to die while its drives recharge?  Slap a beam on it to take care of those really annoying cruisers that won't go away, and you won't have that kind of problem.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: QuantumDelta on May 18, 2010, 02:57:17 pm
IF....

Jump drives have recharge rates on them.
Initiate combat with a feint, track through subspace deploy real strike force (needn't even be much more than something to take out all it's engines (4 strike bombers, or even a few skilled fighter pilots) and 2 corvettes and it's dead and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
The moment your carrier needs a destroyer for backup, the carrier concept is pointless.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: ChronoReverse on May 18, 2010, 04:22:17 pm
What about simply having a sub-subspace drive in addition to the main one?  A smaller and simpler one for only intra-system jumps.  With two quick jumps, the idea of sending other forces to deal with said carrier loses meaning since it'd be gone and untrackable.

Nevertheless, until the very end of Freespace 2, where strike craft became more deadly than corvettes due to the Trebuchet and Maxim, a carrier didn't really have any place considering the capabilities of the existing ships.  The only time a carrier makes sense is when strike craft are far more effective than capships but beams says no to that =)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: el_magnifico on May 18, 2010, 05:57:39 pm
What about simply having a sub-subspace drive in addition to the main one?  A smaller and simpler one for only intra-system jumps.  With two quick jumps, the idea of sending other forces to deal with said carrier loses meaning since it'd be gone and untrackable.
I was just about to post exactly that, as an option to make this idea viable. :(
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: ChronoReverse on May 18, 2010, 06:01:48 pm
Ultimately still pointless though since making a great big target that's good at running away seems a rather poor use of resources ;)

However, in a way, throughout FS1, destroyers were pretty much relegated to lightly armed carrier duty.  The advent of the Avenger and shielding meant strikecraft were more effective at killing cruisers than destroyers were.  And then there was the Lucifer which destroyers posed zero threat to :(
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: el_magnifico on May 18, 2010, 06:29:13 pm
By the way:

Well allright, calm down everyone, hows this.
I'm calmed. I believe you're wrong, but this is a video game.
I've been wrong on so many things that actually mattered (and that's approximately a third of the times that I'll be wrong in the future at the current rate). ;)

Quote
(http://membres.multimania.fr/haristo1/CDG003.jpg)
Who the hell needs three carriers? :eek2: Brazil is an emerging world power with a lot of sea to guard and they can barely maintain one!
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 18, 2010, 06:45:35 pm
There are four in that picture.  Only two are Nimitzes, it looks like.

The U.S. has eleven IIRC.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 18, 2010, 06:48:03 pm
It's a NATO maneuver. Two American carriers, one British one (probably either Illustrious or Ark Royal, Invincible being decommissioned), and the french Charles de Gaulle. So, there are actually four carriers in that pic :D.

EDIT: Ninja'ed
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: el_magnifico on May 18, 2010, 07:24:36 pm
The U.S. has eleven IIRC.
:shaking:

Are you planning on waging another world war or something? (and even then...)
Maintaining 11 carriers is just an overkill. I really doubt you need that many. Even for psychological warfare, only 6 or 7 would suffice.

EDIT: And wikipedia states you're building yet another one...



So, there are actually four carriers in that pic :D.
Oops! Sorry, I'm visually impaired.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Thaeris on May 18, 2010, 07:25:53 pm
I like that pic...

:D

...And man... After FS, those ships just look tiny!  :lol:
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 18, 2010, 07:28:25 pm
The U.S. has eleven IIRC.
:shaking:

Are you planning on waging another world war or something? (and even then...)
Maintaining 11 carriers is just an overkill. I really doubt you need that many. Even for psychological warfare, only 6 or 7 would suffice.

The U.S. has more tonnage in combat ships than the next highest 13 countries.  Carriers aren't the only part (and according to the wiki, there's one under construction as well).
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: el_magnifico on May 18, 2010, 07:30:00 pm
The U.S. has eleven IIRC.
:shaking:

Are you planning on waging another world war or something? (and even then...)
Maintaining 11 carriers is just an overkill. I really doubt you need that many. Even for psychological warfare, only 6 or 7 would suffice.

The U.S. has more tonnage in combat ships than the next highest 13 countries.  Carriers aren't the only part (and according to the wiki, there's one under construction as well).

Oops! You posted while I was editing my own post. ;)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on May 18, 2010, 08:08:48 pm
I don't think fleet formations work well in the FS universe.

1) Clusters of ships are vulnerable to bombs. Even if the bombs don't land near the intended target, the explosion has a fairly decent chance of hitting other ships in the formation.

2) Depending on Carrier ships for the bulk of your fighters does limit your fighting capabilities. A carrier and an optimized destroyer would only be able to conduct strikecraft operations at one area, whereas two destroyers would be able to conduct strikecraft operations at two areas. I suppose an optimized destroyer would be a valuable asset if you're looking to dominate in ship-to-ship engagements, but it would still need a decent fighter screen from a nearby carrier if it's to launch offense operations. The defensive squadron it carries is simply not enough to actually attack with.

3) Given how many active operations there are, it seems unlikely that Command (Vasudan, Terran, Neo-Terran, Hammer of Light, or even the Shivans) would have the resources to form a large fleet. Chances are, cruisiers and corvettes will be too busy launching strikes or defending against strikes. Sure, if you gather a large fleet, you can wipe the floor against a single target, but then you've just left all your own assets vulnerable to enemy strikes.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 18, 2010, 10:01:24 pm
Quote
1) Clusters of ships are vulnerable to bombs. Even if the bombs don't land near the intended target, the explosion has a fairly decent chance of hitting other ships in the formation.

I think you overestimate the power of bomb shockwaves, even if they hit, which is much less likely with a higher volume of fire to intercept them.  Look at the mission where you escort the Bastion to the node to seal it off.  Three Aeolus cruisers, all damaged below 20% hull integrity, along with three wings of fighters successfully defend against 60+ enemy fighters and bombers.  The weight of fire added by the three Aeolus greatly outweighs the risk, even if bomb shockwaves were that effective against ships.

Quote
2) Depending on Carrier ships for the bulk of your fighters does limit your fighting capabilities. A carrier and an optimized destroyer would only be able to conduct strikecraft operations at one area, whereas two destroyers would be able to conduct strikecraft operations at two areas. I suppose an optimized destroyer would be a valuable asset if you're looking to dominate in ship-to-ship engagements, but it would still need a decent fighter screen from a nearby carrier if it's to launch offense operations. The defensive squadron it carries is simply not enough to actually attack with.

No argument.

Quote
3) Given how many active operations there are, it seems unlikely that Command (Vasudan, Terran, Neo-Terran, Hammer of Light, or even the Shivans) would have the resources to form a large fleet. Chances are, cruisiers and corvettes will be too busy launching strikes or defending against strikes. Sure, if you gather a large fleet, you can wipe the floor against a single target, but then you've just left all your own assets vulnerable to enemy strikes.

Might have a point.  However, we only ever see one or two GTVA fleets, and both of those always in high risk theaters and engagements, it might be going a little far to say fleets formations would be ineffective.  Look at the Blue Planet campaign as a way to use fleet formations to devastating effect.  You destroy, what, eight Shivan destroyers in the space of six missions, five of which in one mission?  That speaks heavily to using fleets to mass firepower and defense.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 19, 2010, 12:06:26 am
if im getting the idea correctly, you're propossing a 2 kilometer long ship, which probably costs 10's of billions of dollars to make, who's sole purpose to carry all the fighters of the fleet, and is designed to run when the enemy sorties anything bigger than a bomber against it? that just seems like a bad idea tactically. therewill be times when a friendly destroyer gets ambushed. it will take some time for a carrier, which may be in another system entirely, to launch fighters to protect the destroyer which has a minimal antifighter armament and no fighters? it is also not a good idea to make 2 new ships to do the job of 1 ship of the same size already does for half the price of the two new ships. all you have to do, is give the orion some more anti-fighter guns and our problem is solved.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: ChronoReverse on May 19, 2010, 12:09:58 am
I dunno if you need something 2km long to carry a significant complement of fighters and armament.  However, in the end it's a question of effectiveness and it's not particularly hard to at least have some beams on a "carrier".  That's pretty much what a Hecate is and I doubt there'd be a huge savings in removing the beams.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 19, 2010, 12:25:52 am
I dunno if you need something 2km long to carry a significant complement of fighters and armament.  However, in the end it's a question of effectiveness and it's not particularly hard to at least have some beams on a "carrier".  That's pretty much what a Hecate is and I doubt there'd be a huge savings in removing the beams.

one of the main points in this thread is "take off the hecate's anti-capital argument and put it on the orion. next, make the hecate's hanger bigger" the hecate is 2km-ish long
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: ChronoReverse on May 19, 2010, 12:42:01 am
Well, I'm just saying that there's plenty of room already lol.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 19, 2010, 02:39:02 am
Well, so you're saying you like them just how they are now?
Thing is, you keep emphasizing that a few beam turrets on the carrier will let it fight. But it will NOT save its sorry butt. If the carrier really gets ambushed, with or without beams, it is going DOWN. There is no way a hybrid ship can stand up to heavily armored hard hitting destroyers.

