Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on October 17, 2010, 10:57:10 pm
-
The general opinion of it has been for a great many years that it sucks. Recently it has occured to me that part of the problem has been it may not have been portrayed properly. If we look at it's design, it actually resembles a strike carrier more than an actual destroyer for the following reasons:
1.) The "wings" on its aft quarter give it an ability that no other destroyer has: To launch multiple wings of fighters and bombers simultaneously. The wings allow it to immediately deploy 4 wings of fighters and bombers as soon as it jumps in, plus the additional wing from its main fighterbay. So immediately you'd be facing potentially 3 wings of bombers and 2 wings of fighters, plus whatever escort fighter wing jumped in with it. Making things worse, those bombers would be covered not only by one or two wings of escort fighters but also the Hecate's rather extensive array of flak guns and anti-fighter beams which can be an lightly armored interceptor pilot's worst nightmare.
2.) The forward mounted BGreen gives it the choice to devestate a cruiser, punch a big hole a corvette, or soften up a destroyer immediately after it jumps in. By the time the bomber wings (probably Artimeses) get to their target corvette or destroyer, it likely has recharged and can add a nasty punch to the bomber's attacks.
-
This is a good analysis, but it's also what people have been saying for years. :nervous:
(In BP the ship's basically been reclassified as a carrier, I think there's a line to that effect in m10.)
The forward BGreen is terrible though.
-
It's true that people have considered it a carrier in the sense that it generally hangs back and lets other ships do its dirty work. The difference is we've yet to see it actually support a strike directly in the manner I've described.
-
It's true that people have considered it a carrier in the sense that it generally hangs back and lets other ships do its dirty work. The difference is we've yet to see it actually support a strike directly in the manner I've described.
Really? I think it's been used that way a number of times.
-
Heck, that's basically how its used in the FS2 campaign.
The Aquitaine just sits around launching fighters and makes a beeline for the nearest jump node at the first sign of trouble.
Its beam helps it stay alive and get there (though effectiveness marginal).
When they want to send in a real warship they use an Orion (or a Typhon/Hatshepsut)
I don't think it has ever been portrayed wrong per se, maybe except the Phoenicia's dubious deployment in Bearbaiting. It is no "destroyer" like the Orion or Hattie, that's for sure.
-
This is a good analysis, but it's also what people have been saying for years. :nervous:
It does exclude the part where people note that a carrier design is a complete misstep in light of the subspace drive, so it more or less really does suck. :P
-
This is a good analysis, but it's also what people have been saying for years. :nervous:
It does exclude the part where people note that a carrier design is a complete misstep in light of the subspace drive, so it more or less really does suck. :P
If you bring in some kind of fuzzy externality like deployment duration it may make sense. Or maybe the ship's got a more agile subspace drive or something. You could spackle a justification together.
-
This is a good analysis, but it's also what people have been saying for years. :nervous:
It does exclude the part where people note that a carrier design is a complete misstep in light of the subspace drive, so it more or less really does suck. :P
Again, that's where the strike support ability comes in. Actually even with subspace fighters still have a fairly limited endurance.
-
You can't always be supporting a strike. The point is, if it's in the system, it's vulnerable to surprise attack by capital and fightercraft. A destroyer can, in the worst case, call upon its own fighters to defend it against fightercraft attack, and this is often the best defense.
But against beam-armed capital ships the only sure defense is to be able to fire your own beams back. The Hecate can't do it in a meaningful fashion; it needs an escort at the least.
-
a carrier is useful in the GTVA navy as it provides flexibility to the GTVA fighter force deployment which I would suggest is a key part of GTVA defence doctrine. St the end of the day a planet base or installation cant move between systems where as a destroyer can meaning that within hours a system can be reinforced by 150+ fighters per Hecate along with the support logistics behind those fighters making them vastly more flexible than they would otherwise be while minimising the impact on local defence forces such as the need to find staging locations for those fighter craft.
-
Delivering 150 fighters aboard a base that can be easily destroyed by an errant Lilth is not a useful thing to the GTVA. Now, it's possible they didn't realize this pre-Second Incursion, but afterwards? If the Hecate was merely ferrying them to pre-positioned bases and supplies, this would be a reasonable method. But we have no evidence to support this.
-
I think the Hecate was in many ways a reactive design. "Man, our destroyers sucked back in the Great War; they didn't get ****-all done. Man, fighters and bombers rock. They rock a lot more than a couple extra BGreens. Let's cut costs by chopping down her armament and throw in bigger crew facilities and (various stuff related to fighters) instead."
And then, yeah, Liliths.
-
When the Hecate was designed, those high powerfull beams dont existed. They dindt know anything about the Lilith with an Lred. I think not even the Aeolus was...
-
They knew about the Lucifer's "beams" though.
-
When the Hecate was designed, those high powerfull beams dont existed. They dindt know anything about the Lilith with an Lred. I think not even the Aeolus was...
Are you sure? Cite? I didn't think we knew exactly when the Hecate was designed or when beams came into play.
-
I would imagine that the Hecate was designed with beams in mind. But if you look at the Hecate's armament, it is actually decent if you're taking on cruisers and corvettes with SGreens and TerSlashes. The problem is, they never predicted facing ships like the Ravana and Lilith with their absurdly powerful LReds. But if you're going to be facing ships with beams comparable to the GTVA's, the Hecate's armament is probably sufficient to defend itself until it can bring bombers to bear.
-
When the Hecate was designed, those high powerfull beams dont existed. They dindt know anything about the Lilith with an Lred. I think not even the Aeolus was...
Are you sure? Cite? I didn't think we knew exactly when the Hecate was designed or when beams came into play.
The Hecate entered service before the Second Shivan Incursion. Before the Second Shivan Incursion, the only Shivan ship to have beam weaponry was the Lucifer. There were no Liliths with inconveniently painful LReds to worry about.
-
When the Hecate was designed, those high powerfull beams dont existed. They dindt know anything about the Lilith with an Lred. I think not even the Aeolus was...
Are you sure? Cite? I didn't think we knew exactly when the Hecate was designed or when beams came into play.
The Hecate entered service before the Second Shivan Incursion. Before the Second Shivan Incursion, the only Shivan ship to have beam weaponry was the Lucifer. There were no Liliths with inconveniently painful LReds to worry about.
The point is over here, you missed it. Or at least I think you did; I assumed he was talking about the BGreen and such.
-
I thought we were continuing the conversation from NGTM-1R's post.
Delivering 150 fighters aboard a base that can be easily destroyed by an errant Lilth is not a useful thing to the GTVA.
-
The Lilith is a problem to any destroyer anyway...
The Hecate seems to be a clear responce to Shivan tactics in the Great War, when they got pwned by swarms of shivan fighters and bombers. Capacity and fast ship deployment is the key of the Hecate to counter this.
Carriers are supposed to have inferior hull plating and firepower, they need room for the ships and its logictics (armaments, parts, a long etc).
Considering that the Hecate is a good carrier, its firepower and armor are excellent.
I'm a X-Universe player too, so i bit used to the carrier concept, in that game the carriers has MINIMAL firepower, just to defend itself against smaller to medium craft.
-
I agree with those asumptions, GTVA designed the Hecate before the second shivan incursion, their plans might not have included a frontal shivan confrontation for the Hecate, IMO its more like a ship to "keep the house clean", meaning: controlling lots of start systems with a movile and versatile platform that can display territorial power against a weaker enemy.
Hecate is the ideal weapon against guerrilla-kind tactics, the ones used by the so much hated pirates, illegal corporations, etc, etc.
For the confrontation against the Shivans, the Colossus was made, and thats about the only thing they did.
-
Yeah, I figure after 30+ years of relative peace(at least no species-annihilation-level threats, anyway), the GTVA, especially the Terran half, is trying to go cheap. Slow-handling Myrmidons, unremarkable-speed Perseus, reduced-gun Herc IIs, the Boanerges, etc. Deimos were going to replace the departing Leviathans and Fenri, and "become the foundation of tomorrow's fleet", suggesting to me that they might have been intended to replace Orions in the direct combat role, as they eventually retired.
The Vasudans replaced the Osiris with the Bakha as was needed, but are otherwise still heavily reliant on Great War-era fighters. Typhons apparently couldn't be retrofitted with beams as easily, so the Vasudans were forced to create the Hatshepsut as a full-on replacement; with two fighterbays, the Typhon arguably already was very fighter-oriented(compared to the Orion), so, in the upgrade, they gave it serious capability in direct combat while preserving the Typhon's carrier capability. The Sobek arguably looks more like a super-cruiser, with half the number of slash beams of the Deimos, and a much sleeker, smaller hull.
Either this was partly necessary due to resources diverted to the Colossus, or they simply were unable to justify to the populace of the struggling GTVA why the military needed cutting-edge-everything, and just intended to crush most minor uprisings/rebellions with superior training and numbers.
~insert parallels to post-Cold War military spending here~
-
Hmmn, I don't get all the raggin on the Hecate. Though it doesn't seem like a direct combatant. It's beams fire in every direction, which suggests to me that it's more of a defensive layout. It can hold off enemy ships until it can make good on its escape. It has as much firepower as a deimos plus a BGreen at the nose.
Talking about turret layout on a Destroyer is largely irrelevant in my opinion. The threat from any destroyer should not be the turrets, it should be the fighter compliment. If you're able to hide in some nook firing at the hull it means the enemy fighters aren't doing their job and that in turn the FREDder hasn't done his job.
To me the big guns in the second incursion era are not the Destroyers but the Corvettes. It's their job to get in and take down the enemy. Cruisers provide patrol or escort craft. Destroyers deliver fighters to the battlefield.
The Shivan philosophy is obviously different, at least with the Ravana. Though one could argue that the Demon is in many ways similar in layout to the Hecate with all around firepower.
-
Which all basically ignores the point that, frankly, even the Orion grasped back in FS1: a carrier is a Bad Plan. Since it is impossible to isolate the ship from the battlefield, blocking access either physically or by weapons fire, any ship is subject to surprise attack without warning and must be able to adequately defend itself.
This is even more important for a destroyer, upon which the responsibility for fightercraft protection for the fleet rests. A destroyer that's having to flee attack is not conducting flight ops. We saw it happen twice with the Aquitaine. A destroyer must be able to stand its ground, keep the fighters flying without interruption, to be an effective instrument. The Hecate couldn't, and didn't, do that.
-
There is no need for such a thing as "holding the ground", what ground are we talking about when you are introduced in an universe where you can be here or there in a fraction of a second?
Holding ground is inviting the enemy to crush you, that's why fighters got their jump drives, that's why destroyers have their jump drives, so you can run.
It seems more plausible to have a destroyer that can jump further and faster than one that can stand its ground alone.
The destroyer leaving the area would not interfere with the deployment and retrieval of fighters.
-
Which all basically ignores the point that, frankly, even the Orion grasped back in FS1: a carrier is a Bad Plan. Since it is impossible to isolate the ship from the battlefield, blocking access either physically or by weapons fire, any ship is subject to surprise attack without warning and must be able to adequately defend itself.
What's the alternative to a carrier? A Base that never moves? Mini carriers like the Shivan corvette? What's better a fleet with dedicated fighter carriers or a fleet with below-average warships that can also launch fighters? (ie Moloch)
Everyone always talks about surprise attacks, but how are you going to surprise them in the first place? First you have to find them, second you have to make sure they don't know youve found them, and third you have to hope they don't move between you finding them and your forces launching an attack.
There's subspace tracking, but if tracking does only exit vectors then the obvious thing to do is have fighters make multiple jumps back to the carrier so they can't be tracked.
Destroyers are putting all of one's eggs in one basket, but they also provide centralized and coordinated control of fighter ops. Even if you don't have a dedicated carrier, you still need a ship dedicated to controlling the overall operation. So then do you have a ship without fighters doing it? Or do you have one of these hybrid Moloch ships doing it. Then you've got all your command eggs in one fragile basket. Also do the moloch-type all have command facilities? or just a sub-line of ships. And would these sub-ships have inferior combat and launch capabilities compared to the rest of the vessels? (making them more of a target). Or do you have another ship altogether who's sole purpose is to coordinate the fighters. Does this ship stay with the fleet? Is it hiding? Is it just as vulnerable to surprise attack as any larger dedicated carrier ship?
Carriers certainly have pros and cons, but I've yet to see anyone provide a viable alternative to that model. Maybe the answer lies in some long forgotten thread (this probably the dozenth rehash of this discussion).
-
From what I mentioned, I'd say the Terrans are going for a more "balanced" battlegroup, with higher-mobility corvettes with fairly heavy anti-fighter defenses to engage incoming warships, rather than lumbering destroyer broadsides.
Blue-water carriers rarely travel alone, so why should space-bourne carriers? Canon might have been influenced by at-the-time computer specs. The flagship of a fleet should almost certainly be guarded by at least a couple of corvettes at all times, or perhaps at the very least(now), have them ready to "shock-jump" in and shred a hostile warship from a blind(or at least weaker) spot in its beam arcs.
On a side note, I also suspect the withdrawal of fighter-size intersystem subspace drives(with the exception of specific special operations) was another cost-cutting measure. The related command briefing in FS1 made it sound, to me, like all fighters and bombers were now going to be outfitted with intersystem drives, now that such a thing was possible. If a destroyer/carrier could isolate itself by being an intersystem jump or two away from its fighters'/bombers' targets, it could have even more advance warning to vacate the area(recon fighters patroling the other side of the node), and would have no/much less risk of stranding its fighters. (Of course, I'm sure that would alter the subspace-combat metagame far more than that.)
-
Which all basically ignores the point that, frankly, even the Orion grasped back in FS1: a carrier is a Bad Plan. Since it is impossible to isolate the ship from the battlefield, blocking access either physically or by weapons fire, any ship is subject to surprise attack without warning and must be able to adequately defend itself.
This is even more important for a destroyer, upon which the responsibility for fightercraft protection for the fleet rests. A destroyer that's having to flee attack is not conducting flight ops. We saw it happen twice with the Aquitaine. A destroyer must be able to stand its ground, keep the fighters flying without interruption, to be an effective instrument. The Hecate couldn't, and didn't, do that.
If it gets ambushed it can either launch more bombers, fight back with its BGreen, launch some more fighters, call for reinforcements, or bug out all together.
The reason why carriers of some kind or another are needed is because fighters and bombers operating in system must have a place to re-fuel and re-arm. Moving to another system takes a lot more time.
-
Yeah, but NGTM-1R is arguing that an Orion-style destroyer does that way better.
Bear in mind the Hecate's BGreen is one of the ****tiest beam mounts ever. It's ridiculously absurdly easy to take out.
-
Yeah, but NGTM-1R is arguing that an Orion-style destroyer does that way better.
Does what better? Fight back?
There are more in-universe factors that determine the superiority of one ship over another than what weapons it mounts.
It could be easier and/or cheaper to maintain and operate, have better living conditions, longer operational times, better command and control facilities, greater storage capacity, superior subspace drives, and all manner of other potential factors that don't directly affect gameplay and the statistical data behind it.
-
Yeah, that was exactly my argument earlier about externalities.
-
Well it's two BIG modular engines on the rear would alone indicate a superiority at making consecutive jumps within the same system.
-
There is no need for such a thing as "holding the ground", what ground are we talking about when you are introduced in an universe where you can be here or there in a fraction of a second?
Holding ground is inviting the enemy to crush you, that's why fighters got their jump drives, that's why destroyers have their jump drives, so you can run.
It seems more plausible to have a destroyer that can jump further and faster than one that can stand its ground alone.
The destroyer leaving the area would not interfere with the deployment and retrieval of fighters.
Since you fail to understand my metaphor, allow me to expand upon it.
Flight ops depend on a base. The fighters and bombers depend on a base. And when that base can move, it causes problems as anyone with even a rudimentary grounding in the history carrier aviation would know.
Point Option, where you return to, moves in an unanticipated way. This, at the very least, must be communicated to fightercraft in flight so they know where to return to; this takes time and also introduces some risk. Similarly while a ship is in transit, and for some period of time after exiting subspace, it will not be able to recover fightercraft. If you have to run away from every Lilth, then the Shivans can easily keep you hopping using only three or so. (And recall the Shivans likely can afford to do this.) Your Hecate is now useless.
A destroyer, if threatened by an enemy ship that isn't at least its equivalent, needs to be able to kill that ship and continue the mission without interruption. Ideally, it should also be able to kill something roughly equivalent as well in conjunction with its escorting fighters. The Hecate does not do either.
What's the alternative to a carrier?
The existing destroyer, as embodied by the Hapshepsut, Orion, and Typhon. Able to carry a significant number of fightercraft and yet capably defend itself against hostile cruisers and corvettes.
Everyone always talks about surprise attacks, but how are you going to surprise them in the first place? First you have to find them, second you have to make sure they don't know youve found them, and third you have to hope they don't move between you finding them and your forces launching an attack.
Simple recon. We're fighting the Shivans, remember, we don't really know what they can do, but we do know they can probably blanket the system in fighters for recon duty if they have to. And they demonstrated an ability to locate targets regardless of whatever countermeasures were taken in the Great War, considering you were forced to escort ships carrying top-secret projects delving into antimatter weaponry that would have been well-hidden.
If it gets ambushed it can either launch more bombers, fight back with its BGreen, launch some more fighters, call for reinforcements, or bug out all together.
The reason why carriers of some kind or another are needed is because fighters and bombers operating in system must have a place to re-fuel and re-arm. Moving to another system takes a lot more time.
Bombers take time (and thereby expose the ship to damage), and take up space on the flight deck that isn't being used for more pressing concerns, are not guaranteed since bombs may be intercepted, and could also be used to contribute to more offensively substantive strikes. The best weapon for destroying incoming fightercraft is a fighter, but the best weapon for attacking capitals remains the beam cannon. An Orion is better-equipped to handle a variety of threats than a Hecate. It's already placed its faith in escorting fighters for defense against hostile fightercraft, as it should, and it has an array of beam cannon for dealing with errant cruisers and corvettes.
I'm not arguing against carrying fighters; I'm saying that the nature of FS combat means that a purely or even mostly carrier design is a misstep. The hybrid presented by a Hapshepsut- or Orion-like ship (or for that matter a Titan or Raynor) represents a more effective and efficient tool.
-
The ship moving around does not present a hell of an impossible problem to fix...the destruction of the Galatea should have ****ed up it's entire fighter planning on the system, yet the responce to return to the Bastion by command was swift enough, then a repositioning of the ship at different coordinates would not present a problem IMO.
The secrecy of that intel might, on the other hand...
Just for the record, the Hecate is indeed a crappy destroyer, but if you look at it as a carrier it's really a decently planned vessel, and the fact that it can't hold it's ground does not make a hell lot of difference, fighters have jump drives, they can be rescheduled to return to different coordinates as evidenced in many missions throughout the retail campaign.
-
I agree that the Hecate kind of pales once we know what the Shivans are capable of, though much as I'd like to think the Shivans will start slapping some armor on their Ravana 'fangs'(hey, they toughened up the Demon 60% since FS1), I'd like to think some refits will be done to the Hecate post-SSI(turrets added/swapped/other new technology incorporated).
But again, we have accept that in-universe, the Hecate was never originally made to fight FS2 Shivans, as there were no FS2 Shivans to compare to.
I also still think destroyers in a real 'war' situation in the 'modern' worlduniverse need corvette, or at the very least, Aeolus escort. Corvettes also have the benefit of being able to be rotated off the front line, and replaced with other corvettes, rather than dealing with the arguably more 'permanent' damage likely done to the fighter-carrying destroyer that has to slug its battles out by itself. You break your destroyer, you've got to send out a whole new one(possibly also arranging for the transfer of materials, fighters and/or pilots from the damaged one), and that will be far more disruptive to battle plans than swapping out a corvette.
I would dare say that nothing smaller than a corvette should 'really' be a dire threat, as long as there's a wing of assault fighters/interceptors kept on standby to pop beam turrets. Even assuming you nerf Trebs and Maxims(half range, ballistic ammo count?) a bit for balance/realism's sake; operating so close to 'home', it shouldn't be much of a problem. Nothing that Shivan technology would make impossible to survive, anyway. Multiple Liliths aren't going to make a Hatshepsut much happer than they would a Hecate.
-
Perhaps it's not a question of Orion vs. Hecate anyway. Having a fleet of corvettes at all could have been conditional on going with the Hecate instead of a ship with buffer beams. If you view it that way, then all that happened was the beam component got split off from the fighterbay component so the beams can keep shooting even while the carrier hangs back.
-
n swapping out a corvette.
I would dare say that nothing smaller than a corvette should 'really' be a dire threat, as long as there's a wing of assault fighters/interceptors kept on standby to pop beam turrets. Even assuming you nerf Trebs and Maxims(half range, ballistic ammo count?) a bit for balance/realism's sake; operating so close to 'home', it shouldn't be much of a problem. Nothing that Shivan technology would make impossible to survive, anyway. Multiple Liliths aren't going to make a Hatshepsut much happer than they would a Hecate.
The Hatshepsut, like the Sobek have minimal firepower if any on their undersides as well. Get any significant firepower beneath them and they're pretty much boned. Most ships in the game can be outmanouevered by a precise attack. The exception being the Lilith and the Cain which have such wide arcs on their turreted beam.
-
The Lilith can't shoot up.
Doesn't really matter, since cruisers and corvettes can turn pretty fast.
Destroyers have a lot more trouble maneuvering.
-
Bear in mind the Hecate's BGreen is one of the ****tiest beam mounts ever. It's ridiculously absurdly easy to take out.
When you look at it that way, the Ravana's main beam mounts are equally ****ty. :p
-
Except that LReds are about a million times better than BGreens, seeing as they have no cooldown and can basically fire continuously until the turret is destroyed, or the target is dead.
Its not sitting there for 30 seconds waiting politely for people to disarm it.
Also, the Ravana's turret mounts are significantly harder to hit with primaries (and basically never get blasted out by beams) than the sodding huge beam dish in front of the Hecate, which routinely gets killed by incoming direct-fire beams, even.
In a warship fight (without superblobs or torpedoes), you can expect the Ravana to keep its beams (regardless of how low-HP they are) but you can't say the same about the Hecate's.
-
Bear in mind the Hecate's BGreen is one of the ****tiest beam mounts ever. It's ridiculously absurdly easy to take out.
When you look at it that way, the Ravana's main beam mounts are equally ****ty. :p
They're not, though - they're actually pretty small even if they're fragile. The Hecate's BGreen is literally a gigantic bullseye. A single fighter with Tempests could take it out in a couple seconds.
-
The Hecate entered service before the Second Shivan Incursion. Before the Second Shivan Incursion, the only Shivan ship to have beam weaponry was the Lucifer. There were no Liliths with inconveniently painful LReds to worry about.
That is flawed thinking...taking an enemy as completely static.
The GTVA knew shivans had beam technology. After all, the Lucy had it. They just assumed the shivies will never install them on anything else, which is just daft.
-
You don't know that they did assume that. Hell, that's probably why nobody was too surprised about beam weapons on Shivan ships in general when they showed up again. What they didn't assume, and what I'm prepared to excuse them for not considering, is a cruiser that mounts a beam cannon several times more powerful than the Lucifer's.
-
You don't know that they did assume that. Hell, that's probably why nobody was too surprised about beam weapons on Shivan ships in general when they showed up again. What they didn't assume, and what I'm prepared to excuse them for not considering, is a cruiser that mounts a beam cannon several times more powerful than the Lucifer's.
In a sense, even THAT counts as 'taking an enemy as completely static'.
-
Having specialized carriers frees up a lot more space on destroyers to make them much more heavily armed and armored than they would otherwise be without being weighed down with fighter and bomber wings. This way destoyers become much more direct threats than they otherwise would be. Having big fighterbays forced the Orion and Hatshepsut destroyers to make major trade offs in their designs, such as a near total lack of anti-fighter weaponry on the Orion.
-
Having specialized carriers frees up a lot more space on destroyers to make them much more heavily armed and armored than they would otherwise be without being weighed down with fighter and bomber wings. This way destoyers become much more direct threats than they otherwise would be. Having big fighterbays forced the Orion and Hatshepsut destroyers to make major trade offs in their designs, such as a near total lack of anti-fighter weaponry on the Orion.
But that's not helpful if the carriers can't conduct flight ops because they're being chased around by corvettes. There's real value to a hybrid design.
I think the Orion had so few turrets because it's from FS1. And while the Hatshepsut probably has flaws, isn't it considered one of the better (best) canon GTVA destroyers?
-
Having big fighterbays forced the Orion and Hatshepsut destroyers to make major trade offs in their designs, such as a near total lack of anti-fighter weaponry on the Orion.
That's not even a trade-off. You have fighters available for defense, you use them. The Orion may place more faith in its fightercraft to defend it, but that's the stronger system. And an Orion is better-designed to allow escorting fighters to defend it as well, compared to the Hecate's tendency towards giant rambling superstructures.
-
The Orion was also designed and put into service before Tsunami and Harbinger strength bombs and shields. It simply didn't need super-advanced anti-fighter weaponry to deal with hostiles, fighters were a GREAT deterrent.
-
But that's not helpful if the carriers can't conduct flight ops because they're being chased around by corvettes.
Carriers shouldn't be left alone.
That's not even a trade-off. You have fighters available for defense, you use them. The Orion may place more faith in its fightercraft to defend it, but that's the stronger system. And an Orion is better-designed to allow escorting fighters to defend it as well, compared to the Hecate's tendency towards giant rambling superstructures.
And the result was multiple Orions were lost to bomber strikes in the Great War.
The Orion was also designed and put into service before Tsunami and Harbinger strength bombs and shields. It simply didn't need super-advanced anti-fighter weaponry to deal with hostiles, fighters were a GREAT deterrent.
That was probably true for most of the TV war, but in the last couple of years of that war it was starting to show the strain.
The Amun is the Vasudans' heaviest bomber class ship. It carries a massive payload and has been responsible for the destruction of at least 3 Orion-class destroyers in the past 2 years. Fortunately, it is slow and has low maneuverability, making it an easy target for our fighters. Fighter pilots should be wary of the two turrets on this ship: they are not to be ignored.
Even though those losses were spread out over two years, given that they have the main C&C facilities of the fleet and the resources that go into building them, that's still a major toll. And this was before shields and powerful bombs.
-
But that's not helpful if the carriers can't conduct flight ops because they're being chased around by corvettes.
Carriers shouldn't be left alone.
Now you're arguing against canon, because the Hecates are, over and over again.
-
Just because they shouldn't be left alone doesn't mean that they are anyway. :P
-
Just because they shouldn't be left alone doesn't mean that they are anyway. :P
Yeah but if the GTVA for some reason needs to deploy its destroyers alone presumably it does so for a reason, and thus it's a good idea for them to be able to defend themselves.
-
Perhaps they were left alone because command greatly overestimated the Hecate's ability to defend itself. While it does have at least some potential in an offensive role, in defence it is sorely lacking.
-
In fairness, I seem to recall that :v: frequently stated that it was problems with their hardware, not the Shivan's that meant there were no Beam Weapons in the first war, I think the lack of surprise exhibited in FS2 when they had them was meant to emphasise that.
As for the Hecate, I wonder if the development of the Colossus meant that it didn't get the respect it deserved on the drawing board? Maybe it was simply used as a testbed for the technologies that would later be incorporated onto the Big C. only larger?
-
Well, I guess you have to appreciate it in context. There are a few things to keep in mind.
A) Between the two incursions, it was highly unlikely the GTVA engaged any remotely decent hostile forces (excluding the NTF), and thus, the Hecates wouldn't have been battle-tested.
B) Leading on, IIRC, the Hecate was new around the time of FS2. This would've meant it probably wouldn't have been involved in any exercises prior to being deployed, and as such, the higher ups wouldn't have had a chance to properly evaluate the Hecate in the field and remodel their strategy around it. In particular, the protection it needed.
C) As far as the GTVA knew, the Shivans still used their FS1 era craft. Apart from a Lucifer, the Hecate probably would've been able to make short work of most Shivan vessels. Given the information the GTVA had when designing the Hecate (which was probably prior even to the NTF insurgency), it was decent IMO.
Its defensive layout on the other hand is just inexcusable. The designers had rocks in their head or placed *a lot* of faith in the fighter pilots, but you can do that when you design the ship to have a massive CAW.
-
B) Leading on, IIRC, the Hecate was new around the time of FS2. This would've meant it probably wouldn't have been involved in any exercises prior to being deployed, and as such, the higher ups wouldn't have had a chance to properly evaluate the Hecate in the field and remodel their strategy around it. In particular, the protection it needed.
C) As far as the GTVA knew, the Shivans still used their FS1 era craft. Apart from a Lucifer, the Hecate probably would've been able to make short work of most Shivan vessels. Given the information the GTVA had when designing the Hecate (which was probably prior even to the NTF insurgency), it was decent IMO.
on point B by the time the nebula swung round the GTVA had been warring with the ntf fo a year and a half and I simply cannot believe the Aquitane was the first Hecate to be deployed in that time so command should have been aware of the vulnerability of the class and have developed deployment patterns to reduce the danger to a resource of that tactical importance.
and point C would be plain idiotic and short sighted, why would command assume the shivans wouldn't seek to improve their fleet, either by new technology or better design and 30 years a lot of time, just look at the differences between the fleets of FS1 and 2 prior to the shivan encounter
-
Just because they shouldn't be left alone doesn't mean that they are anyway. :P
Like the B-17 in World War II. It had self-defense turrets, etc... it's a "Flying Fortress!"
Since the airfield bombings were not appreciably reducing German fighter strength, additional B-17 groups were formed, and Eaker ordered major missions deeper into Germany against important industrial targets. The 8th Air Force then targeted the ball-bearing factories in Schweinfurt, hoping to cripple the war effort there. The first raid on 17 August 1943 did not result in critical damage to the factories, with the 230 attacking B-17s being intercepted by an estimated 300 Luftwaffe fighters. The Germans shot down 36 aircraft with the loss of 200 men, and coupled with a raid earlier in the day against Regensburg, a total of 60 B-17s were lost that day.[55]
A second attempt on Schweinfurt on 14 October 1943 would later come to be known as "Black Thursday".[56] While the attack was successful at disrupting the entire works, severely curtailing work there for the remainder of the war, it was at an extreme cost.[57] Of the 291 attacking Fortresses, 60 were shot down over Germany, five crashed on approach to Britain, and 12 more were scrapped due to damage – a total loss of 77 B-17s.[58] One hundred and twenty-two bombers were damaged and needed repairs before their next flight. Out of 2,900 men in the crews, about 650 men did not return, although some survived as prisoners of war. Only 33 bombers landed without damage.[/i] These losses were a result of concentrated attacks by over 300 German fighters.[59]
Such high losses of air crews could not be sustained, and the USAAF, recognizing the vulnerability of heavy bombers to interceptors when operating alone, suspended daylight bomber raids deep into Germany until the development of an escort fighter that could protect the bombers all the way from the United Kingdom to Germany and back.
EDIT: Oh, and the carrier thing: (they think the same thing about current carriers, though I don't think they propose going back to battleships!)
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-01/fortress-sea-carrier-invulnerability-myth
-
Hecates are probably the product of a modern idea of Terran weapons analysts. As time went on, they discovered that BOMBERS are the real capship killers (imagine being able to decimate an entire destroyer with just a squad of heavy bombers in a minute or less?). 3 points:
1. Hecates obviously have a larger fighter/bomber capacity than the Orion (having multiple hangars)
2. Less beams, sacrificed for more anti-bomber weaponry.
3. An extremely complicated design, possibly to confuse enemies if they dare dogfight near it (I've recalled chasing Shivan fighters through the Aquitaine's superstructures and stuff...also give credit to it for damaging Shivan fighters clumsy enough to collide in its confusing maze).
In short, it's a "Bombers are the greatest threat nowadays, so we'll try as much to crush them and as much to carry out bombers vs. the enemy" mentality from the Terrans, that idealized the construction of the Hecate destroyer (or "Carrier", as many would stereotype it).
-
There are entirely too many anti-fighter blindspots for that to make sense. Mostly due to the complicated superstructure creating those blind spots.
-
Fortunately the Hecate can shoot through its hull. :P
-
In fairness, I seem to recall that :v: frequently stated that it was problems with their hardware, not the Shivan's that meant there were no Beam Weapons in the first war, I think the lack of surprise exhibited in FS2 when they had them was meant to emphasise that.
That's how I've always interpreted it too. Any Great War-era mission I write will have Shivans with beams and flak and Terrans still using blob turrets. ;)
-
ME HATES BLOBS.
High ROF lazors would have been better, like the guns used on UEF ships, with burst and all.
-
In fairness, I seem to recall that :v: frequently stated that it was problems with their hardware, not the Shivan's that meant there were no Beam Weapons in the first war, I think the lack of surprise exhibited in FS2 when they had them was meant to emphasise that.
That's how I've always interpreted it too. Any Great War-era mission I write will have Shivans with beams and flak and Terrans still using blob turrets. ;)
Frankly, flak as it is in FreeSpace would seem more of a Terran weapon honestly.
-
In fairness, I seem to recall that :v: frequently stated that it was problems with their hardware, not the Shivan's that meant there were no Beam Weapons in the first war, I think the lack of surprise exhibited in FS2 when they had them was meant to emphasise that.
That's how I've always interpreted it too. Any Great War-era mission I write will have Shivans with beams and flak and Terrans still using blob turrets. ;)
Frankly, flak as it is in FreeSpace would seem more of a Terran weapon honestly.
No. Don't confuse the science fiction stereotypes of 'Humans = boolets and exploding things vaguely akin to World War II; aliens = lazors and pretty lights' with...uh, the fact that we don't want to use that stereotype.
-
Well no, we sure wouldn't want that but flak, as it is now, doesn't seem all that Shivan quite frankly.
-
o rly why
-
o rly why
Because frankly, Shivans don't heavily arm their ships for antifighter work. So AAA, flak, much of anything pointed at fighters doesn't seem them. :P
-
o rly why
Because frankly, Shivans don't heavily arm their ships for antifighter work. So AAA, flak, much of anything pointed at fighters doesn't seem them. :P
no
-
Thank you for your clear, concise, meaningful reply.
-
Thank you for your clear, concise, meaningful reply.
yay
-
o rly why
Because frankly, Shivans don't heavily arm their ships for antifighter work. So AAA, flak, much of anything pointed at fighters doesn't seem them. :P
But without those things all the GTVA would need to do is spam fighters and bombers...
-
To a degree I do feel that the Shivans shouldn't have flak and AAA during the Great War (though...it'd be sort of cool to fly against...) in part because I think the fact that their technology develops between the two wars is part of what makes them not a cliche; even though they're ancient they seem to react and escalate in proportion to the GT(V)A's abilities.
But if you want to throw them into the Great War it could be cool. And hey maybe a custom PD solution for them back then could be fun.
-
To a degree I do feel that the Shivans shouldn't have flak and AAA during the Great War (though...it'd be sort of cool to fly against...)