However, what was the carrier doing alone? What about its escort?

Point is, carrier warps out at the slightest sign of trouble. MEANWHILE support fleet warps with carrier. Enemy will have to wait for warp drive to recharge, giving you time to recall the destroyer fleet.
And if the enemy sends ANOTHER fleet to wipe out carrier, the carrier's support will be able to defend until the destroyer group can arrive. And it can scramble fighters. Never underestimate a couple wings of bombers going for your anti capital beams.

Point is, we need some specialized destroyers. Imagine having a destroyer with 2x pwnage power.

Yes, having anti cap weapons on carriers is nice. However, you can't have everything. So which would you prefer. 2 beam cannons or a dozen extra wings.
Thing is, you will likely not have a chance to fire the anti cap weapons. You should be running. Because thing is, a carrier will still not survive.

And the carrier isn't the main point actually. Its the destroyers. We want the destroyers to hit hard, and there is no reason why the fighters can't be based elsewhere. Move the 2 beams from carrier to destroyer, move the hangars from destroyer to carrier. There is a reason why modern aircraft carriers are defended only by a few flaks and we use another ship for heavy artillery.

I mean, you gotta admit there is SOME merit in this plan...
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: headdie on May 19, 2010, 03:01:17 am
Well, so you're saying you like them just how they are now?
Thing is, you keep emphasizing that a few beam turrets on the carrier will let it fight. But it will NOT save its sorry butt. If the carrier really gets ambushed, with or without beams, it is going DOWN. There is no way a hybrid ship can stand up to heavily armored hard hitting destroyers.

However, what was the carrier doing alone? What about its escort?

Point is, carrier warps out at the slightest sign of trouble. MEANWHILE support fleet warps with carrier. Enemy will have to wait for warp drive to recharge, giving you time to recall the destroyer fleet.
And if the enemy sends ANOTHER fleet to wipe out carrier, the carrier's support will be able to defend until the destroyer group can arrive. And it can scramble fighters. Never underestimate a couple wings of bombers going for your anti capital beams.

Point is, we need some specialized destroyers. Imagine having a destroyer with 2x pwnage power.

Yes, having anti cap weapons on carriers is nice. However, you can't have everything. So which would you prefer. 2 beam cannons or a dozen extra wings.
Thing is, you will likely not have a chance to fire the anti cap weapons. You should be running. Because thing is, a carrier will still not survive.

And the carrier isn't the main point actually. Its the destroyers. We want the destroyers to hit hard, and there is no reason why the fighters can't be based elsewhere. Move the 2 beams from carrier to destroyer, move the hangars from destroyer to carrier. There is a reason why modern aircraft carriers are defended only by a few flaks and we use another ship for heavy artillery.

I mean, you gotta admit there is SOME merit in this plan...

i think there are issues in this debate with how the battlefield works, carriers became the ruler of all today because its strike fighters can hit and dissable a conventional warship's armament before said warship can bring the carrier within range of its own weapons.

in freespace we have a battlefield whereby warships can jump within immediate weapons range of a located target, so even if the carrier jumps as soon as a hostile warship arrives reaction times mean that the hostile warship(s) will get a few shots off before the carrier jumps and subspace tracking means that the hostile ships will be able on top of the carrier quickly, also by placing a few fighters and bombers/cruisers at probabal rallying points will mean you can keep the pressure on the fleeing carrier, forcing it to keep moving and presumably denying it the opportunit to use its primary defence, its fighter wing.  destroyers as we see them are a neccesety for the core of the capital fleet as they can hold their own long enough to deploy bombers to wack any "ship killer" of destroyer scale which has no fighter wing to protect it and even in FS2 with aaa beams capships of all sizes are vulnerable to bombers
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 19, 2010, 03:26:32 am
Agreed. But for the plan of hardened destroyers to work, there must be bigger carriers. We'd all love carriers that hit hard, but I prefer destroyers that hit hard to carriers that hit hard. It woudn't  be possible to make destroyers hit harder and take more damage if it had the same fighter bay. So I'm saying the destroyer enters combat with fighters which have been launched from a carrier.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 19, 2010, 03:32:53 am
The carrier doesn't have to hit hard, it just has to be able to scrape a crusier out of the way or make a corvette think twice about attacking it. Why? In case it's separated from it's fighter wings or escort due to any of them getting killed or trying to cover it's initial retreat, or deployed in another engagement. And what if you need every ship and every beam available to crack a particularly tough fleet or target? If you're brining a carrier, you'll want it to be able to contribute.
Without heavy weapons, a carrier is easy prey. It has a much better chance of survival by being a decent challenge.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 19, 2010, 04:48:24 am
We are already giving it more blob guns. It can fight a cruiser. Corvette, thats what bombers are for. And you failed to mention the 2 corvettes and 2 cruisers guarding it and the other carriers, transports etc. I'm saying the carrier is going to be a supply center for the fleet. A mobile base. The space it sits in should be fortified.
However, I agree some anti cap weapons will be a good idea, some INSTANT anti cap weapons. Bombers take time to reach, blobs don't do much. Maybe throw in a small beam won't hurt. However it should not have its own power generators and all, it should draw power from other systems to fire. Firing it is a last resort. It will be used to hit one enemy beam cannon, thereby reducing the incoming DPS while it scrambles fighters. That is if you are really so short on corvettes that you actually have to scramble the last corvette guarding it.

My argument isn't just about modifying existing ships to fit more specific roles, but also that GTVA should use those modified ships well. Something they arn't known for.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 19, 2010, 06:26:13 am
You cannot hide in space.

In reality no. In Freespace universe? Apparently, you can. We seen ships searching for eachother in canon and we've seen scout wings launched to search areas.

***

But lets think about this for a second.
If the enemy can detect you, you can detect him.
If his capships warp in, your carriers warp out. Jump-drive re-charge works both ways, so they can't follow you immediately.

Alternatively, if you have a secured node, you can jump in with a carrier, launch all fighter and wait near the node while the fighters jump around and harass the enemy. In case of trouble you can always retreat the carrier.

Aditionally, specialized battleships would be better blockade breakers. More firepower, more armor. Beams deal damage faster than bombs and beams can't be intercepted.


Specialized ships can work in FS. But like any sensible military, you'd have both specilized and unspecialized ones. Best too for the job/situation.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: jr2 on May 19, 2010, 08:35:54 am
Instead of making a pure carrier, how about building a new class of ship that actually functions as both a true, fearsome carrier and heavy destroyer, all in one?

Make a bigger Hecate.. move all its self-sustaining / weapons systems outward as the hull gets wider and higher (maybe add some length too for added punch) and have a few sets of massive fighter / bomer bays inside.  Optimize these bays for fast deployment of large numbers of craft in a short amount of time.

The exterior should have plenty of power (maybe two or three reactors, or just one big one with a highly efficient power grid) and the weapons should be pinpoint accurate (give it lots of sensors).

There should always be at least two wings of some type of patrol craft on duty with this ship 24/7; and more if the threat level is recognized to be higher.  Smack a few escort ships with that and see who dares to mess with it.

Oh, and an AWACS as part of the fleet that accompanies it would make a nice complement to the pinpoint weapons.  That and have the patrol craft carry at least one bank of TAGs each. - This would help give more time until the rapid deployment of the internal fighters / bombers could turn the tide of any ambush.

Have one of these bad boys for every flagship, and you should be fine.  Yeah its expensive.  But still, at least then we'd have to come up with something equally awesome or ingenious to counter it, and that would be highly interesting.  ;)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: General Battuta on May 19, 2010, 08:40:33 am
I mean, you gotta admit there is SOME merit in this plan...

Well, considering every major post-Capella mod has done this already, clearly there must be.

Just not to the stupid extent you're arguing for.

Have you played Inferno or Blue Planet?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BlueFlames on May 19, 2010, 09:46:03 am
Quote
Thing is, you keep emphasizing that a few beam turrets on the carrier will let it fight. But it will NOT save its sorry butt. If the carrier really gets ambushed, with or without beams, it is going DOWN. There is no way a hybrid ship can stand up to heavily armored hard hitting destroyers.

True, if a beam-heavy destroyer jumps in on a hybrid carrier-battleship, without the support of its air group or escort, it won't put up much of a fight.  However, the presence of anti-warship beams on the hybrid ship forces the enemy to deploy a destroyer, instead of something smaller, cheaper, and more readily available.  If your eggshell carrier gets separated from its escort, it's going to have a hard time fending off a cruiser with its point defenses, and it's just meat to a corvette.

Specialization has its merits, but you can only take it so far.  Once your enemy identifies the weakness of your vessel, they will adopt tactics to exploit that weakness.  If you over-specialize, your weakness becomes easier to exploit.  A Hecate is vulnerable to other large warships, in the absence of escorting vessels.  Your eggshell would be vulnerable to any warship without its escort and could potentially be kept so far from the battlefield by the mere threat of counterattack as to render it insignificant.  The Hecate might not be able to wade into the thick of battle, but if pressed, it can hang with another warship long enough to deploy additional wings and regain the advantage.  Take away the beams and armor, and it has to run, leaving any wings already deployed to fend for themselves.

Before you parrot your own line about a heavy escort solving everything, bear a couple things in mind:
1)  Reliance on a heavy escort is a weakness that can be easily exploited.  Lure the escort off in one direction, while launching the main attack from another.
2)  A heavy escort is not an impenetrable shield.  One can shoot around an escort ship, and it doesn't have to stand against the escort's fire very long, if you've stripped the armor off your carrier.
3)  In the FreeSpace universe, situations often arise where it is impossible to deploy heavy escort for a ship that needs it.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 19, 2010, 06:30:10 pm
Blue planet was AWESOME!!!
However I feel their ships weren't specialized enough.

The escort doesn't leave the field till carrier leaves. Something many people learnt the hard way in EvE. Tempting to send it after an opportunistic target, but what if its a trap?

Also, it is not egg shell thin now, just that it doesn't have beams, which take up too much space. But one or two small beams should be ok. Not the huge destroyer type big cannon of doom types though. Plus, remember, it can scramble fighters and bombers, and there should be fighters and bombers on escort.

Yes, most mods, even retail (the hecate) has done this, but they arn't specialized enough if you're deliberately sending them into a capital ship fragfest. And in blue planet, it was out of necessity, I understand that. However at the end it was said it was the GTVA's most powerful fleet. Obviously the first to charge into  the portal. They arn't specialized carriers...
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 19, 2010, 07:10:48 pm
Ahem. The Titan class ships (Like the Temeraire) are specialized carriers in BP. The Raynor class vessels (like the Orestes) are specialized Destroyers. Yet each of them can perform satisfactory in the other ones' role.
In that way, they mirror the Hecate/Orion pair of the Second Incursion, but the Titan is a much better ship killer than the Hecate, while the Raynor is a much better Carrier than the Orion.

This division of labour increases the tactical flexibility of the whole fleet, since both Destroyers are capable of filling the tactical role the other one specializes in. Strategically, it has the advantage of redundancy, if one Destroyer would be taken out, the other one does not suddenly develop a massive vulnerability against a specific form of attack.

Question would be, would your proposed Carrier be able to survive Forced Entry, and the operations leading up to it? Remember, the Temeraire was fighting a holding action while your fighter wing secured the Knossos, with her escorts being sent off one by one to make their way through the portal. Had she been a specialized Carrier, that tactic would not have worked.

Quote
However at the end it was said it was the GTVA's most powerful fleet. Obviously the first to charge into  the portal. They arn't specialized carriers...

The 14th Battlegroup is the strongest formation in the GTVA because its tactical doctrine and ship designs have been thought out very carefully. Their relative lack of specialization is what makes them powerful.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: el_magnifico on May 19, 2010, 07:19:26 pm
Quote
The escort doesn't leave the field till carrier leaves. Something many people learnt the hard way in EvE.
This is not EVE. I don't know how the EVE universe works*, but this is FreeSpace. We have seen canon evidence that in practice in FS, Carriers eventually go around unescorted (Proving grounds, Argonautica), and battlelines and formations are a rare sight (every mission except Their finest hour and Clash of the Titans II).
So yes, carriers are supposed to be able to defend themselves against anything smaller than them.

Quote
Also, it is not egg shell thin now, just that it doesn't have beams, which take up too much space. But one or two small beams should be ok.
That's right here. (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Hecate)

Look, you don't like how command manages his assets? Then you're right. Command are just a bunch of idiots too high in the chain of command. I believe it's quite probable that they haven't been in an actual battle since the Great War. And I completely agree Hecates should be renamed as Carriers and be deployed with a considerable escort if possible.
So, why don't we just debate about how command deploys their destroyers and carriers instead of trying to convince us command should scrap everything and build a new, hyperspecialized fleet.
Because I'm beginning to suspect you're secretly working for Triton Dynamics or something like that.

Quote
Yes, most mods, even retail (the hecate) has done this, but they arn't specialized enough if you're deliberately sending them into a capital ship fragfest.
Name at least a single canon destroyer that was engaged by a Hecate.
In fact, I just finished replaying the main campaign, and the only capital ships a Hecate ever fought against as far as I know were Moloch corvettes, and only because the corvettes engaged the Hecate, which was retreating.



*: Hell! I don't even know what EVE is and I'm too lazy to google it.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronBeer on May 19, 2010, 07:29:54 pm
Name at least a single canon destroyer that was engaged by a Hecate.
Well, I guess the Phonecia technically engaged the first Sathanas, but we all know how well that went...
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: el_magnifico on May 19, 2010, 08:07:54 pm
Name at least a single canon destroyer that was engaged by a Hecate.
Well, I guess the Phonecia technically engaged the first Sathanas, but we all know how well that went...
False because:

A) They didn't engaged the Sathanas, they got the hell out of there as fast as they could, panicking, screaming, and completely ruining their underwear in the process.

B) Under those circumstances, it was the best option. Since Command decided to put something, anything in the path of the Sathanas in order to slow them down, and the only thing of sufficient size they had at hand was an unscratched Hecate destroyer, the decision actually made a lot of sense. An Orion, and I guess even a Raynor or the Colossus, would have suffered exactly the same fate. So having an specialized Carrier or Destroyer wouldn't have mattered in this case.

However, there is some truth in your post. One has to wonder why did command even thought about putting something as valuable as a Carrier in the path of that monster. But we've both already agreed that when it comes to assets management, command has an IQ comparable to that of a confused cockroach.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 19, 2010, 10:18:07 pm
Quote
Name at least a single canon destroyer that was engaged by a Hecate.

there were plans for the Aquatane to be part of a battlegroup to to engage the sathanas, but it got outmeneuvered. ok, it's not 1 on 1, nd it didnt actually happen, but still

also, the carriers heavy escort is not perfect. the enemy can target an escort ship, and destroy it, denying of that escort. a couple more operations targeting the escort will strip it of its defencive line. since the escort can not be replaced instantly, after a while, only a couple corvettes, even moloch class, could probably take out this carrier which has next to no defence.

Quote
We are already giving it more blob guns. It can fight a cruiser. Corvette, thats what bombers are for. And you failed to mention the 2 corvettes and 2 cruisers guarding it and the other carriers, transports etc. I'm saying the carrier is going to be a supply center for the fleet. A mobile base. The space it sits in should be fortified.
However, I agree some anti cap weapons will be a good idea, some INSTANT anti cap weapons. Bombers take time to reach, blobs don't do much. Maybe throw in a small beam won't hurt. However it should not have its own power generators and all, it should draw power from other systems to fire. Firing it is a last resort. It will be used to hit one enemy beam cannon, thereby reducing the incoming DPS while it scrambles fighters. That is if you are really so short on corvettes that you actually have to scramble the last corvette guarding it.


so you're proposing putting a ship that has no busniness anywhere within 2 jumps of the front line in the middle of the action?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 20, 2010, 01:37:10 am
Instead of making a pure carrier, how about building a new class of ship that actually functions as both a true, fearsome carrier and heavy destroyer, all in one?


Because everything comes at a cost. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Let's say you make a  3km long super-hybrid. Someone else makes a 3km long pure carrier, that carries twice as much fighters/bombers as your ships. Or maby a dedicated warship that has more guns.

It's really simple - a ship has a limited amount of volume available. You divide that volume to put stuff in. The more different things you put, the less room for other things.