Have you played "What if..." by SF-Junky? It's great :)
-
To a degree I do feel that the Shivans shouldn't have flak and AAA during the Great War (though...it'd be sort of cool to fly against...)
Have you played "What if..." by SF-Junky? It's great :)
I haven't played it, but I can verify from first-hand modding that the following combination is a lot of fun:
- Start with FSPort
- Shivan caps have FS2 weapons
- Shivan fighter max sidethrust bumped to 75% of their max forward velocity (also glide enabled)
- Shivan fighter AI somewhat sucky
- Terran/Vasudan fighter AI boosted
- Terran/Vasudan fighters get glide, and minimal sidethrust (something like 10% of forward thrust)
- Blob turrets get PI-like settings (Rapid-fire)
Makes the Shivans into a force with markedly superior technology and firepower. This is balanced somewhat by the fact that their fighter pilots are somewhat uninspired. And IMHO it's really, really fun. :) I was going to make a minicampaign based on it, then decided against it. I may eventually release the one mission I've actually developed significantly for it, but I don't know if/when that will happen.
-
Blob turrets get PI-like settings (Rapid-fire)
PI blobs were still pretty bad because the AI profile did not fundamentally address the issue, namely the random turret refire delay.
Shivan fighter AI somewhat sucky
why why why why nooo
At least in FS2 I believe there was a general tendency for the Shivan fighters to have stronger AI classes. This should be maintained'd'd'd!\
Makes the Shivans into a force with markedly superior technology and firepower. This is balanced somewhat by the fact that their fighter pilots are somewhat uninspired.
Ah, yes, I recognize this one! The aliens are overwhelming in their technological might, but it's lucky we have plucky, manly fighter pilots to go out there and overcome their droningly simpleminded fighters with derring-do!
Sorry for the snark, it sounds like awesome fun but I'm not totally comfortable with some of these directions in terms of maintaining the mood around the Shivans.
-
Shivan fighter AI somewhat sucky
why why why why nooo
At least in FS2 I believe there was a general tendency for the Shivan fighters to have stronger AI classes. This should be maintained'd'd'd!\
Makes the Shivans into a force with markedly superior technology and firepower. This is balanced somewhat by the fact that their fighter pilots are somewhat uninspired.
Ah, yes, I recognize this one! The aliens are overwhelming in their technological might, but it's lucky we have plucky, manly fighter pilots to go out there and overcome their droningly simpleminded fighters with derring-do!
Sorry for the snark, it sounds like awesome fun but I'm not totally comfortable with some of these directions in terms of maintaining the mood around the Shivans.
It's OK, I kind of expected you'd react that way. :p Yes, it's another cliche trope, but so is everything else. IMHO it's a mechanic that makes things fun. Besides, if you start with the premise that the Shivans are technologically superior, you have to give the humans something if you want any credible path for them to survive (and more importantly, you have to give something to the player). The point is to have a situation where you can have Awesome Superior Foe in more than name only, and also without being steamrolled in a not fun way. The latter is exactly what FS1 does, with the Lucifer being the sole exception by virtue of being invincible: once the Terrans get some shields and Avengers, they are pretty much a match for anything Shivan. That, I think is the pet peeve I've been trying to address via mod.
should probably also clarify that this whole thing is done with custom fighter AI classes. When I say that the Shivan fighter AI is sucky, I mostly mean that their aim is worse, not that they fly in straight lines.
Anyway, to each his own. :) We obviously have very different views of the Freespace universe.
-
I'm okay with bad aim, actually, it works for me as a mechanic because I think for an enemy to be threatening it just has to seem agile, reactive and smart; overwhelming firepower just makes it annoying.
And you could have it converge towards better accuracy on higher difficulties anyway.
But yeah I do think the cornerstone of FS is the Shivans being scary.
-
Apparently as I see it, the possible primary reason why Shivans have less dangerous anti-fighter armament (yet, of course, have far more fatal anti-capship armament than their GTVA counterparts) is simply because the player flies a FIGHTER. Volition wouldn't want to be pessimistic about realism and stuff.
I've tried flying a Shivan fighter - and figured out that their lasers are quite unbalanced. Why?
- to give the player a chance.
I'm okay with bad aim, actually, it works for me as a mechanic because I think for an enemy to be threatening it just has to seem agile, reactive and smart; overwhelming firepower just makes it annoying.
Most newbie players might find badass bombers such as the Nephilim quite threatening (multiple lasers to hit you anywhere - it's a "flying fortress" of the 24th century) so the best way to take it down is to use twin Kaysers on an Erinyes, blasting it out in a couple of seconds from long range :nod:
But yeah I do think the cornerstone of FS is the Shivans being scary.
Game-wise, probably not. I would restart the game more often if I challenge a stupid NTF cruiser firing its SGreen into a fragile freighter, or get gunned down by the dang flak on an Aeolus.
-
I'm bringing us back to the Hecate topic, and I think a lot of you are missing a key fact regarding it:
Space is big. Really, REALLY big.
A dedicated carrier is actually in no more danger than any other class of ship simply because you have to FIND the damn thing first, and even within the confines of a single star system, that's a lot of space to search through. With subspace drives, a carrier, even if found, can frequently simply jump out of the area and be safe, leaving it's fighters and bombers to handle the enemy ships. The way you guys are talking, it would be better to not have ships at all, because they might get destroyed. It happens, get over it.
Side note, aside from a few of the fighters in the game, ALL the ships in FS2 were designed before the Second Incursion. That said, the Hecate was likely created well before ANY of the others you see that are not Great War vets. In that time period you have the following:
1.) A divided Terran population (multiple Terran factions).
2.) A barely functioning economy (Earth was the hub of all things)
3.) They probably didn't have big honking space lasers
The Hecate was designed to counter the Shivan fighter/bomber threat and to deliver the most powerful weapons in the GTVA arsenal: Bombs. Harbingers and the like. THESE are what took down most of the Shivan capital ships in the Great War, including the Lucifer itself. It makes sense that they would design a ship specifically to perform such tasks, and that is the Hecate.
It also helps that if a bunch of fighters getting killed trying to take down an enemy destroyer, than the losses in personal and material is much, MUCH less than if a beam cannon toting Hatty gets blown to hell in the same engagement. It's very similar to the change in navel tactics during WWII, from big gun battleships, that could certainly rip through any carrier they ran into, to the carrier, which never even had to get remotely close. Battleships were too vulnerable to the cheap fighters, and so they disappeared.
Based on cost, utility, and flexibility, I'd rather have a Hecate on the battlefield than a tweaked out Orion. Or not on the battlefield but instead having it's fighter groups there, as the case may be.
-
I'm bringing us back to the Hecate topic, and I think a lot of you are missing a key fact regarding it:
Space is big. Really, REALLY big.
A dedicated carrier is actually in no more danger than any other class of ship simply because you have to FIND the damn thing first, and even within the confines of a single star system, that's a lot of space to search through. With subspace drives, a carrier, even if found, can frequently simply jump out of the area and be safe, leaving it's fighters and bombers to handle the enemy ships. The way you guys are talking, it would be better to not have ships at all, because they might get destroyed. It happens, get over it.
This is nice, as a notion, but flies in the face of canon, where recon elements track down enemy destroyers all the time (the Ravana, the Vindicator, what have you.)
The Hecate was designed to counter the Shivan fighter/bomber threat and to deliver the most powerful weapons in the GTVA arsenal: Bombs. Harbingers and the like. THESE are what took down most of the Shivan capital ships in the Great War, including the Lucifer itself. It makes sense that they would design a ship specifically to perform such tasks, and that is the Hecate.
Nobody's arguing this, I don't think, it just doesn't end up working.
Based on cost, utility, and flexibility, I'd rather have a Hecate on the battlefield than a tweaked out Orion. Or not on the battlefield but instead having it's fighter groups there, as the case may be.
It's not totally a fair comparison, but - attacking the Meridian vs. attacking the Carthage, man.
The Hecate's advantages are all nice, in theory, until you realize that space is tiny in FreeSpace, because subspace; and ships rapidly and routinely get vectored to their origins, because subspace tracking; and that makes a carrier that can't defend itself a problem - as we see twice in FreeSpace 2, where the best the Hecate can do is run.
It has its place, and it arguably could do well if it were employed far better than it was in canon, but ultimately I think the Hecate is just a little too weak, even as a strike carrier, to be considered an outright success. I know I had to get pretty creative to make them remotely threatening and other FREDders I've talked to sort of end up with the same response.
-
Eishtmo just expanded my argument.
The Hecate's advantages are all nice, in theory, until you realize that space is tiny in FreeSpace, because subspace; and ships rapidly and routinely get vectored to their origins, because subspace tracking; and that makes a carrier that can't defend itself a problem - as we see twice in FreeSpace 2, where the best the Hecate can do is run.
Actually, with tons of fighters and bombers that wouldn't be a problem. A Ravana begins attacking the Aquitaine? Have it do an intrasystem jump - and let the bombers handle it!
In a particular mission it says multiple Shivan fighters disabled the Aquitaine. But they were able to handle it pretty quickly - with fighters.
A carrier CAN defend itself - that's why there's over a hundred fighters and bombers within those fighterbays. Although beam cannons could take down capships quite faster than bombers, Shivans always were the superior in beam weaponry - but they couldn't take down bombers that easily.
-
Eishtmo just expanded my argument.
The Hecate's advantages are all nice, in theory, until you realize that space is tiny in FreeSpace, because subspace; and ships rapidly and routinely get vectored to their origins, because subspace tracking; and that makes a carrier that can't defend itself a problem - as we see twice in FreeSpace 2, where the best the Hecate can do is run.
Actually, with tons of fighters and bombers that wouldn't be a problem. A Ravana begins attacking the Aquitaine? Have it do an intrasystem jump - and let the bombers handle it!
Funny how that never worked.
In a particular mission it says multiple Shivan fighters disabled the Aquitaine. But they were able to handle it pretty quickly - with fighters.
Nope, it actually explicitly says the exact opposite!
Admiral Petrarch reports that his gunners destroyed the Urobach and all but one of the fighter wings
The Aquitaine's fighters and bombers did nothing! A single cruiser and a fighter group was able to disable the Aquitaine and it was the ship's own guns that repelled them.
-
Not until the god-foresaken Alpha wing came into action.
You'd have to forgive Volition for doing some crazy stuff. That only makes the game excitingly playable - for example, making FS fighters slower than a WWII fighter plane.
-
I'm bringing us back to the Hecate topic, and I think a lot of you are missing a key fact regarding it:
Space is big. Really, REALLY big.
A dedicated carrier is actually in no more danger than any other class of ship simply because you have to FIND the damn thing first, and even within the confines of a single star system, that's a lot of space to search through. With subspace drives, a carrier, even if found, can frequently simply jump out of the area and be safe, leaving it's fighters and bombers to handle the enemy ships.
Simple recon. We're fighting the Shivans, remember, we don't really know what they can do, but we do know they can probably blanket the system in fighters for recon duty if they have to. And they demonstrated an ability to locate targets regardless of whatever countermeasures were taken in the Great War, considering you were forced to escort ships carrying top-secret projects delving into antimatter weaponry that would have been well-hidden.
We have no idea how they do it, still, but the Shivans have proved consistently able to both track through subspace and to locate ships that do not make subspace transits even while they are in the system.
See also the many, many "no stealth in space" threads in GD as they pertain to conventional starships (we'll excuse the stealth fighters as Unanticipated Future Tech) and the shield prototypes mission for FS1, where the Shivans made precision jumps to assault the convoy without even having had an asset on the field to guess its course to the node.
-
Nope, it actually explicitly says the exact opposite!
Admiral Petrarch reports that his gunners destroyed the Urobach and all but one of the fighter wings
The Aquitaine's fighters and bombers did nothing! A single cruiser and a fighter group was able to disable the Aquitaine and it was the ship's own guns that repelled them.
In the same briefing we hear that the Aquitaine's single fighterbay was damaged, rendering its "primary" function useless(the same thing happened to the Colossus later, though, of course there was no way fighters or bombers could have saved it from the attacking Sath in such a short amount of time).
"It was cheaper that way" is the only thing that really makes sense(though why a destroyer would need wings and fins of that size is a real question, unless it was meant to also work in atmosphere?). I think a dedicated carrier really needs to either have two (or more) bays, taking a cue from the Vasudans(logically, meaning: faster launch/recovery, and redundancy in case of battle damage), and/or perhaps be a corvette-sized(and armored) vessel, capable of staying mobile and able to keep up with escorting conventional corvettes.
-
The thing about two fighter bays is the logistics involved in transporting fighters and bombers from one bay to the other. You could assume from the Psamtik mainhall that the thing runs in 0-G, and the ship's guts are designed with that in mind (more or less compartmentalised and out of the way), and so moving a Serapis from one bay to the other is a matter of navigating the sled you see in the mainhall.
Whereas in a Terran vessel, that could be assumed to run at something close to 1-G, transporting a fighter is a bit harder since the fighterbay is a fairly localised area of the ship, with the rest of it being built up much in the same way as it would've been had it been designed to sail on water.
In other words, it might be a little hard carting a Herc II through the briefing room to the other fighterbay. :P
-
While technically not 'multiple' bays, I might point to BP's Titan (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTD_Titan) for a possible example. It's technically one huge fighter bay, but spans the width of the front of the ship, allowing fighters to enter and depart from both sides, and is big enough and has somewhat compartmentalized multiple entrances(6), so as to make it fairly difficult(I'd think) to completely shut down from all but a very deliberate and massive attack.
-
While technically not 'multiple' bays, I might point to BP's Titan (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTD_Titan) for a possible example. It's technically one huge fighter bay, but spans the width of the front of the ship, allowing fighters to enter and depart from both sides, and is big enough and has somewhat compartmentalized multiple entrances(6), so as to make it fairly difficult(I'd think) to completely shut down from all but a very deliberate and massive attack.
It's actually not 'BP's' Titan, it's a public asset made by Stratcomm, same as the Raynor, Chimera, Bellophron, and the Hyperion cruiser, but yeah
-
Funny how that never worked.
Unless I'm missing an off-screen occurance of this, I'm fairly sure that's more due to the engine ship limit during retail than any real inability for the tactic to work.
The Aquitaine's fighters and bombers did nothing! A single cruiser and a fighter group was able to disable the Aquitaine and it was the ship's own guns that repelled them.
Wouldn't this actually support the argument that the Hecate can take care of and defend itself when need be?
-
Well, the fact that it was disabled by a small group of fighters and a cruiser (considering this is a destroyer we're talking about) would make me think otherwise.
-
Well, the fact that it was disabled by a small group of fighters and a cruiser (considering this is a destroyer we're talking about) would make me think otherwise.
Which is odd given that it has multiple engine subsystems, not like an Orion which is comparitively much easier to disable. They must have knocked out its fighterbay first.
This is other problem with using destroyers as carriers, it's just too easy to knock out their fighterbays. The most we've seen on a canon destroyer is two. Now compare that to Inferno's Warlock.
-
Well ideally they should've had fighters on CAP that would've responded to the Shivan threat immediately and worked in a combined arms method with the Aquitaine's gunners to neutralise the threat, or at least keep it within bounds until help arrived. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some kind of lucky shot/jump that neutralised the Aquitaine's fighter bay.
You could work with a different concept of having one fighterbay with multiple exits, say, one that spanned an entire three or four decks of a ship and had about 4-8 exits. Not only would you be able to launch fighters faster, but you wouldn't be so dependent on your one exit. Only thing is, you may need more staff to man the bay and taking up 3 or 4 decks means another 3 or 4 that need to be added.
-
Ah, yes, I recognize this one! The aliens are overwhelming in their technological might, but it's lucky we have plucky, manly fighter pilots to go out there and overcome their droningly simpleminded fighters with derring-do!
Sorry for the snark, it sounds like awesome fun but I'm not totally comfortable with some of these directions in terms of maintaining the mood around the Shivans.
Meh. Nothing from FS2 gave the impression shivans had better pilots. NOTHING.
The GTVA was outnumbered and outgunned. If they were outclassed in the pilot department to boot, then the GTVA couldn't have held out as long as it did.
-
Ah, yes, I recognize this one! The aliens are overwhelming in their technological might, but it's lucky we have plucky, manly fighter pilots to go out there and overcome their droningly simpleminded fighters with derring-do!
Sorry for the snark, it sounds like awesome fun but I'm not totally comfortable with some of these directions in terms of maintaining the mood around the Shivans.
Meh. Nothing from FS2 gave the impression shivans had better pilots. NOTHING.
The GTVA was outnumbered and outgunned. If they were outclassed in the pilot department to boot, then the GTVA couldn't have held out as long as it did.
Except that, y'know, if you open up the mission files, the Shivans tend to have better AI classes assigned.
But aside from them having better pilots, nothing gives the impression they have better pilots.
-
The Hecate was designed to counter the Shivan fighter/bomber threat and to deliver the most powerful weapons in the GTVA arsenal: Bombs. Harbingers and the like. THESE are what took down most of the Shivan capital ships in the Great War, including the Lucifer itself. It makes sense that they would design a ship specifically to perform such tasks, and that is the Hecate.
Carriers are good for power projection IMHO. Easier to patrol and respond to many small things - a perfect vessel for hunting down pirates and generally policing systems.
It also helps that if a bunch of fighters getting killed trying to take down an enemy destroyer, than the losses in personal and material is much, MUCH less than if a beam cannon toting Hatty gets blown to hell in the same engagement. It's very similar to the change in navel tactics during WWII, from big gun battleships, that could certainly rip through any carrier they ran into, to the carrier, which never even had to get remotely close. Battleships were too vulnerable to the cheap fighters, and so they disappeared.
Subsapce drives. Charge time. Important elements that need to be taken into account.
The carrier offensive power lies in it's bombers. Bombers take time to launch, to reach their target and lock on, bombs have travel time and can be shot down. Beams have none of those issues.
Consider a battleship ambushing a carrier - the moment it jumps in, it opens beam fire. The Hecate will be hit by at least one full salvo before it can jump out.
In 30 seconds the carrier will receive the full brunt of the battleships power...in that same time, most bombers wouldn't even have target lock - heck, most wouldn't even be in range to being targeting. The carrier is forced to flee damaged (and thus is effectively removed from a fight), if not destroyed....and since the carier used it's jump drives last, the battlesip drives will re-charge first, allowing it to persue again (unless the carrier jumped to a friendly base).
The battleship can retreat as soon as it's jump drives charge again, and the carrier defense wings already "in air" will hardly be able to destroy it in 1 minute. Especially since it would mostly be fighters.
Next, consider a carrier ambushing a battleship. A carrier would launch fighters/bombers and send them after a battleship, staying out of the fight itself. The bombers would have to disable the battleship within 30 seconds to 1 minute MAX or else it will jump out...and if the battleship got the carriers location, we now have the above scenario. If not, it will run away to some safer location (either out of hte system, or in n asteroid belt, or a friendly base)
-
Ah, yes, I recognize this one! The aliens are overwhelming in their technological might, but it's lucky we have plucky, manly fighter pilots to go out there and overcome their droningly simpleminded fighters with derring-do!
Sorry for the snark, it sounds like awesome fun but I'm not totally comfortable with some of these directions in terms of maintaining the mood around the Shivans.
Meh. Nothing from FS2 gave the impression shivans had better pilots. NOTHING.
The GTVA was outnumbered and outgunned. If they were outclassed in the pilot department to boot, then the GTVA couldn't have held out as long as it did.
Except that, y'know, if you open up the mission files, the Shivans tend to have better AI classes assigned.
But aside from them having better pilots, nothing gives the impression they have better pilots.
but nothing is said in game about shivans being better pilots
-
Except that, y'know, if you open up the mission files, the Shivans tend to have better AI classes assigned.
But aside from them having better pilots, nothing gives the impression they have better pilots.
Gameplay and story segragation?
The number of dead shivans by your hands (and of other GTVA forces)? The fact that no single GTVA pilot mentions shivans piloting prowess anywhere?
-
Retail AI profiles don't do a good job of establishing pilot skill because it's hard to distinguish their effects from those of just having better ships and guns. While I would consider it canon that Shivans are better pilots, I'd need SEXPs and dialog to really feel it in the campaign. Like WiH lol.
-
Except that, y'know, if you open up the mission files, the Shivans tend to have better AI classes assigned.
But aside from them having better pilots, nothing gives the impression they have better pilots.
Gameplay and story segragation?
The number of dead shivans by your hands (and of other GTVA forces)?
Their guns are bad and you get to restart when you die. They don't.
The fact that no single GTVA pilot mentions shivans piloting prowess anywhere?
They don't talk about piloting prowess period. They do talk a lot about how scary Shivans are.
-
because they are our technological superiors not that they display any special piloting ability or tactical prowess
-
Technological superiority except in the area of non-beam weaponry.
-
because they are our technological superiors not that they display any special piloting ability or tactical prowess
But their pilots are demonstrably faster at turning their ships and firing their guns. You only need to look at the AI profiles to see it.
-
This is nice, as a notion, but flies in the face of canon, where recon elements track down enemy destroyers all the time (the Ravana, the Vindicator, what have you.)
Utterly disagree. The fact that ships manage to stay in the same system and NOT immediately get blown to hell means the exact opposite to me. Consider the NTF conflict where the GTA KNEW exactly what systems the NTF had ships in, but couldn't immediately wipe them out until the Colossus arrived, and we can reasonably assume nearly all those attacks were offensive operations against hard targets (shipyards, instillations and nodes).
The Hecate's advantages are all nice, in theory, until you realize that space is tiny in FreeSpace, because subspace; and ships rapidly and routinely get vectored to their origins, because subspace tracking; and that makes a carrier that can't defend itself a problem - as we see twice in FreeSpace 2, where the best the Hecate can do is run.
Subspace tracking, everyone keeps talking about it, but I don't recall a single moment outside of the Lucifer attack, through inter-SYSTEM subspace, that subspace tracking is ever used or even mentioned for that matter. I'm just not seeing it. Can the Shivans do it? Maybe, but I don't see any direct evidence of it. They could just as easily use their large numbers to basically spam scout a system if they have to, and frequently when the Shivans do launch such a strike, it's to the most static location in Freespace: Jump nodes. And if the Shivans are sensitive to subspace, they probably FEEL jumps through the node more often than not. No need for tracking at all.
Subsapce drives. Charge time. Important elements that need to be taken into account.
The carrier offensive power lies in it's bombers. Bombers take time to launch, to reach their target and lock on, bombs have travel time and can be shot down. Beams have none of those issues.
Consider a battleship ambushing a carrier. . .
Next, consider a carrier ambushing a battleship. . .
We actually don't know charge time, not really anyway (it basically varies from mission to mission). If we had hard figures we could do more with it, but we don't, so we can't.
Your argument about bombs and time to launch is fine, to a point, but also it comes down to risk. Bombers are cheaper than battleships. I'd rather lose 20 bombers and only just damage a target than lose an entire battleship to do the same. Also once a BB goes into battle, even if it wins against another one, it will have to go in for repairs. Which means it isn't on the battlefield. Losing some bombers for a carrier doesn't strictly weaken the carrier's ability to engage targets, it may not be able to take on another ship, but it can still take out raiders, scout, attack supply convoys, intercept other carrier bombers, and with the right weapons can even cripple opposing ships and instillations. It's more flexible than a battleship which really can only attack other battleships.
Again, we don't know enough about drive charge time to make arguments about how battles should go, but we do know one thing: If a carrier is jumped by an enemy, it likely knows where it can safely go because it has fighters to scout the region for it. A battleship does not. The BB thus is more likely to have to stand it's ground as it doesn't know if where it's going is safe, where the carrier can run safely.
We also aren't considering that there are other ships on the battlefield. Cruisers can screen fighters, Corvettes can directly engage the battleship with fighter/bomber support, we don't know about scouting, reserve forces, the carriers CAP, the actual energy needed to support beam cannons and how that effects jump drives, ect, etc, etc. Freespace provides far too many unknowns to allow us to really know how these battles go.
All that we can say is that from what we see from the Hecate is a carrier designed to stand off from it's targets and the Orion and Hatty were more designed to directly engage. It's about combined arms against an enemy that outnumbers and outguns everything they have. You need to be flexible to take on these kinds of foe, and a dedicated carrier provides this. A dedicated battleship isn't nearly as flexible, even if it is effective in a single area.
-
Well they mention tracking the Belisaurius through subspace...
-
This is nice, as a notion, but flies in the face of canon, where recon elements track down enemy destroyers all the time (the Ravana, the Vindicator, what have you.)
Utterly disagree. The fact that ships manage to stay in the same system and NOT immediately get blown to hell means the exact opposite to me. Consider the NTF conflict where the GTA KNEW exactly what systems the NTF had ships in, but couldn't immediately wipe them out until the Colossus arrived, and we can reasonably assume nearly all those attacks were offensive operations against hard targets (shipyards, instillations and nodes).
Recon located the Vindicator and the Ravana. Two huge blows. Proof enough.
The Hecate's advantages are all nice, in theory, until you realize that space is tiny in FreeSpace, because subspace; and ships rapidly and routinely get vectored to their origins, because subspace tracking; and that makes a carrier that can't defend itself a problem - as we see twice in FreeSpace 2, where the best the Hecate can do is run.
Subspace tracking, everyone keeps talking about it, but I don't recall a single moment outside of the Lucifer attack
Belisarius, first mission of FS2. Should be easy to recall. It's used later on a few other inbounds.
All that we can say is that from what we see from the Hecate is a carrier designed to stand off from it's targets and the Orion and Hatty were more designed to directly engage. It's about combined arms against an enemy that outnumbers and outguns everything they have. You need to be flexible to take on these kinds of foe, and a dedicated carrier provides this. A dedicated battleship isn't nearly as flexible, even if it is effective in a single area.
Straw man. Nobody has proposed a dedicated battleship. The battleship/carrier hybrid that is the classic destroyer, however, seems less prone to being disabled by a single cruiser.
-
Recon located the Vindicator and the Ravana. Two huge blows. Proof enough.
That isn't subspace tracking.
Heck, haven't you seen how terrible the Orion's defenses are? You'll only need a WING of bombers to destroy it (or perhaps only ONE elite bomber pilot - like Alpha 1 taking down the Uhuru!)
As several said, it's much cheaper to take down a ship with bombers than an entire destroyer - if it's only a wing of bombers (which, in theory, actually packs the same punch as a battleship's armament) there's no risk of losing so much money and glory (why would you lose a flagship of a battlegroup if you could deploy several bombers instead?). Furthermore, as already said, the Hecate has demonstrated a much better anti-fighter/bomber armament than the Orion, which simply isn't up-to-date anymore based on its "AA" armament.
-
Heck, haven't you seen how terrible the Orion's defenses are? You'll only need a WING of bombers to destroy it (or perhaps only ONE elite bomber pilot - like Alpha 1 taking down the Uhuru!)
Try doing that on insane with Fury's AI profiles without using the maxim or trebuchet.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Though part of the reason that the Orion's AA capabilities suck is the loadout and the low number of turrets, 17 (which, frankly should have been increased to something like 30 in FS2)
-
That's the problem. Seems that the GTVA didn't bother to upgrade the Orion from Great-War standards - IMO blob turrets (which are only really good at hitting bombs, they even have difficulty to hit Seraphims and the like) should be replaced with AAAf's.
They also didn't add turrets - didn't the Hecate have about 26 or so? The Orion seems fit only for quick, capital ship strikes by 2367 standards.
-
Recon located the Vindicator and the Ravana. Two huge blows. Proof enough.
That isn't subspace tracking.
No one said it was.
Furthermore, as already said, the Hecate has demonstrated a much better anti-fighter/bomber armament than the Orion, which simply isn't up-to-date anymore based on its "AA" armament.
Thus the Raynor and Titan.
-
Plenty of fanmade ships address these issues, why, specifically, are stratcomm's ships brought up each time?
What has this to do with the Hecate?
I am confused~!
-
Plenty of fanmade ships address these issues, why, specifically, are stratcomm's ships brought up each time?
What has this to do with the Hecate?
i dunno lol
The point in bringing them up, though, is that while the Orion is imperfect, it is less imperfect than the Hecate; the Hecate cannot reliably conduct flight operations because it can be chased around or disabled, whereas the Orion can more reliably perform flight ops because it is more difficult to overcome it with a rapid beam strike.
-
That's the problem. Seems that the GTVA didn't bother to upgrade the Orion from Great-War standards - IMO blob turrets (which are only really good at hitting bombs, they even have difficulty to hit Seraphims and the like) should be replaced with AAAf's.
They also didn't add turrets - didn't the Hecate have about 26 or so? The Orion seems fit only for quick, capital ship strikes by 2367 standards.
I just told you the real reason the Orion didn't have as many turrets, it's from FreeSpace 1. You'll notice that all FreeSpace 1 capitalships (cruisers, destroyers) have less turrets than their FS2 counter-parts. Why they did it like this, I'm not sure (though likely for performance issues if anything), but they really should have added more turrets to the ships in FreeSpace 2 but they didn't since none of the Freespace 1 models used in FreeSpace 2 were touched. At all.
There's no canon explanation for this seeing as how the tech description for the Orion in one of the games says it has 'dozens and dozens of turrets' (or something to that effect)
-
Well, in practice the Hecate should technically be harder to disable than the Orion.
All it takes is one good beam hit or a single stiletto strike to disable the Orion, the Hecate has a whole lot of engines everywhere, blocked from some angles by its odd superstructure, meaning it should theoretically be a lot harder to disable. Somehow a single rakshasa manages to take out all the engines before it can flee canonically though, which is strange, really. Very strange. I rarely see Hecates actually disabled in combat, just like how I never see Deimoses get disabled unless there are wings with very specific orders (and scripted beam-fire events) to take down its engines...I've seen stuff with a single engine like the Demon routinely lose all means of propulsion in a regular beam exchange though.
Its more like the Orion doesn't have as much of a need to run away the moment it sees anything bigger than...a fenris, cause an Orion can take on corvettes pretty easily while the Hecate can't.
Yay we're going in CIIIIRCLES~!
-
Actually, the Orion's engine subsystem can take numerous cyclops torpedo hits before faltering.
-
The point in bringing them up, though, is that while the Orion is imperfect, it is less imperfect than the Hecate; the Hecate cannot reliably conduct flight operations because it can be chased around or disabled, whereas the Orion can more reliably perform flight ops because it is more difficult to overcome it with a rapid beam strike.
Lol. NO ONE would want to challenge an Orion with another capital ship if the had the choice to summon a bunch of bombers.
Also, as Droid803 said, the Orion would be theoretically easier to disable because of it s exposed subsystems and poor anti-bomber armament.
There's also no point in the Hecate conducting flight operations involving itself; if we call it a carrier, it shouldn't move around and follow where its bombers are supposed to be - it's just there, far away, watching its bombers taking down a hapless warship.
-
Lol. NO ONE would want to challenge an Orion with another capital ship if the had the choice to summon a bunch of bombers.
Also, as Droid803 said, the Orion would be theoretically easier to disable because of it s exposed subsystems and poor anti-bomber armament.
There's also no point in the Hecate conducting flight operations involving itself; if we call it a carrier, it shouldn't move around and follow where its bombers are supposed to be - it's just there, far away, watching its bombers taking down a hapless warship.
You give bombers far too much credit against capital ships, they really get ****ed up by most capital ships unless they have good numbers and disable some turrets first. Like the Aeolus, that mother****er will easily kill numerous bombers by itself.
-
But the Aeolus has far deadlier anti-fighter/bomber armament than the Orion. In fact, the Orion is 5 times bigger than the Deimos but has about the same number of turrets only, and even so, it has more primitive armament than said corvette.
-
But the Aeolus has far deadlier anti-fighter/bomber armament than the Orion.
One wing flying escort without reinforcements vs. three wings flying escort with reinforcement.
Utterly disagree. The fact that ships manage to stay in the same system and NOT immediately get blown to hell means the exact opposite to me. Consider the NTF conflict where the GTA KNEW exactly what systems the NTF had ships in, but couldn't immediately wipe them out until the Colossus arrived, and we can reasonably assume nearly all those attacks were offensive operations against hard targets (shipyards, instillations and nodes).
We have examples going back to the Great War of ships being taken by surprise, without apparent means of detection, by Shivan forces. Very critical ships, which would be taking measures to ensure they weren't detected like the Plato, and even more critically the Asimov and Ravage in The Big Bang.
If someone didn't take this possibility into account in designing any post-Great War ship, serious mistakes were made.
-
We actually don't know charge time, not really anyway (it basically varies from mission to mission). If we had hard figures we could do more with it, but we don't, so we can't.
We don' have exact numbers, but from various mission, we can see the following:
a) It takes a destroyer (Orion) roughly a minute to full charge his jump drives - after a inter-system jump, which requires more power than in-system jumps. In the case of the Iceni, even less. While there are variation on how long it takes the ship to jump (in some mission they first need to plot a course, or move to a location before jumping, thus such missions are not good examples), we do have a lower estimate.
b) Ships with charged drives can plot a escape course and jump within 10-15 seconds. Seen with friendly ships running from danger. Bombers can do squat in 15 seconds. A battleship on the other hand....
Your argument about bombs and time to launch is fine, to a point, but also it comes down to risk. Bombers are cheaper than battleships. I'd rather lose 20 bombers and only just damage a target than lose an entire battleship to do the same. Also once a BB goes into battle, even if it wins against another one, it will have to go in for repairs. Which means it isn't on the battlefield. Losing some bombers for a carrier doesn't strictly weaken the carrier's ability to engage targets, it may not be able to take on another ship, but it can still take out raiders, scout, attack supply convoys, intercept other carrier bombers, and with the right weapons can even cripple opposing ships and installations. It's more flexible than a battleship which really can only attack other battleships.
Each has it's role.
I said it's likely that BB ambushing a carrier would result in a destroyed carrier (especially if the first strike is crippling). A BB can deliver more firepower, that is uniterceptable, within a shorter time period. Of course, it also takes more risks for that - but again, it's also more resilient to damage.
Ambushes favor battleships..of course, in this discussion we are pitting battleships vs. carriers, not carriers vs. carriers or battleships vs. battleships. In other words, BB ambushing a carrier is more likely to destroy the carrier than carrier ambushing a BB destroying a BB.
If 2 carriers engage in combat, or if 2 battleship engage in combat, damage or destruction is more than likely on both sides (the attacking carrier can't stay hidden forever, so it can expect a counterattack). One or the other will either run or get destroyed.
Again, we don't know enough about drive charge time to make arguments about how battles should go, but we do know one thing: If a carrier is jumped by an enemy, it likely knows where it can safely go because it has fighters to scout the region for it. A battleship does not. The BB thus is more likely to have to stand it's ground as it doesn't know if where it's going is safe, where the carrier can run safely.
It is incorrect to assume a battleship carries no fighters whatsoever. Even WW2 battelship carried scout planes. I'd imagine a squadron of light interceptors/scouts on a BB.