Fighterbays require lots of room to put all the fighters, to keep fuel, ammo and pare parts, to house the flight crew, and this requires some other rooms to be bigger (like the mess hall, the kitchen).
Weaponry requires room for the large turrets themselves, the heat sinks, and more power generators.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 20, 2010, 01:44:08 am

also, the carriers heavy escort is not perfect. the enemy can target an escort ship, and destroy it, denying of that escort. a couple more operations targeting the escort will strip it of its defencive line. since the escort can not be replaced instantly, after a while, only a couple corvettes, even moloch class, could probably take out this carrier which has next to no defence.

A destroyers fighter cover can be thin down in a couple of operation. They can do the same to turrets. "We can weaken it after several attacks" is not exactly and argument, as it works agaist any and every ship or fleet.

Also, ships can...ya know...retreat...move..launch a coutnerstrike.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on May 20, 2010, 01:45:23 am
Instead of making a pure carrier, how about building a new class of ship that actually functions as both a true, fearsome carrier and heavy destroyer, all in one?


The Colossus?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: sigtau on May 20, 2010, 06:17:50 am
The Colossus?

You have won 1 internet.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: QuantumDelta on May 20, 2010, 06:48:06 am
Cept the colosuss was fs2s vasuda prime
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Spoon on May 20, 2010, 06:55:47 am
Cept the colosuss was fs2s vasuda prime
What?  :confused:
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 20, 2010, 07:18:09 am
I think he means that it was nuked by the Shivans just like VP in FS1.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: jr2 on May 20, 2010, 08:30:26 am
Yeah, the Colossus, but not quite that big.. I meant something along those lines, but still cheap enough to be used as a flagship for every fleet.  They aren't a dime a dozen, but they aren't figuratively putting all your eggs in one basket, either.  And if you need to take on something huge, grab two or who knows three of them and have them time jumps to arrive at the same time on target. zzzzzzaaaapp!
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: MatthTheGeek on May 20, 2010, 08:33:58 am
Alright, now explain to us the difference between what you describe and a Destroyer ?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: jr2 on May 20, 2010, 08:37:57 am
Better than a Hecate and newer than your grand-daddy's Orion.  :lol:
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Spoon on May 20, 2010, 09:50:45 am
I think he means that it was nuked by the Shivans just like VP in FS1.
Ah right
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 20, 2010, 05:23:25 pm
There's a very large advantage of a carrier+big gun Destroyer fleet vs a fleet of multirole D's:

A fleet of specialized ships can consist of ships with guns and ships with hangars in any proportion needed. You can choose how much hangar space and how much firepower you send somewhere independantly- if one area needs to service fighters, while another needs big guns, you can send your big gun ships and keep the carriers in their current position as long as required.

With multirole units, you have some guns and some hangar space on every ship, and if you need some firepower in a different battlefield, by taking a destroyer away from it's current position, it's gone with it's hangar. Same situation when a ship leaves the line of battle to have it's hangar used elsewhere- the line of battle loses all the beams of that ship.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 20, 2010, 05:29:32 pm
Yes, well, the problem with specialized ships is that, if they can be caught relatively isolated, they have very specific vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited. See a pure Destroyer? Send bomber wings. See a pure Carrier? Send Cruisers, Corvettes and other Destroyers.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 20, 2010, 05:42:03 pm
I feel that larger warships should be more generalized, but smaller warships should be more specialized.
I can see a use for a "flying beam cannon" type cruiser/corvette (designed to jump in, splash something, and hopefully get out alive), but not so much "flying beam cannons" type destroyer. The latter is basically overkill as you could just send in a squadron of the former to achieve the same effect, while being less exposed to being "revenge killed" as you could have all the cruisers jump to different places or whatnot worse comes to worse.

Likewise, I see a use for a corvette-sized dedicated carrier for deploying into enemy lines (if they forget to guard a node or whatever), but a bigass carrier that can't defend itself is asking to get roasted especially since the enemy probably won't ever stop paying attention to targets of that much importance.

Your larger craft have the benefit of being able to fit more diverse systems and fulfill more diverse roles so it won't ever be caught with its pants down. Your smaller craft don't have this luxury (or they will likely suck at doing anything, being capable, but not good enough, at any given role) due to limited space for hardware.

At least, that's what seems to make sense logically.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: el_magnifico on May 20, 2010, 05:52:18 pm
There's a very large advantage of a carrier+big gun Destroyer fleet vs a fleet of multirole D's:

A fleet of specialized ships can consist of ships with guns and ships with hangars in any proportion needed. You can choose how much hangar space and how much firepower you send somewhere independantly- if one area needs to service fighters, while another needs big guns, you can send your big gun ships and keep the carriers in their current position as long as required.

With multirole units, you have some guns and some hangar space on every ship, and if you need some firepower in a different battlefield, by taking a destroyer away from it's current position, it's gone with it's hangar. Same situation when a ship leaves the line of battle to have it's hangar used elsewhere- the line of battle loses all the beams of that ship.
That's actually the best argument I've yet heard in favor of a specialized fleet.
But if you need a platform with heavy beams and no hangar, you're probably better off with a heavy corvette.
There's still the issue of the case when you need additional fighters, though...

Keep in mind, however, that in the FS universe, almost every capital ship needs some degree of fighter escort.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 20, 2010, 11:23:20 pm
or how about this, a corvette sized ship, no longer than 1,000 meters or so, with the firepower of and armor of a destroyer. its a smaller target and its much faster and meneuverable.

anyway, my idea for the destroyer sized ship, take an orion, cut it in half, length ise, mirror the port side to the starboard side so its symmetrical and can be fit symmetrically so one side isnt more vulnerable than the other. make the ship longer to acomidate a hecate-sized hanger. add 2 or 4 more beams. also give it a fighter-defence system that would make a deimos proud. then retire the old orions, make a few of them museums or something and relegate hecates to a more carrier-centric duty. everyone wins, we get a new heavy gun destroyer and we get a carrier than can give an effort going toe-to-toe with another destroyer
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 20, 2010, 11:32:18 pm
or how about this, a corvette sized ship, no longer than 1,000 meters or so, with the firepower of and armor of a destroyer. its a smaller target and its much faster and meneuverable.

The Iceni says hi.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Klaustrophobia on May 21, 2010, 12:58:35 am
the general gist of the conversation here seems to me to be simply "make the ships better"

Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: General Battuta on May 21, 2010, 01:02:52 am
the general gist of the conversation here seems to me to be simply "make the ships better"



Yeah, seriously.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 21, 2010, 01:09:02 am
yeah, lets slap a billion AAAfs and BFReds, make it have the size and maneuverability of a SF Dragon, and give it as much armor as a Volition Bravos.

Everyone wins! Except the people facing it!
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 21, 2010, 02:56:21 am
or how about this, a corvette sized ship, no longer than 1,000 meters or so, with the firepower of and armor of a destroyer. its a smaller target and its much faster and meneuverable.

The Iceni says hi.

right, forgot to mention, give it a hanger
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 21, 2010, 04:42:53 am
What people can't seem to get around here is that only idiots will leave a specialized carrier undefended. There should at least be a corvette and several wings guarding. And don't let them persue anything. In my old corp in EvE, we were kicked/had serious answering to do if support leaves field before capital.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Spoon on May 21, 2010, 04:51:29 am
EVE =/= Freespace
And what you can't get around here is the many arguments proving you wrong.
Like the one that says: beams will still be able to hit your paper thin carrier, regardless of escorts (they can't form a 360 impenetrable sphere around the carrier) and that once your escort is destroyed, there is nothing left but your fragile carrier idea.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: The E on May 21, 2010, 05:01:35 am
What you don't seem to get is that, in the absence of capital ship shields, any escorting formation can be breached. Even by a maneuver as simple as "launch attack on target's starboard to draw off the escort a bit, then shock-jump your killer in from port".

What you also don't seem to get is that specialized ships, due to their very nature, have very general vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited.

Another thing you don't get is that in FS, there are no front lines. There is no "rear area" where you can park a Carrier, unless by "rear area" you mean "in a secured system one fortified jump node away".

Then there's the thing where the typical FS engagements are usually over in a matter of minutes. The second you are caught, you are in very, very high danger.

I direct your attention to this
Ahem. The Titan class ships (Like the Temeraire) are specialized carriers in BP. The Raynor class vessels (like the Orestes) are specialized Destroyers. Yet each of them can perform satisfactory in the other ones' role.
In that way, they mirror the Hecate/Orion pair of the Second Incursion, but the Titan is a much better ship killer than the Hecate, while the Raynor is a much better Carrier than the Orion.

This division of labour increases the tactical flexibility of the whole fleet, since both Destroyers are capable of filling the tactical role the other one specializes in. Strategically, it has the advantage of redundancy, if one Destroyer would be taken out, the other one does not suddenly develop a massive vulnerability against a specific form of attack.