We also aren't considering that there are other ships on the battlefield. Cruisers can screen fighters, Corvettes can directly engage the battleship with fighter/bomber support, we don't know about scouting, reserve forces, the carriers CAP, the actual energy needed to support beam cannons and how that effects jump drives, ect, etc, etc. Freespace provides far too many unknowns to allow us to really know how these battles go.
I'll again point to the in-game example of an Orion jumping it, shooting beams for all it's worth, then jumping out 1 minute later. Beam cannons and jump drives do not appear to be connected systems.
-
I'll again point to the in-game example of an Orion jumping it, shooting beams for all it's worth, then jumping out 1 minute later. Beam cannons and jump drives do not appear to be connected systems.
...unless it gets destroyed/heavily damaged.
You see, it takes TIME for an entire destroyer to be repaired; remember that the Colossus took several months to repair by losing only about 20% of its hull integrity. It'd take only a short amount of time to repair several bombers.
Also, the pride factor is another thing here. A destroyer is a MASSIVE warship supposedly acting as flagships, sourcing the pride and courage of its respective battlegroup/fleet. Once a destroyer gets destroyed, the morale of pilots gets shattered. And especially when fighting Shivans themselves, morale is a greatly vital factor in the battlefield.
The point here really is that Hecates have better anti-bomber firepower. Of course the Orion HAS, too, but significantly less, having nearly Great-War era weaponry (except the BGreens, of course).
Moreover, after the Great War, the Terrans feared the Shivans so much they wanted to concentrate on building defenses SPECIFICALLY AGAINST THEM. Relying on Orions would be lethally risky; the Shivans had far more dangerous anti-capital armament than the Terrans, so they concentrated more on bomber warfare; and, of course, the Terrans didn't want to waste entire destroyer against them if they had the option to summon bombers instead. Of course, Orions mean the dramatic destroyer vs. destroyer battles which is extremely prone to failure for the Terrans against Shivan Demons/Ravanas. Ask yourself; why didn't the Terrans field the Aquitaine itself against the Ravana instead of several Boanerges bombers?
-
@Hades: Actually on retail AI, a wing of 4 Artemis bombers is more than enough to completely muller an Aeolus
-
Basically my stance is, Hecates suck, they're hilariously difficult to make threatening, and I hate FREDding with them because I have to go to extreme lengths to make them anything worthy of respect.
-
Overcharge the BGreen. Make it launch fighter and bomber swarms. And keep it away from anything having anti-cap weaponry.
-
Overcharge the BGreen. Make it launch fighter and bomber swarms. And keep it away from anything having anti-cap weaponry.
Funny how I used all this stuff in the biggest mission I did with a Hecate. :nervous:
-
You could work with a different concept of having one fighterbay with multiple exits, say, one that spanned an entire three or four decks of a ship and had about 4-8 exits. Not only would you be able to launch fighters faster, but you wouldn't be so dependent on your one exit. Only thing is, you may need more staff to man the bay and taking up 3 or 4 decks means another 3 or 4 that need to be added.
Exactly, it's a problem of space. Because destroyers are packing large anti-warship beam cannons and ideally should have a fairly solid anti-fighter defense, those two requirements by themselves can eat an enormous amount of space. A good example of this is the Collosus, despite being many many times larger its fighterbay capacity was surprisingly small. Then again it was heavily slanted towards anti-capship duties and blockade busting.
But aside from them having better pilots, nothing gives the impression they have better pilots.
Especially since they usually end up dying in droves.
-
Overcharge the BGreen. Make it launch fighter and bomber swarms. And keep it away from anything having anti-cap weaponry.
Well it's what a decent Hecate commander would do, although you could have it take up an effective part in an anti-ship/installation op. You could perhaps divert energy from blobs and such to beams, place a bit of faith in your escorting pilots, have the gunnery controlmen know that they may have up to five seconds warning about power being drained from beams to supplement anti-fighter armament as a contingency as well as fighters on two minutes readiness (sitting in the bay, engines turning) to launch if the hull starts having a hard time.
Hecate forms base of fire for the engagement, with the overcharged beam suppressing hostile elements and with any luck, taking out a vital system or two on the target(s), as well as said Hecate being flanked by Aeoluses and other cruisers for close support if available. Smallest credible threat to target(s) is presented by Hecate and co.
Corvettes and cruisers form the assault group, and seek to jump in on the target's flank once the enemy has responded to the Hecate threat (hopefully by diluting main force concentration in favor of flanking, formulate appropriate contingency prior). Once in the field, assault group flanks and will attempt an aggressive encirclement based on target's defensive fields of fire and whether the opportunity becomes available.
Concurrent to this, Admiral and CIC staff on the Hecate are coordinating the operation and deploying the vessel's air wing to support the assault and patch gaps in any elements. Important here that a reserve be maintained.
/me reads back and realises he's been playing a little too much Close Combat. :P
-
But aside from them having better pilots, nothing gives the impression they have better pilots.
Especially since they usually end up dying in droves.
Because, y'know, you don't play on insane, and their weapons are bad, and even with higher AI levels than their Terran counterparts they're still nowhere near a human (your skill), and you get to respawn when you die.
People fall for these illusions so easily.
-
Overcharge the BGreen. Make it launch fighter and bomber swarms. And keep it away from anything having anti-cap weaponry.
Well it's what a decent Hecate commander would do, although you could have it take up an effective part in an anti-ship/installation op. You could perhaps divert energy from blobs and such to beams, place a bit of faith in your escorting pilots, have the gunnery controlmen know that they may have up to five seconds warning about power being drained from beams to supplement anti-fighter armament as a contingency as well as fighters on two minutes readiness (sitting in the bay, engines turning) to launch if the hull starts having a hard time.
Hecate forms base of fire for the engagement, with the overcharged beam suppressing hostile elements and with any luck, taking out a vital system or two on the target(s), as well as said Hecate being flanked by Aeoluses and other cruisers for close support if available. Smallest credible threat to target(s) is presented by Hecate and co.
Corvettes and cruisers form the assault group, and seek to jump in on the target's flank once the enemy has responded to the Hecate threat (hopefully by diluting main force concentration in favor of flanking, formulate appropriate contingency prior). Once in the field, assault group flanks and will attempt an aggressive encirclement based on target's defensive fields of fire and whether the opportunity becomes available.
Concurrent to this, Admiral and CIC staff on the Hecate are coordinating the operation and deploying the vessel's air wing to support the assault and patch gaps in any elements. Important here that a reserve be maintained.
/me reads back and realises he's been playing a little too much Close Combat. :P
boy this sounds familiar :nervous:
-
Indeed, and even to those who haven't played, it should strike a chord with anyone whose studied IMT. That's almost your textbook application of base of fire and assault teams.
-
Why do they armor their main beam cannons with paper?
-
Well, that's true for beam mounts on most Capella-era ships, not only the Hecate's. It's not their resistance but their actual size that make them fragile. And the fact there are no anti-fighter turrets defending the two forward ones.
-
Why do they armor their main beam cannons with paper?
Perhaps it's not paper but some kind of lens that's both huge and fragile?
It might be cheaper that way or something...
BTW- how do the big Hat's BVas turrets compare to the Hecate?
-
Why do they armor their main beam cannons with paper?
Because with Earth gone, wood pulp is the most common resource available to mankind.
-
Why do they armor their main beam cannons with paper?
Because with Earth gone, wood pulp is the most common resource available to mankind.
Thus explaining the entire context that gave rise to the line Snail's quoting!
-
Why do they armor their main beam cannons with paper?
Perhaps it's not paper but some kind of lens that's both huge and fragile?
It might be cheaper that way or something...
BTW- how do the big Hat's BVas turrets compare to the Hecate?
The hat's BVas turrets are literally sticks, the hecate's is a big bullseye saying 'shoot here and you've won!'
-
Overcharge the BGreen. Make it launch fighter and bomber swarms. And keep it away from anything having anti-cap weaponry.
Well it's what a decent Hecate commander would do, although you could have it take up an effective part in an anti-ship/installation op. You could perhaps divert energy from blobs and such to beams, place a bit of faith in your escorting pilots, have the gunnery controlmen know that they may have up to five seconds warning about power being drained from beams to supplement anti-fighter armament as a contingency as well as fighters on two minutes readiness (sitting in the bay, engines turning) to launch if the hull starts having a hard time.
Hecate forms base of fire for the engagement, with the overcharged beam suppressing hostile elements and with any luck, taking out a vital system or two on the target(s), as well as said Hecate being flanked by Aeoluses and other cruisers for close support if available. Smallest credible threat to target(s) is presented by Hecate and co.
Corvettes and cruisers form the assault group, and seek to jump in on the target's flank once the enemy has responded to the Hecate threat (hopefully by diluting main force concentration in favor of flanking, formulate appropriate contingency prior). Once in the field, assault group flanks and will attempt an aggressive encirclement based on target's defensive fields of fire and whether the opportunity becomes available.
Concurrent to this, Admiral and CIC staff on the Hecate are coordinating the operation and deploying the vessel's air wing to support the assault and patch gaps in any elements. Important here that a reserve be maintained.
/me reads back and realises he's been playing a little too much Close Combat. :P
If you recall in Renegade Resurgence, the NTD Hecate was upgraded with a LRBreen, turning it into a long range artillery destroyer. Also a few of its flak guns were replaced with these nasty shield and energy draining blobs, which combined with the remaining flak guns could easily shred fighter and bomber wings. That thing was a terror to attack, and it really made the Hecate shine.
-
Why do they armor their main beam cannons with paper?
Because with Earth gone, wood pulp is the most common resource available to mankind.
Thus explaining the entire context that gave rise to the line Snail's quoting!
If only I had included an inconsequential comment poking fun at the aesthetic of his hyperbole, my post would be simply amazing!
-
Why do they armor their main beam cannons with paper?
Because with Earth gone, wood pulp is the most common resource available to mankind.
Thus explaining the entire context that gave rise to the line Snail's quoting!
If only I had included an inconsequential comment poking fun at the aesthetic of his hyperbole, my post would be simply amazing!
I don't think you understand what's happening here. Snail's quoting a line from a silly little campaign in which a character casts an aspersion upon the Hecate's chin beam thing.
-
If you recall in Renegade Resurgence, the NTD Hecate was upgraded with a LRBreen, turning it into a long range artillery destroyer. Also a few of its flak guns were replaced with these nasty shield and energy draining blobs, which combined with the remaining flak guns could easily shred fighter and bomber wings. That thing was a terror to attack, and it really made the Hecate shine.
But that's still a non-canon loadout, and for all purposes of this discussion, has no relevance here.
I mean really, I can stick LRBGreens on the Orion too.
-
I do think it's relevant, because massive buff though it may be, it affects players' perception of the Hecate in a positive way. You could also put BFReds on it, but just making it more powerful misses the point.
-
Sure, but if the argument here is Hecate vs. Orion or Hecate vs. Hattie, those ships could get an LRBGreen or, uh, LRBVas ( :nervous:) just as easily.
Sure, a long-range weapon would help the Hecate seem a bit less silly (and hey, she's got one in...every mission I've used her in, I think) but it is ultimately a non-canon thing.
-
You see, it takes TIME for an entire destroyer to be repaired; remember that the Colossus took several months to repair by losing only about 20% of its hull integrity. It'd take only a short amount of time to repair several bombers.
Didn't the Collie also melt a lot of it's internal systems?
Regarding repair speed - sadly the game is inconsistent in this. We see damaged ships appear in the next mission fully repaired (or partially repaired).
Of course, it is only logical to assume that bigger repairs take quite some time - at least weeks. But again, it depends on the technology, manpower, urgency.
But the big difference is that a carrier relies on not being detected - something that can never be taken for guaranteed.
-
Because, y'know, you don't play on insane, and their weapons are bad, and even with higher AI levels than their Terran counterparts they're still nowhere near a human (your skill), and you get to respawn when you die.
People fall for these illusions so easily.
And..you know. It's a game where you are a PILOT, so the AI and capships are made to be beatable.
Also, we do have your wingman commenting on just how many fighters/bombers shivans keep throwing at them, depsite looses.
Really, I don't see why a enemy must be superior to you in every way to be terrifiyng. Fear and horror can be achieved trough many subtler means too.
-
Sure, but if the argument here is Hecate vs. Orion or Hecate vs. Hattie, those ships could get an LRBGreen or, uh, LRBVas ( :nervous:) just as easily.
Sure, a long-range weapon would help the Hecate seem a bit less silly (and hey, she's got one in...every mission I've used her in, I think) but it is ultimately a non-canon thing.
But it is a realistic possibility for a future upgrade. Non-canon isn't really the point.
-
I don't think you understand what's happening here. Snail's quoting a line from a silly little campaign in which a character casts an aspersion upon the Hecate's chin beam thing.
Actually I think that particular line was cut at some point. I'm not sure. But it was memorable enough in the beta.
-
I don't think you understand what's happening here. Snail's quoting a line from a silly little campaign in which a character casts an aspersion upon the Hecate's chin beam thing.
Actually I think that particular line was cut at some point. I'm not sure. But it was memorable enough in the beta.
Nowai it's totally in the
**** you might be right
Really, I don't see why a enemy must be superior to you in every way to be terrifiyng. Fear and horror can be achieved trough many subtler means too.
Arguable, but also tangential. The Shivans have better AI classes on average (or so I've seen/been told.) That means they fire their guns faster and turn faster relative to the base performance of their equipment.
-
That's true about the Shivan AI classes, I recall, but Shivan craft were generally inferior weren't they? Weaker shields, lower hull integrity; they probably would've needed higher AI classes to be seen as a threat on lower difficulty levels.
Or is my memory playing tricks on me? Could've sworn craft like the Astaroth and the Manticore had paper thin shielding and hull. Different story for bombers, IIRC.
-
That's true about the Shivan AI classes, I recall, but Shivan craft were generally inferior weren't they? Weaker shields, lower hull integrity; they probably would've needed higher AI classes to be seen as a threat on lower difficulty levels.
Or is my memory playing tricks on me? Could've sworn craft like the Astaroth and the Manticore had paper thin shielding and hull. Different story for bombers, IIRC.
I think this has been addressed a few times in this thread already. It's also tangential; the issue here is the skill of Shivan pilots in raw performance terms. Planting them in a Terran or Vasudan ship would get better results vs. your average Terran or Vasudan pilot.
-
But since the player doesn't get to fly a "real" Shivan fighter, Shivans' pilot skill is nearly indistinguishable from their having less sucky equipment.
-
Shivan ships invariably have stronger shielding but lighter armor. Most Shivan fighters have a measley 100 hitpoints but even the Manticore has almost as much shielding as the Hercules.
(Dunno if is relevant. I is just saying the facts.)
-
But since the player doesn't get to fly a "real" Shivan fighter, Shivans' pilot skill is nearly indistinguishable from their having less sucky equipment.
This is true, but again, separate from the issue of pure pilot skill.
-
This is true, but again, separate from the issue of pure pilot skill.
Is it? Anything that's not directly presented in the game when played is at best a form of deutrocanon. If you have to open the mission file to figure it out, that makes it somewhat suspect as a real effort by :v: to say something.
-
Shivan ships invariably have stronger shielding but lighter armor. Most Shivan fighters have a measley 100 hitpoints but even the Manticore has almost as much shielding as the Hercules.
(Dunno if is relevant. I is just saying the facts.)
Yeah, like how the Dragon has 100 hit points but 700 shields (and it's 12.6 meters long with 5 primary points).
-
This is true, but again, separate from the issue of pure pilot skill.
Is it? Anything that's not directly presented in the game when played is at best a form of deutrocanon. If you have to open the mission file to figure it out, that makes it somewhat suspect as a real effort by :v: to say something.
Oh, okay, so the Prom R is actually a little more powerful than the Kayser, right? Because it's never directly presented in the game. I mean, it has observable empirical properties apparent in the game, but you'd have to open a table to figure them out.
Oh wait. The fire rate and turn rate of Shivan ships is directly presented in the game. So by your own definition, solid canon. If you're going to come back with 'this doesn't equal pilot skill', sure, but transplant those Shivan pilots onto Terran ships and they will behave exactly the same way in the same situations except that they will turn and shoot faster.
The gymnastics are amusing but ultimately just gymnastics.
-
Oh, okay, so the Prom R is actually a little more powerful than the Kayser, right? Because it's never directly presented in the game. I mean, it has observable empirical properties apparent in the game, but you'd have to open a table to figure them out.
No you don't. You use both weapons at once and it becomes rapidly obvious which is superior. You could conduct empirical testing on the matter without referring to FRED since the player has a choice of armaments.
Oh wait. The fire rate and turn rate of Shivan ships is directly presented in the game.
But there is no way to conduct empirical testing on it without reference to FRED. It's not possible to separate performance of ship and pilot without recourse to exterior sources because you cannot control such ships yourself to see what their maneuver limits are nor can you accurately assess which Shivan pilots are better or worse than others. At the very least, they're going to be attacking you. That makes observational evidence very dubious.
You can do it however you like, but since you never personally fly a Shivan ship or fire a Shivan weapon, without recourse to the tables or FRED you don't know what the basic limitations on them are so you can never assess how well they're being used. Without consulting the tables you can't even know if the AI is actually being gimped down from what it's at when played on Insane or whether Insane is actually it being buffed from norms established at Very Easy. There is no way to simply play FreeSpace or FreeSpace 2, alone, and accurately assess the capabilities of Shivan fighters. At best, you can talk about how they perform at a certain difficulty level. That doesn't tell you anything about how they're meant to be. You want to figure that out, you have to crack open the table files. And gameplay will always represent a higher form of canonicity for a game.