Question would be, would your proposed Carrier be able to survive Forced Entry, and the operations leading up to it? Remember, the Temeraire was fighting a holding action while your fighter wing secured the Knossos, with her escorts being sent off one by one to make their way through the portal. Had she been a specialized Carrier, that tactic would not have worked.

Quote
However at the end it was said it was the GTVA's most powerful fleet. Obviously the first to charge into  the portal. They arn't specialized carriers...

The 14th Battlegroup is the strongest formation in the GTVA because its tactical doctrine and ship designs have been thought out very carefully. Their relative lack of specialization is what makes them powerful.

Please answer the question: How would your proposed Carrier BG, operating under the same constraints as the Temeraire task force (that is, your dedicated ship killer and half your escorts are unavailable and you have two ships that are utterly defenseless but vital to the mission to escort through a jumpgate in a system with a massive Shivan presence) fare?

For reference, the Temeraire's plan here was to engage the Shivans in one part of the system and draw out as massive a response as possible from them, then peel off the Cruiser screen, the Corvettes, followed by the most vulnerable ships, with the Temeraire bringing up the rear.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 21, 2010, 07:39:54 am
Take, for instance, the Shivans. Most of their ships in general, particularly the Ravana, specialise in dealing devastating first strikes with the combined firepower of all their main beams combined. The Ravana, however, has rubbish defences and absolutely pathetic subsystem durability. There are people who were actually able to blow up the Ravana's main guns before it fired on the Lysander in The Great Hunt. They're that weak. In Slaying Ravana, the Ravana is unable to fend off a moderately-damaged corvette parked right beside it. If you put an Orion in a similar situation, however, you get this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/FreeSpace_2_Beam-Combat-Anim.gif)

In addition, the Ravana goes down VERY FAST. A four-bomber Ursa wing can completely obliterate the Ravana without reloading. They can even destroy a wing of Basilisks before attacking the Ravana and still have enough strength to kill it.

The GTVA has learned enough from the Shivans to know that overspecialisation is not the right answer to creating a strong fleet. The Shivans are only able to do this because they just keep on coming in greater numbers every time one of their own fall. For the Terrans and Vasudans, however, such replacements may not always be available, so they need to make their ships as adept in as many fields as possible in order to increase survivability rate. Take a good long look at the Titan and Raynor, for instance. Both ships were made to serve as a hybrid of carrier and battleship. The Raynor, placing slightly more focus on the battleship bit, is able to concentrate at least 50% of its overall firepower in almost any direction, allowing it to easily attack almost anything from anywhere, while at the same time having a small hangar of fighters to do things like disabling beams. The Titan, placing slightly more focus on the carrier aspect, can hold a lot of fighters, but is still capable of defending itself or being used as an offensive weapon should there be no other options available. The latter is easily seen at the end of A Journey of a Thousand Miles in BP.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 22, 2010, 05:18:09 am
Yes, well, the problem with specialized ships is that, if they can be caught relatively isolated, they have very specific vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited. See a pure Destroyer? Send bomber wings. See a pure Carrier? Send Cruisers, Corvettes and other Destroyers.

Why is why planing and battlefield awareness comes in play.
Any isolated ships can be brought down. Some easier than others, but still.

Saying "X should never be used because it has a weakness" is a rather illogical statement, given that everything has a weakness. Y has weakneses too. Like I said before - proper tool for the proper conditions.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 22, 2010, 05:25:43 am
Quote
The GTVA has learned enough from the Shivans to know that overspecialisation is not the right answer to creating a strong fleet.

Bollocks.
I ****ing hate this simple mentality. The Orion and Ravana difference is in weapon placement and numbers.


Firstly, there's absolutely NO sensible reason whatsoever to have ONLY non-specialized or overspecialized ships in the fleet. Why not have both?

Secondly, specialized ships can be very, very deadly, if used right. That compensates for their increased vulenrabilities.

Thirdly, if the enemy can jump in after you, you can jump out to get away. And he has to find you first. So technicly, such a thing as battle lines exists - fights occur near points of interest.


Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on May 22, 2010, 05:36:54 am
Well the 'carrier' variant of the destroyer would need some form of anti-capship defense and some armor. Something like a Hecate with a second fighterbay instead of the beams on it's nose to give it a total capacity of 200-250 spacecraft- about the amount the Big 'C' had (and I know it would probably look ugly  :p ).

The 'battleship' variant would obviously use a small hangar. My idea is a slow Iceni with 2 BGreens (3 of these would have the combined BGreen firepower of a Big 'C') and a hangar for 20-30 ships in case the carrier's fighters are unavailable.


BTW- didn't the Ravana sink a few GTVA ships before being hunted down?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronBeer on May 22, 2010, 11:40:19 am
BTW- didn't the Ravana sink a few GTVA ships before being hunted down?[/color]

I think the first one nuked at least a Deimos or two...
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 22, 2010, 12:31:46 pm
BTW- didn't the Ravana sink a few GTVA ships before being hunted down?[/color]

I think the first one nuked at least a Deimos or two...
It also got a destroyer, the Delacroix.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Aardwolf on May 22, 2010, 04:41:00 pm
BTW- didn't the Ravana sink a few GTVA ships before being hunted down?[/color]

You sank my battleship!
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 22, 2010, 05:03:31 pm
Well the 'carrier' variant of the destroyer would need some form of anti-capship defense and some armor. Something like a Hecate with a second fighterbay instead of the beams on it's nose to give it a total capacity of 200-250 spacecraft- about the amount the Big 'C' had (and I know it would probably look ugly  :p ).

The 'battleship' variant would obviously use a small hangar. My idea is a slow Iceni with 2 BGreens (3 of these would have the combined BGreen firepower of a Big 'C') and a hangar for 20-30 ships in case the carrier's fighters are unavailable.

I concur.

A "battleship" would either carry no fighters, or would only have a minimal fighterbay, for 1-2 wings. Interceptors and scouts.

A "carrier" would have SOME minimal anti-cap armament. After all, even todays sea carriers have some missiles and guns on them. Emphasis would be on fighter space.


Regarding armor and speed - you can play around with those. A battleship would have more armor, sure - but a carrier need not necessarily have paper-thin armor. Altough usually you'd build a carrier with speed in mind - that way he can keep out of the beam cannon range. After all, enemy ships don't always jump in weapons range.
Then again, things like "fast battleship" existed, and a battleship could be pretty fast itself. Depends on many thing.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: SypheDMar on May 22, 2010, 06:59:36 pm
Back to the original topic:

Quote
The Alliance mourns the loss of the GTC Monitor. Thousands of courageous officers and crew sacrificed their lives for the GTVA.
Quote
The Alliance mourns the loss of the GTC Fortune. Thousands of courageous officers and crew sacrificed their lives for the GTVA.
Quote
The GTC Orff was destroyed during your watch. Dozens of lives were lost due to your poor performance.

Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 22, 2010, 07:04:59 pm
The Monitor (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/FreeSpace_2_Terran_Ship_Database#GTCv_Monitor) is a Deimos corvette no?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Timerlane on May 22, 2010, 09:15:41 pm
The briefing calls it the GTA Monitor(and I don't think they'd send an AWACS to hold off an attack :P ), so it sounds like they hadn't completely decided what it was going to be, until the mission was already finished.

In light of that, I'd wonder if those two lines, being also identical, were more or less placeholders, whether they were actually correct numbers for a cruiser or not. Not that I'd dismiss it outright, but I'd take it as a secondary priority to any other sources.

The fact that the Orff is only crewed with 'dozens' seems kind of hilarious, though(technically correct, as long as there are more than 23 people on board).
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 22, 2010, 09:33:02 pm
Well, I'd imagine the crew size changes depending on the ship's assignment.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: karajorma on May 23, 2010, 04:10:25 am
/me is confused.
/me is sure he won the argument against Trashman's idea of a battleship/carrier combo over 5 years ago. :p


For those of you coming in late, compare the GVA Orion against the GTVA Orion. The limiting factor on the number of beams a destroyer can mount is NOT internal space since they upgraded the Orion from no beams to its current state without having to reduce armour or fighter complement.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: QuantumDelta on May 23, 2010, 06:21:41 am
Fenris/Leviathan/Cain/Lilith/Aten are good examples of that too Kara.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 23, 2010, 06:51:53 am
/me is confused.
/me is sure he won the argument against Trashman's idea of a battleship/carrier combo over 5 years ago. :p

You never won any such argument.
You just proclaimed yourself the winner.


Quote

For those of you coming in late, compare the GVA Orion against the GTVA Orion. The limiting factor on the number of beams a destroyer can mount is NOT internal space since they upgraded the Orion from no beams to its current state without having to reduce armour or fighter complement.

Well, we don't really know what the internal changes are. Beam cannons ain't small and who knows what was sacrificed. Smaller storage rooms? More cramped hangar (you can still have the same number of craft). We just don't know.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: karajorma on May 23, 2010, 09:53:21 am
Fenris/Leviathan/Cain/Lilith/Aten are good examples of that too Kara.

I tend to think that the Iceni (where no cost would have been spared) is good proof that the limiting factor is simply money and resources. You can build destroyers with more weaponry than current GTVA ones but it quickly reaches the point where it is more cost effective to have two average destroyers than one super one.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: SypheDMar on May 23, 2010, 10:59:11 am
The fact that the Orff is only crewed with 'dozens' seems kind of hilarious, though(technically correct, as long as there are more than 23 people on board).
I talked about this on IRC several months while ago, and I think we assume that the Orff is carrying a skeleton crew because it was in need of repairs, and all nonessential personnels are at risk from the Vasudans.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BlueFlames on May 23, 2010, 11:33:50 am
Quote
For those of you coming in late, compare the GVA Orion against the GTVA Orion. The limiting factor on the number of beams a destroyer can mount is NOT internal space since they upgraded the Orion from no beams to its current state without having to reduce armour or fighter complement.

There was also thirty-five years of technological development between the all-blob Orion and the beam-heavy Orion.  In that span of time, blobs could have been made more efficient and other systems made more compact to provide the necessary energy and space for the beam cannons, their power supply, and targeting systems.  You cannot fully discount the possibility that energy and internal space are limiting factors based on the one observation you've provided.

You should have used the Iceni as your example, which changes loadouts radically from nearly-all-blob to more-BGreens-than-beads-at-Mardi-Gras from mission to mission.  ;)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Marcov on May 23, 2010, 09:50:10 pm
Back to the original topic:
Quote
The GTC Orff was destroyed during your watch. Dozens of lives were lost due to your poor performance.

It's kind of retarded to think that there were only below 100 crew in a cruiser. I mean, hell, you could fit FIVE WWII battleships in a Fenris' massive hull. The Bismarck itself, much more streamlined (but as long) than the Fenris, had outright 2,000 crew.
So maybe 1,000 - 2,000 could be a rough estimate for a Fenris, regarding that in the future computers/electronic devices are more widely used than humans to control a ship.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 23, 2010, 10:09:05 pm
83+ dozens is dozens technically, of cource.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 23, 2010, 10:14:12 pm
I'm still wondering what those hundreds or thousands of people on a cruiser or corvette would be doing. Not counting damage control, what is there that couldn't be handled much more efficiently by sufficiently advanced computers and robots?

Take whatever roles you know must exist, and multiply it by three to cover enough shifts to run 24/7 and what do you get?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: SpardaSon21 on May 23, 2010, 10:18:35 pm
What about redundancy?  What if a computer has a short and needs fixing, or something goes screwy and the computers are less-than optimal?  What about battle damage to a computer or robot, causing it to malfunction so a human is needed to take over?  I would say a couple hundred may be there in case the **** hits the fan and the computers go wonky.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 23, 2010, 10:22:43 pm
Well, I suppose that would be counted under "damage control."
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: SpardaSon21 on May 23, 2010, 10:24:58 pm
Not necessarily, there's damage control (fixing what's busted) and there's taking over for busted computer controls (which would be stuff like gunnery, nav, engine monitoring).
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 24, 2010, 12:41:52 am
we also dont know to how much automation is used on ships 200-400 years into the future. and how many destroyers do we know the crew of canonically, GTD Galatea, GTD Aquatane, NTD Repulse, and GTD Carthage. how many of them are flagships? at least 3. perhaps a standard destroyer compliment is around 5000-8000 with the extras working on fleet command duty? that might be a very bad estimate, but still
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 24, 2010, 01:27:51 am
I also have been wandering about crew numbers.

On battleship, gun crews took a large portion of the crew (because there were so many guns). On carriers, the flight crew takes up half the crew.

But for FS2 ships..they seem very underarmed for their size. The number of guns is tiny compared to their size. Engine limitations for one, but one does have to wonder what exactly are all those thousands of people doing.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: karajorma on May 24, 2010, 06:15:08 am
I'm still wondering what those hundreds or thousands of people on a cruiser or corvette would be doing. Not counting damage control, what is there that couldn't be handled much more efficiently by sufficiently advanced computers and robots?

Why does the Nimitz need a crew of several thousand while an oil tanker can get by with a handful of people on the crew?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on May 24, 2010, 07:47:59 am
Well the Nimitz is more or less a moving city...

I couldn't fathom a Fenris with a mini-grocery store and library onboard. :P
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 24, 2010, 07:52:30 am
On a cruiser? Unlikely, unless if it was meant to travel away from Allied space for a very long time.

On a destroyer or a corvette, though, there's a possibility.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 24, 2010, 03:15:57 pm
A cruiser certanly has the volume for such things.

Larger ships have a tendancy to have areas for crew. A carrier has it's own TV station, barber shop, dentist, various shops and all kinds of things like that.
I belive the Iowa used to have a few such things too (but fewer, there's over 3 times less personell on board)

for refference:
Nimitz (332m)
Ship's company: 3,200
Air wing: 2,480

Iowa (272m)
151 officers, 2637 enlisted (crew number for the older, 158 guns variant. For the new one it's 1660.)
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronBeer on May 24, 2010, 03:51:06 pm
Also, lest we forget- starships in FS are very large.

Using those figures from the Nimitz as reference (yes, I know they aren't necessarily valid, but it is at least some kind of basis for estimation), we could easily figure the proportion of flight crew to ship's crew aboard an Orion. Now, we don't necessarily know whether that number of ten thousand includes flight crew, but it probably would not be too tough to fit another 7000ish people into a 2km-long city in space.

Assuming ten thousand counts everybody, a little math would produce an estimate of roughly 5500 crew for ship operation- a remarkably small figure for such a (let's face it) gargantuan vessel. Regardless of which crew count is correct, it is safe to assume some serious automation is in effect.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: QuantumDelta on May 24, 2010, 04:39:21 pm
Spaceships and seaships are a bit different. Lifesupport systems that don't rely on Star Trek (Replicators) or Star Wars (non-existent?) technology are ........quite large.
As much as I hate the series, bab5 had a much more believable system for the station, for the fighters and cap ships though I still didn't really see anything.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 24, 2010, 07:46:16 pm
Star Wars has Lifesupport. Well, people mention it but it's just there as some generic subsystem.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 24, 2010, 10:34:25 pm
Can it be said that Babylon 5 is America IN SPACE then? ;)
 
Also, for some reason, I keep thinking about the Archangel in Gundam SEED DESTINY and its hot springs... :lol:
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: SpardaSon21 on May 24, 2010, 11:19:01 pm
Well, it wouldn't be anime if it didn't have some kind of hot spring/bathouse scene in it.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 25, 2010, 03:23:06 am
Let's do some more calculation, shall we?
Nimitz (332m)
Ship's company: 3,200
Air wing: 2,480

For 80-90 fighters that the Nimitz carries that comes down to 2480/80 = ~ 30-27 crew members per plane



Iowa (272m)
151 officers, 2637 enlisted  (I'll assume a total of 2788, but I think I'm wrong here)

So, 2788 for 158 guns and 1660 for 73 guns...
That comes down to....roughly 1000 people for 73 guns? 10-13 crew members per gun.


That would put the air crew for 150 spacecraft at 4500 crew members. (and 3600 for 120 spacecraft)
By the same logic, 30 turrets would require 300-390 crew members.
So IronBears calculation for 5500 regular crew for a destroyer sound about right.

This is assuming similar requirements.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 25, 2010, 02:31:27 pm
Let's do some more calculation, shall we?
Nimitz (332m)
Ship's company: 3,200
Air wing: 2,480

For 80-90 fighters that the Nimitz carries that comes down to 2480/80 = ~ 30-27 crew members per plane



Iowa (272m)
151 officers, 2637 enlisted  (I'll assume a total of 2788, but I think I'm wrong here)

So, 2788 for 158 guns and 1660 for 73 guns...
That comes down to....roughly 1000 people for 73 guns? 10-13 crew members per gun.


That would put the air crew for 150 spacecraft at 4500 crew members. (and 3600 for 120 spacecraft)
By the same logic, 30 turrets would require 300-390 crew members.
So IronBears calculation for 5500 regular crew for a destroyer sound about right.