If anything, it seems more likely :v: intended us to walk away with the impression all Shivan pilots are idiots, based on Into The Lion's Den and what you accomplish using one of their ships. (Or alternately, that Shivan pilots are all gods, based on Playing Judas.)
-
*beautiful vault*
10 points from the Russian judge!
And gameplay will always represent a higher form of canonicity for a game.
This is my take on it. If it happens in-game it is canon (within reason.) I guess we just disagree, which is fair.
If anything, it seems more likely intended us to walk away with the impression all Shivan pilots are idiots, based on Into The Lion's Den and what you accomplish using one of their ships. (Or alternately, that Shivan pilots are all gods, based on Playing Judas.)
(http://www.topgunday.com/wp-content/gallery/top-gun/maverick-best-of-the-best-large.jpg)
my opinion is that this would make me enjoy the setting approximately 587 times less
-
I think this has been addressed a few times in this thread already. It's also tangential; the issue here is the skill of Shivan pilots in raw performance terms. Planting them in a Terran or Vasudan ship would get better results vs. your average Terran or Vasudan pilot.
This is irrevelant.
In gameplay, one does get no "feel" of their superiority.
The story or the characters never mention int - in fact, they way they talk implies the opposite.
So a setting in FRED has little relevance (and it might have been a last minute change because the game was too easy, for all we know). There is a reason 99% of people will think them as inferior pilots - because they come off that way. If [V] wanted them to seem more dangerous pilots, they could have pulled it off.
my opinion is that this would make me enjoy the setting approximately 587 times less
And for other people it would have no effect or would make them enjoy the setting 600 times more.
Either way - back to the original topic. The Hecate!
-
my opinion is that this would make me enjoy the setting approximately 587 times less
Oh, pfft.
What's a good (generally story driven) combat sim without the hilariously overblown masculine overtones and tight fitting flying suits with ridiculous callsigns?! :D
I'm tempted to say politically correct, but I've recently been told saying something is politically correct is politically incorrect, so there you go.
Also, if anyone would be interested in doing a Freespace beach volleyball scene, I would totally support you.
-
I think this has been addressed a few times in this thread already. It's also tangential; the issue here is the skill of Shivan pilots in raw performance terms. Planting them in a Terran or Vasudan ship would get better results vs. your average Terran or Vasudan pilot.
This is irrevelant.
In gameplay, one does get no "feel" of their superiority.
The story or the characters never mention int - in fact, they way they talk implies the opposite.
So a setting in FRED has little relevance (and it might have been a last minute change because the game was too easy, for all we know). There is a reason 99% of people will think them as inferior pilots - because they come off that way.
Because their guns suck, and they don't respawn when they're dead like you do, and you have magical damage buffers.
The games are all about how the Shivans are freaky. 'Lion at the Door', whatnot.
If [V] wanted them to seem more dangerous pilots, they could have pulled it off.
And they did, because the Shivans turn and shoot faster!
And for other people it would have no effect or would make them enjoy the setting 600 times more.
I don't care about them!
I'm tempted to say politically correct, but I've recently been told saying something is politically correct is politically correct, so there you go.
fixed
-
I'm tempted to say politically correct, but I've recently been told saying something is politically correct is politically correct, so there you go.
fixed
That's just as bad!
-
That's the point. It's now a meaningless token deployed in place of 'I disagree with this'.
-
I always figured "Normal" difficulty was normal?? Easier if you can't handle "real life", harder if you are a freak. :P
-
I always figured "Normal" difficulty was normal?? Easier if you can't handle "real life", harder if you are a freak. :P
If by 'normal' you mean 'representative of reality', then if you accept that the player's ship has special psychic damage buffers, sure.
-
I always figured "Normal" difficulty was normal?? Easier if you can't handle "real life", harder if you are a freak. :P
Considering you can effectively play...what? Five? Six different versions?, trying to establish any kind of "this is the way it played out, srsly guys" is silly at best.
-
Going on a tanget, that's one of the great things about the campaign. Whatever difficulty you play it on, you generally experience the same story. Whereas with other campaigns you run the risk of breaking something or just not being able to pass missions if you decide to play it on something other than the designed difficulty level.
-
Going on a tanget, that's one of the great things about the campaign. Whatever difficulty you play it on, you generally experience the same story. Whereas with other campaigns you run the risk of breaking something or just not being able to pass missions if you decide to play it on something other than the designed difficulty level.
Which campaign? Retail?
-
Yeah. Probably should've slipped that in somewhere. :D
-
The Hecate has been used as all of the following during the retail campaign:
* Tank
* Destroyer
* Carrier
* Science cruiser Research vessel
* Flagship
* Explorer
-
What'd they used to say about the jack of all trades?
-
What'd they used to say about the jack of all trades?
Master of none?
-
@Andro: Tank?
-
@Andro: Tank?
I presume he means "tank" in the RPG sense (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tank;), where in the mission Bearbaiting (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Bearbaiting) the GTD Phoenicia was deployed to hold and delay the Sathanas.
-
What'd they used to say about the jack of all trades?
Master of none?
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The Hecate isn't particularly good for any one of those as a specialist platform. Even the position of the fighterbay makes it a sub-par carrier (in some respects, a better one in others). Although the amount of fighters it carries makes up for it, kind of.
-
Because their guns suck, and they don't respawn when they're dead like you do, and you have magical damage buffers.
Irrelevant. Alpha 1 surviving is canon (you destroyed the Lucy in FS1), ergo, Alpha 1 killed a ****load of shivans.
The games are all about how the Shivans are freaky. 'Lion at the Door', whatnot.
How freaky..not how amazing pilots.
Technologcly superior..completely alien..creepy..mysterious...industrial powerhouses that can blot out the sun with fighters...yes.
And they did, because the Shivans turn and shoot faster!
And die in droves. AI setting is irrelevant if in the game they feel mediocre at best. And they do.
I don't care about them!
Well, they don't care about you. Nyaaaa! :ick:
-
I disagree with your points, sir!
-
What a great, well-thought out reply, Battuta. :P
-
What a great, well-thought out reply, Battuta. :P
NO U
-
What a great, well-thought out reply, Battuta. :P
It was, in fact. It's an agreement to disagree because neither of us is going to budge. A mature solution, rather than wasting gallons of fingersweat yelling.
You could learn from it.
-
Battuta, unlike Karaj, does not thave the impulse to see how deep the hole can be dug.
-
What a great, well-thought out reply, Battuta. :P
It was, in fact. It's an agreement to disagree because neither of us is going to budge. A mature solution, rather than wasting gallons of fingersweat yelling.
I know, that's exactly what I was saying by my reply.
You could learn from it.
When you have something to teach is when I'll have something to learn.
-
Wait wait, you'd play the weakness of Shivan fighter primaries on technological inferiority rather than piloting skill?
I've always thought that Shivans were scary due to their technological superiority, and that the pilot commenting on the shivans being scary in a lion at the door was commenting on how the Astaroths and Maras can run rings around a Herc 2.
There's nothing about them being good pilots, if anything they're poor pilots cause they do ****ty damage (hey, Shivan weapon tech is supposed to be awesome canon-wise, something worth copying, look at the Kayser), and the their improved turn rate and faster fire rate is due to their better ships.
But, that is another story. This thread is about the goddamn HECATE.
-
You can always have it both ways. The Kayser is demonstrably superior to Shivan tech. I think I once theorized that it's because the Shivans build things based on very powerful principles but then don't bother to refine it. The raw technology is very advanced, but it's not been developed to potential so you end up with early firearms vs. longbows.
-
If you put an average Shivan pilot in a Terran/Vasudan ship, it would turn faster and shoot faster (and more accurately) than with an average Terran or Vasudan.
Pretty telling.
-
How would you know that?
Based of AI Classes in FRED?
Cause there's nothing in gameplay that dictates that the faster turning and faster shooting is because of better pilots. It could just be a better control interface in the ship, for instance. You can't tell from just gameplay, and looking at AI classes in FRED isn't really telling of actual pilot skill cause it could be used to represent a variety of things.
A Shivan has never piloted a Terran/Vasudan fighter, but the opposite has happened, and Terrans wipe the floor with Shivans in Shivan craft, witness Into the Lions Den. Four fighters go in deep into hostile territory, kill like fifty fighters, take out what appears to be pretty important infrastructure, and gets back out without a single loss.
Pretty telling.
-
I disagree!
-
Very well.
-
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE HECATE, SO
Aren't those elephant ears the ugliest thing? :nervous:
-
It was, in fact. It's an agreement to disagree because neither of us is going to budge. A mature solution, rather than wasting gallons of fingersweat yelling.
True. I ain't going to budge...not when there's so much going for my case.
you think all that matter is the AI setting in FRED.
I think the fluff and how it comes off is more important. And fluff and actual gameplay can sometimes clash. Fluff wise, shivans are technology superior (yet when you compare the fighters and weapons, they really aren't), and since we never hear of shivan superior piloting skills (fluff-wise) and 99% of the people would tell you they think shivans are inferior (because they come off as such)....Well, let's just say I consider there is no debate to be had here, because it's awfully one-sided.
-
I think that fluff is extremely important when it comes to the stuff that happens in-universe, including cases regarding the the Hecate. If Shivans have terrible pilots, so do the NTF and the Vasudans, as all of them are a joke compared to whoever you're fighting at the time. As such, using AI as an excuse is faulty. The GTVA developed the Kayser based on Shivan technology, so even if the Shivans' had weaker primaries, it couldn't have been that much worse than the Kayser, and, in fact, they were probably better.
This is where most disagreements may occur: Fluff is more important than anything when it comes to how the universe in FreeSpace works. The Shivans are scary, evil, and high-tech. They blow stuff up quick, and they make short work of capital ships. Also, the Hecate is better than the Orion. Although in-game, this may not seem to be the case, the briefings and tech description make says so. I'm making an assumption that balance and past limitations prevent the Hecate from being shown as a better destroyer in-game. Based on the thread showing the Hecate with many turrets on the animation, the Hecate would have more guns than what is shown in-game.
On the ear comment: If the game had different damages for different parts of the ship (like an FPS), I would assume that they act as shields to attempt to prevent holes being blown like the GTD Legion, though they look like they are there to prevent smaller stuff from breaking through sensitive stuff- something the Orions don't have.
-
I want to play this
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kyd84eE5mc1qb7qwco1_400.jpg)
not this
(http://jerrygarrett.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/tom_cruise_motorcycle.jpg)
and that's basically the extent of my feelings on the topic.
It was, in fact. It's an agreement to disagree because neither of us is going to budge. A mature solution, rather than wasting gallons of fingersweat yelling.
True. I ain't going to budge...not when there's so much going for my case.
you think all that matter is the AI setting in FRED.
I think the fluff and how it comes off is more important. And fluff and actual gameplay can sometimes clash. Fluff wise, shivans are technology superior (yet when you compare the fighters and weapons, they really aren't), and since we never hear of shivan superior piloting skills (fluff-wise) and 99% of the people would tell you they think shivans are inferior (because they come off as such)....Well, let's just say I consider there is no debate to be had here, because it's awfully one-sided.
C'mon, we were getting along so well. Can we just agree to disagree instead of playing 'sure...but I'm right?'
-
It's Trashman, he can't.
-
*sigh*
Guys...... not again, please.
-
*sigh*
Guys...... not again, please.
Hey, if for some reason it's not allowed to debate with the man, that's a problem with him. :P
-
*sigh*
Guys...... not again, please.
What he said.
-
Sadly, the big problem that keeps this offtopic discussion ongoing is that :Volition: didn't care so much about realism. Let's list down some stuff:
-Destroyers have 17-26 turrets, which is awfully sparse for their size. WWII Battleships themselves carry more than a hundred AA turrets (if I'm not mistaken).
-Great-War era capships rely on blobs to take down fighters, which sucks A LOT in FS2 now that we have shields. And that's basically the reason why Orions simply haven't enough firepower to defend itself against Shivan bombers (recall Command having to summon 3 Aeolus cruisers to defend the Bastion in Capella).
-Destroyers move 25 meters per second. Hell, that shouldn't be the case. There isn't gravity in space and theoretically, your speed can multiply since there's no (or very little) outside forces that act upon you. In space.
-Destroyers carry slightly over 100 fighters and bombers. That's too little. Why not design a 2-kilometer battleship by yourself and slide a little hangar in? I tried doing that and got about at least 500 fighters and bombers (Freespace 2-sized ones).
-Harbingers are equal to 5000 megatons worth of explosives, while asteroids, not even that fast, can take down 8% of the Iceni's hull integrity which, based on the fluff, would be like a gigaton-scale bomb impacting the said ship.
-Shivans are said to be far more technologically advanced than the GTVA, when we see that only in Demons and Ravanas. Try flying an Orion against a Demon, and it'll take you sheer skill and luck to take down the enemy on broadside. At the same time, try single-handedly duelling a Shivan. Alpha One toasts the enemy in 3 seconds.
- Etc.
Actually all what I said is offtopic, but my point is, Hecates are really more advanced than the Orion theoretically, but still not advanced (very big ship, wow, really giant ship, er...why's it so funny when it fires at me? I can kill this thing easily!)
Some guys think the Orion's better simply because it looks better (an armored brick-shaped citadel of immense capship power). But as I said, try making it fight a Demon. On the other hand, try making a Hecate deploy its bombers against the Demon. With some courage and skill they take down the damn capship killer.
-
Sadly, the big problem that keeps this offtopic discussion ongoing is that :Volition: didn't care so much about realism. Let's list down some stuff:
-Destroyers have 17-26 turrets, which is awfully sparse for their size. WWII Battleships themselves carry more than a hundred AA turrets (if I'm not mistaken).
True for WW2.
Decidedly not true for later. Remember, the Iowa class got an upgrade for the Gulf War (AKA the last time anyone used a Battleship in real life), which replaced all those manned installations with 4 Phalanx CIWS. That's right. 4.
-Destroyers move 25 meters per second. Hell, that shouldn't be the case. There isn't gravity in space and theoretically, your speed can multiply since there's no (or very little) outside forces that act upon you. In space.
But as we all know, FS takes place in a luminiferous aether universe.
-Destroyers carry slightly over 100 fighters and bombers. That's too little. Why not design a 2-kilometer battleship by yourself and slide a little hangar in? I tried doing that and got about at least 500 fighters and bombers (Freespace 2-sized ones).
You. Designed a battleship.
Where's your ship-design degree?
Did you allocate enough space for engines, crew quarters, armament, armor, magazines, cargo bays?
-Shivans are said to be far more technologically advanced than the GTVA, when we see that only in Demons and Ravanas. Try flying an Orion against a Demon, and it'll take you sheer skill and luck to take down the enemy on broadside. At the same time, try single-handedly duelling a Shivan. Alpha One toasts the enemy in 3 seconds.
Your point being.....
- Etc.
Yeah, no. That's not an argument. For Anything. Ever.
Actually all what I said is offtopic, but my point is, Hecates are really more advanced than the Orion theoretically, but still not advanced (very big ship, wow, really giant ship, er...why's it so funny when it fires at me? I can kill this thing easily!)
What are you trying to say here?
Some guys think the Orion's better simply because it looks better (an armored brick-shaped citadel of immense capship power). But as I said, try making it fight a Demon. On the other hand, try making a Hecate deploy its bombers against the Demon. With some courage and skill they take down the damn capship killer.
Umm. You don't get the point. The Orion, from a basic design POV, is a very good, highly defendable ship design. Its turrets are placed for optimal coverage, and it has very little in the way of true blind spots. Could its AAA armament be better? Of course.
The Hecate, on the other hand, with its weird design, is easier to take down because it can't defend itself well, and because its design make it harder for its escort fighters to fight around her. In addition, her anticap firepower is pityful, and easily taken down. Take all of that together, and ask yourself which ship you'd rather fly off of. An Orion, which needs some extra escorts to shoot down bombers and bombs, but can take care of most of the big stuff easily, or a Hecate, which needs protection from bombers on their way to this blind spot or that, AND other big ships at the same time?
-
Firstly,
What are you trying to say here?
I was, though unstructuredly, trying to say that all these arguments were on the fluffy FS standards, which, like many sci-fi games tend to violate the rules of realism.
Secondly...
The Orion is as it is. Great-War era design. The GTVA didn't bother much to improve its AA armament to newer standards. That's as far as canon can get.
The Hecate, is as it is. It's a cross between carrier and battleship, as most of us look at it, but I believe it handles better as a carrier.
Umm. You don't get the point. The Orion, from a basic design POV, is a very good, highly defendable ship design. Its turrets are placed for optimal coverage, and it has very little in the way of true blind spots. Could its AAA armament be better? Of course.
Yes, I'd agree, it's highly defendable and all: but will it last long against Shivan destroyers? And bombers (without the goddamn Alpha 1 in action)?
The Hecate, on the other hand, with its weird design, is easier to take down because it can't defend itself well, and because its design make it harder for its escort fighters to fight around her. In addition, her anticap firepower is pityful, and easily taken down.
You could say that its anticap weaponry is pitiful, but it isn't designed for that, as I see it. It's designed to operate on search-and-destroy missions, were it wouldn't engage direct combat, but rather, deploy bombers to crush its enemies. Look back at "Slaying Ravana".
Take all of that together, and ask yourself which ship you'd rather fly off of.
I wouldn't fly off an Orion against a Demon.
An Orion, which needs some extra escorts to shoot down bombers and bombs, but can take care of most of the big stuff easily, or a Hecate, which needs protection from bombers on their way to this blind spot or that, AND other big ships at the same time?
Actually, this wouldn't be the case when handling Shivan destroyers. Basically I would rather send an elite bomber wing with fighter escort than an Orion with fighter escort to take them down. I wouldn't want to risk losing an entire flagship to some mission.
Also, I think I'm realizing that you're relying on big ships to handle big ships. Well, no. Especially against Shivans, who, apparently, have less dangerous anti-fighter/bomber armament than their GTVA counterparts. However, they handle big ships tragically with their LRed, which is far more efficient than the BGreen or the sucky TerSlash.
Would you rather send bombers and fighter escort against a Shivan destroyer, or an Orion with fighter escort (or even bomber escort) against a Shivan destroyer? Would you want to have the risk of losing a wing of bombers, or losing a destroyer? That's basically my point.
-
This is going to go productive places that will inform everybody of new things, isn't it?
-
"Slaying Ravana" is kind of a bad example; I hope you've tried it on insane. The Aquitaine sends in one wing of heavy bombers without escort to take out a destroyer with its weapon subsystem intact and plenty of interceptors still to defend it. Where are all those extra fighters that Hecates are supposed to have? :wtf:
-
Well, you could say that it's also one of the realism flaws FS has :p.
Still, Command COULD send a wing or two of fighters to assist Alpha wing.
-
You can always have it both ways. The Kayser is demonstrably superior to Shivan tech. I think I once theorized that it's because the Shivans build things based on very powerful principles but then don't bother to refine it. The raw technology is very advanced, but it's not been developed to potential so you end up with early firearms vs. longbows.
I think instead they spent their R&D resources on refining their beam cannons, which explains the uber powerful LRed and the ultimate BFRed.
-
You can always have it both ways. The Kayser is demonstrably superior to Shivan tech. I think I once theorized that it's because the Shivans build things based on very powerful principles but then don't bother to refine it. The raw technology is very advanced, but it's not been developed to potential so you end up with early firearms vs. longbows.
Yeah this kind of reasoning just never made any kind of sense to me. It's one of those hoary old SF chestnuts that pops up again and again, along with 'They're imitators, not innovators' and 'They're powerful but we're flexible!'
-
Or it could indicate that Shivan fightercraft exist as the result of autonomic processes and are not consciously controlled by the Greater Shivan EntityTM.
Which was why you liked that theory the first time I suggested it. :P
-
Or it could indicate that Shivan fightercraft exist as the result of autonomic processes and are not consciously controlled by the Greater Shivan EntityTM.
Which was why you liked that theory the first time I suggested it. :P
Well that I actually really do like. It makes sense to me on several levels.
I should have provided some boundary conditions in my last post.
-
It's Trashman, he can't.
There is nothing I can't do, peasant!
I agree to disagree. Or disagree to agree. Whichever. :ick:
-
-Destroyers have 17-26 turrets, which is awfully sparse for their size. WWII Battleships themselves carry more than a hundred AA turrets (if I'm not mistaken).
118 for Iowa if I'm not mistaken. But it is a special case, as they usually had less. Yamato's downfall was partially it's terrible AA defense...so yea.
But engine limitations...now we can have ships with 100 turrets, but just how many turrets would a 4 km space battleship have? Depends on the range and power. The bigger the range and power, the less of them you need for full coverage.
-Destroyers carry slightly over 100 fighters and bombers. That's too little. Why not design a 2-kilometer battleship by yourself and slide a little hangar in? I tried doing that and got about at least 500 fighters and bombers (Freespace 2-sized ones).
I could chalk this up to engine limitations, but since we never see the current fighter complement. The bigger it is, the stranger it is for hte player to only have 2 wings in the air. Should it carry more fighters? Hell yes.
A 350 meter carrier can haul 90 of them. A 2100m destroyer has AT LEAST 5x5x5 times the internal volume!!!
-
In case you have forgotten, an Uras is approximately 30% of the volume of one of said carriers. Carrier, not aircraft.
-
But engine limitations...now we can have ships with 100 turrets, but just how many turrets would a 4 km space battleship have? Depends on the range and power. The bigger the range and power, the less of them you need for full coverage.
It appears that the Orion and Hecate would be better if they had have thousands of turrets. Look at Imperial Star Destroyers from Star Wars, who appear to be even smaller than the Orion, yet carry over a hundred turbolasers. (but of course, what the hell, they carry only 80 TIEs which are even far smaller than FS fighters :lol:)
A 350 meter carrier can haul 90 of them. A 2100m destroyer has AT LEAST 5x5x5 times the internal volume!!!
Well, that's a carrier you're talking about. Orions and Hecates (canonically) aren't really carriers (though we think the Hecate is just because it has poor anticap firepower).
-
In case you have forgotten, an Uras is approximately 30% of the volume of one of said carriers. Carrier, not aircraft.
Well, Ursas really are speacial and destroyer don't carry 100 of them.
I'm well aware that FS2 fighters are bigger than real ones, but the volume difference of the carriers in question is MASSIVE.
A 300m long ship usually has 27 times the volume of a 100m one, since all 3 axis scale.
So a 2100m destroyer has (roughly) 6x6x6 = 216!!! times the volume of a 350m carrier.
I say roughly because not all 3 axes necessarily scale equally, nor is the volume usage equal.
-
A 300 m ship only has 27 times the volume of a 100 meter ship if all other systems do not scale at all, and the ship size triples in all three axes. Try adding bigger engines, bigger guns, larger crew quarters, a larger mess, and all sorts of other rather massive stuff. Alternately, take a 100x10x20 meter ship. Triple the length. The increase in volume is only a factor of three, not 27.
-
I am talking about total volume. What it's used for is another matter.
Assume all internal systems scale equally. That still gives a vast volume increase. The fighterbay itself would STILL be 27 times bigger.
But again, the volume distribution is not equal, since a carrier is very tightly packed, it doesn't have holes, thin necks and wings. In comparison, the Hecate makes very poor use of it's theorethical total volume, as a whole lot of it is unused, since it's not a perfect cube. Neither is a carrier for that matter, but it's a lot closer. A Orion is easier to calculate for that matter.
If you want, I can make a detailed volume calculation for both the Orion and Hecate, but I fail to see the point of it, since it's obvious the volume difference is humongous.
Also:
100x10x20 = 20000
300x30x60 = 540000
540000/20000 = 27
I think it gos without saying that compared to a carrier, an Orion/Hecate does have a massive increase in all 3 axis.
-
Assume all internal systems scale equally
No. Because they don't. The engines on a Hecate and Orion are ridiculously massive even in proportion to the rest of the ship compared to a carrier. As are, presumably, the thickness of the armor, the size of the reactors, and the space taken up by weapons. You're also basing your (admittedly lately abandoned) statement that number of fighter craft should be massively higher on the assumption that the size of those aren't increasing at the same rate. They don't.
-
Who's making assuptions now? How do you know the whole block is the engines, and not just the rear part? And even if engines really are that huge, there's still tons and tons and TONS of room left.
And FYI, engines on a carrier aren't small either.
Other things don't scale - rooms, cargo areas, C&C will not be significantly larger, because they don't have to be - humans don't scale up, so they don't need more room.
Again, over 2km in length..that's a amazing amount of volume..and we know the size of fightercaft, so the whole "they scale up too" is rubbish. We know how big fighter are and how much volume they take.
Proportionally, the size of a FS2 fighter compared to a destroyer compared to the size of a fighter compared to a carrier...it's easy to do the math. The difference is obvious.
Now, yes, guns are larger on a FS2 destroyer, but so is the destroyer itself - and there's only a few larger ones. And with miniaturization, you can expect a lot of internal equipment to be smaller, if not larger.
-
Again, over 2km in length..that's a amazing amount of volume..and we know the size of fightercaft, so the whole "they scale up too" is rubbish.
An Ursa is the size of a freaking house, man. Two-story with a basement. And it's still got a span the size of a Hornet with wings unfolded. Don't tell me the fighters don't scale up too, that's bullcrap.
-
I very much doubt [V] just pulled these numbers out of their arse. Admittedly, a lot of FS canon almost certainly has been removed from that particular orifice, but you'd have to assume they at least did some rough, back of the envelope calculations on things like number of fighters. The numbers probably correspond to something, we just don't know the assumptions they used when working them out.
-
Who's making assuptions now? How do you know the whole block is the engines, and not just the rear part? And even if engines really are that huge, there's still tons and tons and TONS of room left.
I wasn't aware that a ton was a measurement of volume. Truly, I have been enlightened! Now, let's take a look at those engine blocks. The lower engines are disconnected from the rest of the ship, so even if they aren't all engine, there are no fighters in there. The lift mechanisms and such would waste a whole lotta space. The rear engines are ****ing gigantic. As in, "Let's fit three Ursas in it end-to-end and still have a few meters left over. That's just for the exhaust/propulsion. A quick look at the front of that engine block shows, wait for it, ANOTHER ENGINE! And we can only fit one Ursa in before we run out of room. And let's not forget the gun turrets, maintenance workways, duty stations, and, in all probability, mess and crew quarters, because, in case you've forgotten, even a Nimitz has several more than one, and this ship is, as you've oft screamed at everyone, hugely larger than a Nimitz. With 10,000 crew spread across that amount of ship, I'd bet on at least four or five, unless you want all crew on the ship to spend 15 minutes at a run to get to the nearest mess. Cargo space will sure as hell increase, due to riduculously high numbers of replacement parts for the ridiculously high numbers of breakable parts on such a massive ship. And the fighters and spares. And the food stores. And the water stores, because it's space now. And we can't forget the gigantic amounts of ammunition, since a FS fighter wing burn through more in a sortie than are usually carried on an carrier air group, especially if they're using Tempests.
And quit spitting this stuff about miniaturization of parts. We have no functional equivalent to beam cannons, blob turrets, anti-fighter beams, or even the kind of flak these ships spit. Unless, for some reason, you think that conventional flak could rip through them.
-
An Ursa is the size of a freaking house, man. Two-story with a basement. And it's still got a span the size of a Hornet with wings unfolded. Don't tell me the fighters don't scale up too, that's bullcrap.
A destroyer doesn't carry 150 Ursas...altough I guess you could fit them in. FS2 regular bombers range from 20 to 40m in length.
And no, FS2 fighters don't scale up the same way.
A destroyer is 27 time larger than a carrier.
A FS2 fighter is not longer than 20m. The staple Myrmodon is 16m long. Herc 2 is 17. Compare it to a F-14, which is one of the larger real fighters...19m.
FS2 fighters are generally bulkier, and they take up more volume, but the difference isn't that big.
-
I wasn't aware that a ton was a measurement of volume. Truly, I have been enlightened!
figure of speech man..figure of speech...Sheesh.
And let's not forget the gun turrets, maintenance workways, duty stations, and, in all probability, mess and crew quarters, because, in case you've forgotten, even a Nimitz has several more than one, and this ship is, as you've oft screamed at everyone, hugely larger than a Nimitz. With 10,000 crew spread across that amount of ship, I'd bet on at least four or five, unless you want all crew on the ship to spend 15 minutes at a run to get to the nearest mess. Cargo space will sure as hell increase, due to riduculously high numbers of replacement parts for the ridiculously high numbers of breakable parts on such a massive ship. And the fighters and spares. And the food stores. And the water stores, because it's space now. And we can't forget the gigantic amounts of ammunition, since a FS fighter wing burn through more in a sortie than are usually carried on an carrier air group, especially if they're using Tempests.
Let's not forget that a FS2 destroyer has roughly twice as much personnell than a carrier, but it's over 20 times larger. Room for people will not be an issue.
Now, I'm not arguing that Hecates use of space is terrible due to ti's shape - it really, really is.
Still, at first glance you wouldn't think one could fit 90 airplanes on a carrier, now would you? Good usage of space.
Mind you, the fighter number is a more general comment that's not only aimed at the Hecate - it affects all destroyers. What about the Demon? Or the Orion or Hatshepsut? Their shape certanly makes a much better usage of the volume, and you can certanly fit more fighter in a Orion than you could in a Hecate (theorethicly).
Did [V] pull the number out of their ass? Very likely. What's so hard to believe that, it's just a game after all. Creators often overlook stuff that the rabid fans will discuss about for eons. Like scaling issues in most Sci-fi's ever. They generally have other stuff to worry about, and I don't think sketching out the deck plans for the destroyers and calculating internal volume and fighter capacity was one of them.
And quit spitting this stuff about miniaturization of parts. We have no functional equivalent to beam cannons, blob turrets, anti-fighter beams, or even the kind of flak these ships spit. Unless, for some reason, you think that conventional flak could rip through them.
But we know how big beam cannons are..We can see them in the colossus ani's, how large their internal parts are. They resemble WW2 turrets, in that they go into the ship for some depth. And well, there is some logical limit to the size of the things.
You harldy think a flak of aaf turrets will be bigger on the internal than a beam cannon, now doyou?
-
And no, FS2 fighters don't scale up the same way.
This picture, it is for your enlightment.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Super_Hornet_on_flight_deck.jpg)
A FS2 fighter is not longer than 20m. The staple Myrmodon is 16m long. Herc 2 is 17. Compare it to a F-14, which is one of the larger real fighters...19m.
You're misstating the storage problem by 8 meters. In your favor, conveniently. (Swept wingspan is 11.58 meters in comparison to extended 19.55 meters.) What is apparently totally lost on you is that modern naval aircraft make use of various features like variable-geometry wing surfaces or folding wings to reduce the space they take up in the hanger or on the deck. FS fightercraft, considering their ability to stand up to nuclear-scaled detonations, probably can't afford the structural weakness and a number of them don't even appear to have parts they could fold in (the Ursa for example).
-
:wtf:
No, I'm well aware of the sweeping/folding wings.
I was stating length, not width..And you still fail to see the HUGE volume difference in carriers compared to fighters. Those 7 meters of wing space don't make a decisive difference. FS2 fighters could be 30m on average and you could still comfortably fit more than 150.
Go ahead - import some FS2 fighters and an Orion in your 3D program of choice, and see just how many you can fit in the "visible" hangar alone.
I did that once out of curiosity..IIRC, I even posted a picture..has to be around somewhere. FS2 destroyers are friggin HUGE!!!!!
-
People, don't you see that there isn't any space left for more fighters with all that AWESOME being packed on the destroyers?
As for the Hecate, I admit I don't know what it is filled with...
-
Yes, Trash, we know that Destroyers are huge. What you seem to be ignoring is that the flight deck, maintenance, rearming, refueling, etc. are going to be necessarily more massive even scaled with the destroyer due to A) the massive increase in ordinance expended. B) the fact that these fighters are hugely more massive than normal fighters and therefore need more fuel than a modern fighter. Not to mention that non-newtonian fyzyx means they have to continuously use fuel to maintain the same velocity. And then, once again, there are water stores, food stores, air stores and all sorts of things that take up a hell of a lot more space for 10,000 people than you're giving them credit for.
Actually, I have a question for you. How many fighters can you fit inside a WWII battleship? I'd bet you almost anything that it's not as much as the displacement of the ship would indicate.
-
Yes, Trash, we know that Destroyers are huge. What you seem to be ignoring is that the flight deck, maintenance, rearming, refueling, etc. are going to be necessarily more massive even scaled with the destroyer due to A) the massive increase in ordinance expended. B) the fact that these fighters are hugely more massive than normal fighters and therefore need more fuel than a modern fighter. Not to mention that non-newtonian fyzyx means they have to continuously use fuel to maintain the same velocity. And then, once again, there are water stores, food stores, air stores and all sorts of things that take up a hell of a lot more space for 10,000 people than you're giving them credit for.
a) Freespace fighters are not more massive than real ones by a large margin
b) hence, flight deck, mantainance and stuff doesn't have to be MASSIVELY more huge. Even if it does...frigin 20 times more volume. 20 TIMES. A low end estimate!
c) What IS MASSIVELY more huge is the destroyer.
You are ignoring the vast difference in scale.
Again - destroyer at least 20 times bigger than a carrier, while a fighter is roughly twice the size of a regular fighter. Do the math.
Even if the fighters were 5 times bigger and used 10 times more fuel, there would STILL be more space left than you'd know what to do with it.
You got so much volume to work with it's not even funny. A friggin corvette has several thousand on board (and all the air, food and water for them) and it only has about 1/9th of a destroyer volume. So yea.
-
This is so stupid.
-
Agreed.
-
Reopened by request. Keep it cool.
-
If I may suggest, we should clearly define what each of us would want from a destroyer in FS. I agree with the established suggestion that a Hecate is in the "dead zone" between a destroyer and a carrier. The thing is, what is the supposed usage of a destroyer? Nothing but being able to beamzzzorz smaller vessels/other destroyers? If so, the Hecate definitely fails in this role. However, the more "universal" we want, allow or wish the destroyer class to be, the Hecate will more and more fit our description. At least that is my humble opinion. :)
-
For me, a Destroyer in FS needs to be something like the Battlestar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBattlestar). A multirole vessel that has significant ship-to-ship firepower distributed between the air wing it carries and the weapons mounted on its hull.
Its mission profile would be to be prepared for anything. The expectation I have for a Destroyer is that it should have at least a fighting chance to escape from any tactical situation it finds itself in, which means that pure Carrier designs and pure Battleship designs are contraindicated.
As was stated in this thread numerous times, the Hecate is a carrier used in a universe that really isn't carrier-friendly. A Carrier's first line of defence is that it's not supposed to be anywhere near the actual combat; In FS, this is a tactical goal that simply is not achievable. Thus, the Hecate simply is the wrong tool for the job at hand.
-
However, the more "universal" we want, allow or wish the destroyer class to be, the Hecate will more and more fit our description. At least that is my humble opinion. :)
Considering the main criticism leveled at the Hecate by its detractors is that it's not "universal" enough, this is doubtful.