This is assuming similar requirements.

All of this ignores damage control, engineering, navigation, bridge crew, and the whole shebang that goes with a ship that possibly won't return to port for several months at a time.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 25, 2010, 02:32:21 pm
That's where the other 4500 people come in, of course :P
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 25, 2010, 03:33:22 pm
A big difference between modern warships and FS warships is in the guns. You don't need 20 guys per turret. There's no ammo to load (except missiles and flak, and those would have auto loaders anyway), there shouldn't be anything that you can manually maintain or adjust while it's firing. I think there would at maximum be 3 people per turret, and everything else automated.
How many total weapons on an Orion? 20? 30? x3 guys x3 shifts = 270 guys for weaponry. Say 30-60 command staff (including communications). 10-30 for navigation (assuming some really complicated stuff). 100-300 engineers that keep the reactors and vital systems running. 300-800 crew for various support duties, including food, light maintenance, cleaning, etc.
1460 estimated crew plus however many for damage control, marines, and flight crew.

What duties would damage control have on an Orion? I really have no idea, which is why I don't put numbers for that.

And remember: Just because you have room for 20 thousand folks, doesn't mean you need to carry that many.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: SpardaSon21 on May 25, 2010, 03:36:05 pm
We already know how many crewmen are on an Orion though, Admiral Koth stated he had ten thousand men ready to die for Neo-Terra when he was preparing to ram the Colossus, and I don't think that's ever been contradicted.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 25, 2010, 04:29:21 pm
A big difference between modern warships and FS warships is in the guns. You don't need 20 guys per turret. There's no ammo to load (except missiles and flak, and those would have auto loaders anyway), there shouldn't be anything that you can manually maintain or adjust while it's firing. I think there would at maximum be 3 people per turret, and everything else automated.
How many total weapons on an Orion? 20? 30? x3 guys x3 shifts = 270 guys for weaponry. Say 30-60 command staff (including communications). 10-30 for navigation (assuming some really complicated stuff). 100-300 engineers that keep the reactors and vital systems running. 300-800 crew for various support duties, including food, light maintenance, cleaning, etc.
1460 estimated crew plus however many for damage control, marines, and flight crew.

What duties would damage control have on an Orion? I really have no idea, which is why I don't put numbers for that.

And remember: Just because you have room for 20 thousand folks, doesn't mean you need to carry that many.

Unfortunately, we have several canon numbers for Orion crew sizes.  That means some of these numbers are wrong.  I would like to know how you determined that there are only three gunners per gun.  Some of those guns are three or four times the size of your fighter, and I highly doubt all of it is automation and computers.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 25, 2010, 04:31:20 pm
There are several instances of Canon referencing the exact same number for the crew of a GTD Orion: Ten Thousand.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 25, 2010, 04:51:58 pm
Perhaps Definitely an Orion was a bad example to use. I was just trying to think of how many people would actually be required for a ship that size, and what they're actually doing.

As to putting three crew per turret: I again over-generalized. For a blob turret, sure three why not. For a beam or flak cannon probably a few more. But seriously, what are that many people doing (not counting damage control)?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 25, 2010, 05:25:28 pm
Identifying targets, determining target priority, inputting said priority, calibrating aim, initiating the firing sequence, etc.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Blue Lion on May 25, 2010, 05:40:44 pm
Someone has to do all the laundry and replace all the busted bulbs and empty all the trash cans.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dragon on May 25, 2010, 05:47:04 pm
You have Roger Willco for that (if he's not busy saving the galaxy or dying in an unusual way)  :) .
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: QuantumDelta on May 25, 2010, 06:34:32 pm
!!!!!!!! <33333 SpaceQuest
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 25, 2010, 11:52:33 pm
I had a thought:
Orion: HP = 100,000, crew = 10,000
Sobek: HP = 80,000, Crew = 8000
Fenris: HP =8000/10,000 crew =(?)= 800-1000?

its just a pattern ive noticed. however, snce the leviathan and fenris share a hull, they should have similar crew requirements
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 25, 2010, 11:56:29 pm
nonsense, the Leviathan must have 3.5 times the crew of the Fenris.
They just shoved more people in there for damage control, hence it can take more punishment. :P

What, you thought they actually used better armor?
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 26, 2010, 12:43:39 am
great, now i have an image of the crew of a leviathan holding up roman shields against the hull
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 26, 2010, 01:50:28 am
All of this ignores damage control, engineering, navigation, bridge crew, and the whole shebang that goes with a ship that possibly won't return to port for several months at a time.

Read it again. It doesn't. "Regular" ships crew is taken into account.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 26, 2010, 01:51:46 am
It is also wrong for several reasons already established.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: headdie on May 26, 2010, 03:54:59 am
nonsense, the Leviathan must have 3.5 times the crew of the Fenris.
They just shoved more people in there for damage control, hence it can take more punishment. :P

What, you thought they actually used better armor?

nope just more of it
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 26, 2010, 05:09:09 am
It is also wrong for several reasons already established.

Like what?
Turrets and fighter both require a certain number of personnel.

We can extrapolate the average number of crew members the military uses today for ships, fighters and weapons. The FS number would probably be similar.

Granted, that's not the absolute truth, but I never claimed it was. The canon numbers probably weren't meant to make sense. I doubt [V] gave that much attention to details
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scotty on May 26, 2010, 12:22:41 pm
It's wrong primarily and foremost by the fact that we have canon numbers that disagree with it.

Besides that, it's in error to assume that by averaging total crew across total guns you can find average crew for a gun.  It doesn't work like that .  Bigger guns (usually) require more personnel to operate, just because they're orders of magnitude more complicated than smaller scale guns.  FreeSpace guns are, as stated previously, all the way up to several times larger than your already quite large fighter.  I think some of the bigger turrets on the Orion might actually contain roughly the same volume as a large modern cruiser (remember that scaling picture with the Ursas parked on a carrier?  They're not tiny.  At all.  And those guns are bigger.).

tl;dr: No, we can't, because we don't know the baseline, and because that kind of extrapolation is flawed.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: TrashMan on May 27, 2010, 07:09:39 am
It's wrong primarily and foremost by the fact that we have canon numbers that disagree with it.

We do? Where are those numbers?

Cause the number I sued  approximated crew distribution, not the total number of crew members


Quote
Besides that, it's in error to assume that by averaging total crew across total guns you can find average crew for a gun.  It doesn't work like that .  Bigger guns (usually) require more personnel to operate, just because they're orders of magnitude more complicated than smaller scale guns.  FreeSpace guns are, as stated previously, all the way up to several times larger than your already quite large fighter.  I think some of the bigger turrets on the Orion might actually contain roughly the same volume as a large modern cruiser (remember that scaling picture with the Ursas parked on a carrier?  They're not tiny.  At all.  And those guns are bigger.).

It's average because it assumes an average sized gun. You can increase gun size, but there will be a crew limit, simply due to automation and the jobs that actually need doing.
A small AA gun typicly had 2 crew members, the large 16-inch turret had a dozen. We can similary assume that smaller turrets on the Orion will require less crew members.

Again, this is simply an approximation, but it's pretty safe to assume that a turret will require less total crew than a fighter.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Wanderer on May 28, 2010, 12:38:55 am
Modern turrets rarely have any need of actual crew. Though they often do have a position for the gunner as well as some one being assigned as the gunner. Centralized firing control room (i.e. gunnery control) is where the action takes places. In older guns most of the crew assigned for the gun were loaders as ammo loading systems rarely were fully automatic. In scifi weapon which apparently does not need ammo there is no need for loaders. So it could be assumed that there would be a gunner (or 2 - 3 for bigger/longer ranged ones) for each turret for local control as well as one per every few turrets in control room plus the gunnery officer.

Then there would be command crew, pilot, navigation, command, sensor, comms, the usual as well as some other critical personnel. And those times 3 or 4 according on how many shifts the crew operates. Plus reserves. Though duties can be shared so number could be lower than that (for example gunnery officer could well be part of the command crew in one of the shifts). And then you still need the engineering and maintenance crews, medical, flight staff, clerks, marines/security troopers, etc...

For flight staff for say a fighter of the size the ones seen in FS you could estimate that you'll need the pilot or two (and possibly a gunner) to fly it, and several mechanics/engineers to keep it flying (from size you could say from 2 - 3 mechanics for Uly to something closer to 10 or so for Ursa and the likes). And then you'll need the rest of the ground crew. Flight ops, landing officers etc.

In the end the numbers could vary so greatly that there is no real point in trying to guess them without better info to start with.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Narwhal on May 28, 2010, 03:51:14 am
I had a thought:
Orion: HP = 100,000, crew = 10,000
Sobek: HP = 80,000, Crew = 8000
Fenris: HP =8000/10,000 crew =(?)= 800-1000?

its just a pattern ive noticed. however, snce the leviathan and fenris share a hull, they should have similar crew requirements
Well, maybe it just works like Star Control. Number of crews = HP. That's why when you blow a cruiser up, you have the commander saying "Noooo". He is always the last one dying.

    :nervous:
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Marcov on May 28, 2010, 10:45:21 am
I had a thought:
Orion: HP = 100,000, crew = 10,000
Sobek: HP = 80,000, Crew = 8000
Fenris: HP =8000/10,000 crew =(?)= 800-1000?

its just a pattern ive noticed. however, snce the leviathan and fenris share a hull, they should have similar crew requirements

Err...where exactly did you get the "8000" figure for the Sobek? Maybe considering the Colossus is 3 times longer and has 30,000 crew (3 times more crew)?

Seriously I think I'd base it more on size than HP. Volition states that the Colossus had a crew of 30,000 just because it's 3 times bigger than an Orion.

The Fenris is 250 meters (8 times smaller than an Orion), so, on Volition calcs, would have about 1,250 people (you made quite a reasonable estimate right there  :nod:).

Right, and that'd put somewhere above 90,000 crew on an Icanus  :lol:.

nonsense, the Leviathan must have 3.5 times the crew of the Fenris.
They just shoved more people in there for damage control, hence it can take more punishment. :P

What, you thought they actually used better armor?

Wouldn't it mean that the Leviathan probably had less crew? The Leviathan is EXACTLY the same size (but not mass) as the Fenris, so we can assume it has a much thicker armor. That would limit the crew.

Unless, of course, they used a more durable, expensive metal.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 28, 2010, 12:44:43 pm
In "A Lion At The Door," if you lose the Dashor, the debreif will say that 8,000 vasuadans died
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on May 28, 2010, 01:23:53 pm
I'm still wondering what those hundreds or thousands of people on a cruiser or corvette would be doing. Not counting damage control, what is there that couldn't be handled much more efficiently by sufficiently advanced computers and robots?

Why does the Nimitz need a crew of several thousand while an oil tanker can get by with a handful of people on the crew?

Can anyone else answer this? I'd be interested in finding out.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dragon on May 28, 2010, 01:45:29 pm
A Nimitz is a carrier and a warship, so you can expect it to get damaged and have to make repairs at sea.
Some of the crew may also be killed in action, so you'd have to replace them.
You need crew for aircraft servicing and maintaining the nuclear reactor, as well as operating weaponary and radars.
An oil tanker is pretty much just a floating barrel, so you only need navigation and engineering crew to operate it.
Also, you could run a Nimitz with a crew only slightly larger than crew of a tanker (it's called "skeleton crew"), but it won't be capable of fighting or launching planes.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 28, 2010, 02:24:02 pm
Noone got my joke, oh well.

But yeah, a skeleton crewed Orion probably have as much combat effectiveness as the Bastion in Clash of the Titans (FS2)...doesn't shoot doesn't launch fighters. Just moves (that's all an oil tanker has to do).
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: headdie on May 28, 2010, 04:42:33 pm
A Nimitz is a carrier and a warship, so you can expect it to get damaged and have to make repairs at sea.
Some of the crew may also be killed in action, so you'd have to replace them.
You need crew for aircraft servicing and maintaining the nuclear reactor, as well as operating weaponary and radars.
An oil tanker is pretty much just a floating barrel, so you only need navigation and engineering crew to operate it.
Also, you could run a Nimitz with a crew only slightly larger than crew of a tanker (it's called "skeleton crew"), but it won't be capable of fighting or launching planes.

there is also things like command and control for the supporting taskforce, crew rotation for the day which something like tipples the number on board. You also have things like cooks for all those crew and medical staff (i believe Nimitz like most carriers has numerous surgical suites as well as various wards which need staffing), i also believe Nimitz carrys a number of marine guards.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 28, 2010, 11:13:36 pm
Noone got my joke, oh well.

But yeah, a skeleton crewed Orion probably have as much combat effectiveness as the Bastion in Clash of the Titans (FS2)...doesn't shoot doesn't launch fighters. Just moves (that's all an oil tanker has to do).

Funny ... I thought the Bastion still fires some of its laser turrets.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Droid803 on May 28, 2010, 11:21:10 pm
It does?
Well...
In my defense, those turrets are pretty much useless so I never payed any attention to them. The Aeolus cruisers do the job well enough.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 28, 2010, 11:40:24 pm
They do their job well, but the occasional Helios is still able to find its way past the flak and AAA screens.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: IronForge on May 28, 2010, 11:47:20 pm
I never saw any escape pod leave the bastion.

So that leaves me to conclude:

Its flown remotely or they all An Hero'd
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Hades on May 29, 2010, 12:25:56 am
I never saw any escape pod leave the bastion.

So that leaves me to conclude:

Its flown remotely or they all An Hero'd
The cutscene following the mission indicates it was flown remotely.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on May 29, 2010, 12:28:59 am

Funny ... I thought the Bastion still fires some of its laser turrets.

remotely controlled from a command ship?

Quote
The cutscene following the mission indicates it was flown remotely.

iirc, all the cutscene establishes it was detonated remotely. logically however, i dont think anyone was stupid (pronounced "heroic and brave") enough to actually be on a ship that was gonna go boom
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on May 29, 2010, 01:08:49 am
I could swear that in the breifing it said it would be flown remotely.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: QuantumDelta on May 29, 2010, 05:59:58 am
Not in the COTTII mission briefing at least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Ib9wt2bCk
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on May 30, 2010, 08:37:14 am
Command probably gave it a cheap AI to fly it in a straight line and replaced everything inside with some kind of rudimentary auto-targeting system.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: karajorma on May 31, 2010, 08:35:32 am
In "A Lion At The Door," if you lose the Dashor, the debreif will say that 8,000 vasuadans died

Oh no it doesn't.

Quote
You survived your first sortie against the Shivans. Though we had only a small opposing force to contend with, survival is half the battle. Tragically, the 6,000 Vasudan officers and crew on board the Dahshor were not so lucky. As a unit, we must accept the blame for this catastrophe. Had we fought harder, we could have saved that cruiser. A Vasudan service for the dead will be held at 0100 hours on Deck 36.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Bonehead on June 03, 2010, 06:21:03 pm
If GTC Fortune gets destroyed in "Endgame" it says that "Thousands of courageous officers and crew sacrificed their lives for the GTVA. We as a squadron must ask ourselves what could have been done to avert this tragedy. "  Same thing though if Monitor gets destroyed.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on June 04, 2010, 09:56:56 am
I wish I had a good idea for a welcoming text...

:welcomeorange:

And back to topic:

It's pretty strange that they wrote "thousands" after a cruiser got destroyed...

Unless they were lazy and made a single text for both cases, or the Fortune was also meant to be a corvette early in development.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on June 04, 2010, 10:15:11 am
I think the most likely scenario is that the size of the ship's crew changes depending on the mission/operation it's undertaking. A cruiser may not need more than 300 to assault a convoy when it's operating from an Arcadia or a Ganymede, but it may need a crew in the thousands to sustain it when it operates without support in the nebula.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: BengalTiger on June 04, 2010, 03:34:51 pm
I'd personally go with a smaller crew on long range, unsupported missions.

Unless they have a way to produce unlimited amounts of food.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Paladin327 on June 04, 2010, 08:07:51 pm
lets cite precident here, the Carrack-class cruiser from Star Wars, which serves similar purpose to the fenris light assaut, anti-fighter) which is roughtly 50% larger than the fenris-class. (carrack is 350 meters, fenris is 250). the carrack has a crew of 1092. so scale that back to about 2/3 of that, and we get roughly 700 crew, but my opinion thinks that would be a bit igh, given the shape of the fenris. but that's just what i think, nothing i can back up
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Dilmah G on June 04, 2010, 09:43:16 pm
I'd personally go with a smaller crew on long range, unsupported missions.

Unless they have a way to produce unlimited amounts of food.
I'd assume with a ship of that size, you'd be able to store a very large amount of food and water. But remember, when a ship is acting in the nebula out there, it needs to be more or less self-sufficient, and carry the necessary crew to make a lot of field repairs.
Title: Re: Crew info on cruisers?
Post by: Scourge of Ages on June 04, 2010, 09:46:25 pm
So, back to the original original question, the most popular numbers tend to be between 600 and 1000 crew for a cruiser.