-
However, the more "universal" we want, allow or wish the destroyer class to be, the Hecate will more and more fit our description. At least that is my humble opinion. :)
Considering the main criticism leveled at the Hecate by its detractors is that it's not "universal" enough, this is doubtful.
Well, "universal" - in my book - means that it is capable to perform in multiple roles, albeit not as effectively as something specialized. I think the Hecate simply does not perform well enough in either of its roles to make the "universal" applicable. But again, that is something that depends on personal interpretation.
-
Wait. First you say:
. However, the more "universal" we want, allow or wish the destroyer class to be, the Hecate will more and more fit our description. At least that is my humble opinion. :)
Then you say:
I think the Hecate simply does not perform well enough in either of its roles to make the "universal" applicable. But again, that is something that depends on personal interpretation.
So, first you say that "The more universal the design you want is, the more you'll like the Hecate", then you say "The Hecate is overspecialized".
You really should decide what you want.
-
I wouldn't call the Hecate too specialized; if anything, I'd call it too generalized. With a ship as large and valuable as a destroyer, you want it prepared for anything, but this can lead to the "jack of all trades, master of none" problem, which is what I'd say happened to the Hecate. It tries to fill both the role of carrier and battleship and ends up failing at both. Its fighterbays are too easily disabled for it to rely on bombers to deal with capital ships, and it doesn't pack enough beams to deal with capital ship threats itself. It may have been better if they had picked one role as its primary purpose with the other as a secondary concern. As has been mentioned in the past, the Raynor/Titan combination in Blue Planet exemplifies this idea: the Raynor is first and foremost a battleship, while the Titan is primarily a carrier, and they each have the other role as a secondary objective.
Another problem is the Hecate's idiotic design. It compromises the fields of fire of both its antifighter weapons and its broadside and stinger slash beams. If you put the same armaments on a "cleaner" ship with better fields of fire, like the Orion or Hatshepsut, they might not seem so inadequate.
-
This has been brought up before. The Orion is a Battleship/Carrier Hybrid, and it performs adequately in both roles. The failure of the Hecate is not that it tries to fill both roles, the failure is that it is too specialized for the carrier role to adequately perform as a direct-combat ship.
And its armament mix, while adequate against fighters, sucks against capital ships.
-
First off, thanks to the MODS for reopening @ my request.
Guys I vouched for you and this discussion, so please keep it civil. If you cant agree to dissagree refrain from posting rather then turning things ugly like before. Maintain an adult conversation discussion.
Am I the only one who loves the asthetics of the Hecates design? It is a beautiful magestic ship. Not speaking of tehcnical blindspots or flaws.
I think its offensive beams are adequate and its fighter compliment is good. They should always have deployed more fighters in each situation--but its a playabliity thing in the FS world. The player has to feel the strain even tho its unrealisitc. I remember a situation where the Aquitane was running from a fight, got 10% health and refused to send any extra fighters out even tho it only send 3-4 wings total with only Alpha1 remaining. It has plenty that would rush to its defense. But..if it spit out 100 fighters what fun would Alpha1 have?
Also one main point I want to point out is this. Alpha1 has seen the worst of the battles. Our missions are not the everyday run of the and routine. Im sure the R&D of the 24th? century were not morons as to botch up a total Class of ship such as the Hecate. If it was that bad they would not have made a whole line of them, spending all the money and resources they did---Anyone dissagree? In theory at least. I think the Hecate operates Just fine as a (carrier) or whatever roll its designed to be in most routine situations. Our missions take place weeks or months apart. (FS2 took place over 1 year and FS1 took place over 2-4? years)
So it may not have been designed for all that direct heavy combat, which mostly was ship to ship.
Ill come up with a more detailed post later on.
*I have read every post to date in this 11 page topic
-
Am I the only one who loves the asthetics of the Hecates design? It is a beautiful magestic ship. Not speaking of tehcnical blindspots or flaws.
Technical drawbacks and design flaws are what this topic is about, soooo....
I think its offensive beams are adequate and its fighter compliment is good.
1 BGreen and 4 TerSlashes are "adequate"? For what, scaring Cruisers?
Also one main point I want to point out is this. Alpha1 has seen the worst of the battles. Our missions are not the everyday run of the and routine. Im sure the R&D of the 24th? century were not morons as to botch up a total Class of ship such as the Hecate.
And yet, they did.
If it was that bad they would not have made a whole line of them, spending all the money and resources they did---Anyone dissagree? In theory at least.
In military procurement, one finds the nasty tendency of militaries across the ages to always prepare for the last war they thought, thus inevitably being unprepared for what the next war will bring. The big lesson of FS1 was "Fighters and Bombers are king", so as a result, we get the Hecate class Carrier.
I think the Hecate operates Just fine as a (carrier) or whatever roll its designed to be in most routine situations. Our missions take place weeks or months apart. (FS2 took place over 1 year and FS1 took place over 2-4? years)
Plz 2 quote canon on the dates there.
While the Hecate is performing adequately as a Carrier, that's not the point. If the GTVA had retired all Orions, the main fleet would have lacked a direct fire element that can mix it up with other Destroyers.
So it may not have been designed for all that direct heavy combat, which mostly was ship to ship.
That's the problem. The Hecate is inadequate in the ship-to-ship role, and yet is deployed in situations where ship-to-ship combat is to be expected.
Bad tactics? Yes. Command stupid? Yes. But the main flaw, IMO, is the Hecate's design not being multi-role enough.
-
Am I the only one who loves the asthetics of the Hecates design? It is a beautiful magestic ship. Not speaking of tehcnical blindspots or flaws.
Yes, it does look neat.
But when choosing between "good looking and efficient" and "just good looking" I'll go for the former.
***
Back on the crux of the matter..If you compare the Hecate to the Orion..
Both have 1 fighterbay (bad). The Hecate one is a bit harder to get to and take out.
The Hecate has multiple engines, making it difficult to disable (realisticly...it gets disabled far too easily in the campaign)
The Hacate has superior AA defenses ,but it's shape prevents it for using it efficiently.
The Orion has inferior AA defenses, despite a shape that would benefit the most from them.
Orion fighter capacity: 120
Hecate fighter capacity: 150
Orion beam power - 3 BGreen, 3 Slash
Hecate Beam power - 1 BGreen, 4 Slash
Clearly, the Hecate was not designed to stay and fight, but to escape. Many engines testify to that. The rear beam is useless, so the most firepower is can hope to bring to bear is 1 BGreen and 2 Slashers, something it's rarely even capable of doing.
Theorethicly, it should last longer than the Orion against fighter/bomber attacks, but even it's 30 extra fighters don't compensate for it's lack of a powerful alpha strike. Quite simply, it's not meant to stay in combat or go into it, unless absolutely necessary.
I see it more as a mobile command center than an actual warship.
-
Te Hecate is an ugly design, an ugly ship made of random parts that don't go together. Like the skull, on the front, the elephant ears, on the side of the head and at the engines, etc etc.
-
Aren't fighterbays indestructible?
-
It's said in at least one mission I believe that the Colossus can't sortie fighters to assist because she's sustained damage to her fighterbay.
-
Aren't fighterbays indestructible?
in terms of game mechanics yes they are indestructible but for story reasons the colly is unable to launch fighters in I think 2 missions and in one of the Aquitaine defense missions it to is "unable" to launch fighters
-
It actually depends on the warship in question, I think. The Sathanas's fighterbay can be destroyed, if I remember correctly.
-
Since an FS fighterbay is actually nothing more than a huge tunnel, wouldn't it be puzzling to manage to "destroy" a fighterbay?
It's like being able to destroy a door, and preventing anything from getting through. :wtf:
-
Damage to the actual deck, though, would prevent fighters from taking off. Much like holes in a runway on Earth.
-
depends on the launch system, if the fighter operates a SW rebel style hanger then all the fighter has to do is lift clear of the damage and fly out. now if you were to damage the space door (if there is one) and jam it in a closed or semi closed position that would do it. Also if you damage the support girders above the hanger and dropping them across the threshold to space that would also do it
-
Despite that, don't you think a destroyer should handle at least several hundred fighters and bombers? Let's congratulate anyone who could give us a clear shot of the Hecate's hangar and a fighter inside, where we can easily see how much can exactly fit inside the damn cave.
-
Hmm...why aren't hangar/fighter bays destroyable as any other subsystem tough?
Mechanicly it's works just the same - except that if all fighterbays are destroyed, the fighters set to arrive from a warship don't launch.
I guess [V] did it so not to break mission. I say they could have designed missions to account for that...
-
Despite that, don't you think a destroyer should handle at least several hundred fighters and bombers? Let's congratulate anyone who could give us a clear shot of the Hecate's hangar and a fighter inside, where we can easily see how much can exactly fit inside the damn cave.
It doesn't exist, because :V: didn't model the inside of an already huge ship that the player never enters anyway. And, once again, fighters don't fill the whole superstructure.
-
Hmm...why aren't hangar/fighter bays destroyable as any other subsystem tough?
They are. Or at least have been on occasion.
Back in the old days of 3.6.7 at least, a fighterbay only became invincible if wings were scheduled to launch from it. (But remained that way, even if all wings had launched.) If no one was intended to use it in the mission, it was possible to destroy the fighterbay. I assume this was to prevent game-crashing errors in retail, but don't really know.
-
I remember the FS1 mission where they said to enter Lucy fighterbay. The first time i thought it through..but tried none-the-less. Sadly we never could get in:P
-
Hmm...why aren't hangar/fighter bays destroyable as any other subsystem tough?
They are. Or at least have been on occasion.
Back in the old days of 3.6.7 at least, a fighterbay only became invincible if wings were scheduled to launch from it. (But remained that way, even if all wings had launched.) If no one was intended to use it in the mission, it was possible to destroy the fighterbay. I assume this was to prevent game-crashing errors in retail, but don't really know.
Well, if they are invulnerable if a fighter wing launches...then they aren't really destructable..I mean, how often will you have a ship with a intact fighterbay in a mission that doesn't launch fighters?
That why fighterbays should always be destroyaeel, unless FREDed otherwise..and should have auto-repair on (a destroyed fighter bay is automaticly repaired a bit after a few minutes)
-
Err, well, back to topic anyways.
I'll just repeat my statement on this thread.
The Hecate has a reputation for being an odd-looking, impractical destroyer with poor anticapital firepower, and shouldn't be a worthy successor of the Orion. However, let's just consider why the GTVA possibly came up with such a design...
The Hecate, yes, it looks odd. Don't you think Volition did it to make it sort of look like "more advanced" than the Orion? With more superstructures, more functions, and stuff? Also, we never really saw the Hecate perform against powerful enemy ships like destroyers. We saw the Aquitaine take down a Shivan corvette, the Tiamat, and that's the most the frikkin' destroyer could really do. Having let's say, twice as much BGreens as an Orion would be useless if all a Hecate would destroy would be a corvette, and challenge a Juggernaut that would destroy it in a few seconds, if it wouldn't jump out before its 4 rays of death chewed it apart. Besides, wouldn't the fun be eliminated if the Aquitaine decimates the Tiamat in just a single volley of beamfire?
However, as I've alreay mentioned before, the Hecate's antifighter defenses are quite poor for a skilled pilot, but still better than an Orion's. Hell, it has 26 turrets which would fire through the ship. And lots of superstructures which an unlucky pilot would collide to if he were clumsy, stunning his fighter, and exposing himself to an enemy fighter, where he'd then be vaporised. The AI sucks at this point. See Shivans clumsily colliding into one of the Aqui's wierd structures, and watch it gleefully bounce back, as if saying, "hey, c'mon, now's the time to shoot me to pieces!".
Furthermore, I'd say that the Hecate's multiple hangars might allow it for fighters to flank the enemy ("Attack from all sides" sort of tactic). Unlike the Orion, whose one massive fighterbay might mean a little more time for its fighters to evacuate and patrol their mother ship. Hell, we don't even know what could be inside those hangars, apart from mere fighters and bombers. Of course, canonically there's nothing else, but try to think; could there be transports, gunboats, sentry guns, and other sorts of crazy stuff?? With only one hangar, the Orion might have a hard time cramming that all up.
As it is, you could judge the Hecate badly all you want. However, if we think beyond the boundaries of canon, there are tons of possibilities why the GTVA thought of such a design.
-
The Hecate, yes, it looks odd. Don't you think Volition did it to make it sort of look like "more advanced" than the Orion? With more superstructures, more functions, and stuff? Also, we never really saw the Hecate perform against powerful enemy ships like destroyers. We saw the Aquitaine take down a Shivan corvette, the Tiamat, and that's the most the frikkin' destroyer could really do. Having let's say, twice as much BGreens as an Orion would be useless if all a Hecate would destroy would be a corvette, and challenge a Juggernaut that would destroy it in a few seconds, if it wouldn't jump out before its 4 rays of death chewed it apart. Besides, wouldn't the fun be eliminated if the Aquitaine decimates the Tiamat in just a single volley of beamfire?
"we never really saw the Hecate perform against powerful enemy ships like destroyers" Yes, we did. Phoenicia vs Sathanas.
Okay, I admit that's a poor comparison. We only get to see the Aquitaine vs Tiamat fight. Which the Aquitaine almost lost. A Destroyer that has to turn tail and run away from a Corvette doesn't deserve to be designated a Destroyer.
Let's make a list here. Point 1: We've proven now that the Hecate, on its own, is bad against other capital ships.
However, as I've alreay mentioned before, the Hecate's antifighter defenses are quite poor for a skilled pilot, but still better than an Orion's. Hell, it has 26 turrets which would fire through the ship. And lots of superstructures which an unlucky pilot would collide to if he were clumsy, stunning his fighter, and exposing himself to an enemy fighter, where he'd then be vaporised. The AI sucks at this point. See Shivans clumsily colliding into one of the Aqui's wierd structures, and watch it gleefully bounce back, as if saying, "hey, c'mon, now's the time to shoot me to pieces!".
Point 2: The Hecate is badly designed for a defensive engagement against fighters.
Furthermore, I'd say that the Hecate's multiple hangars
Uhh, it has ONE hangar? Like, singular? Uno? Einen einzigen?
might allow it for fighters to flank the enemy ("Attack from all sides" sort of tactic). Unlike the Orion, whose one massive fighterbay might mean a little more time for its fighters to evacuate and patrol their mother ship. Hell, we don't even know what could be inside those hangars, apart from mere fighters and bombers. Of course, canonically there's nothing else, but try to think; could there be transports, gunboats, sentry guns, and other sorts of crazy stuff?? With only one hangar, the Orion might have a hard time cramming that all up.
Well, seeing as both Destroyer classes only have one hangar bay, I think this argument is sort of invalidated.
As it is, you could judge the Hecate badly all you want. However, if we think beyond the boundaries of canon, there are tons of possibilities why the GTVA thought of such a design.
Yes, if the Hecate was different, it would be better.
What.
In Canon, the Hecate sucks. In Canon, it is outperformed by nearly every other class of Destroyer presented in FS2. In Canon, Command shows poor judgment in deploying these Ships. In Canon, they are a bad design.
-
I agree with The E here. Marcov, canon proves it's bad at basically everything the Hecate should be good at. It's simply poorly designed and badly deployed. Although you could argue, as people have, that the Hecate's primary purpose isn't to destroy things; counterintuitive for something classified as a destroyer in the least.
How does one deploy the Hecate well? The same way you generally deploy most modern carriers; with their battlegroups by their sides. (As I believe someone may have said earlier).
-
It was a joint-vasudan project, and we all know how zods use funky impractical architecture. Command gave the blue prints a go-ahead because of political pressures.
/xenophobia
-
Yes. As TrashMan pointed out earlier, the Hecate is a good mobile command base. But the flipside is that it needs a constant escort, and that it should always be deployed behind the lines (which, in FS terms, means one interstellar jump away). Putting it anywhere near active combat is a really, really bad move.
It was a joint-vasudan project, and we all know how zods use funky impractical architecture. Command gave the blue prints a go-ahead because of political pressures.
/xenophobia
Funny how the Hatshepsut is a much, much better ship......
-
I...actually wouldn't be surprised if design compromises or even intentional mishandling undercut the Hecate as part of a bid by Vasudan contractors to sell their own ships.
-
Yes. As TrashMan pointed out earlier, the Hecate is a good mobile command base. But the flipside is that it needs a constant escort, and that it should always be deployed behind the lines (which, in FS terms, means one interstellar jump away). Putting it anywhere near active combat is a really, really bad move.
Yeah, alternative I can see to positioning it ridiculously far away is to drop it at a depot, where there are already defences in places. In addition to this, is the fact it's flanked by its escort. This in itself is a deterrent to most piecemeal attacks an enemy could mount. Or you could step into the other direction and hide it in the middle of a bloody asteroid field. :P Where the radar contacts would probably make it harder to pinpoint the exact location of the destroyer, as well as mount an attack on it. Getting it in there is another story which I haven't thought far enough ahead for.
Regardless, then you have the enemy attack points throughout the system, in order to draw the escort away from the Hecate, or better yet, have the Hecate and its escort deploy. Present the 'smallest credible threat' perhaps, in the same spirit almost as that mission you fly with the 242nd.
I...actually wouldn't be surprised if design compromises or even intentional mishandling undercut the Hecate as part of a bid by Vasudan contractors to sell their own ships.
But the Vasudans don't sell Vasudan ships to Terran navies. Although I don't know the specifics of ship manufacture in FS. And in addition to that, is there anything said about the Vasudans having that much of a disdain with the Terrans post-GW to do something like that? Not counting the NTF insurgency.
-
I...actually wouldn't be surprised if design compromises or even intentional mishandling undercut the Hecate as part of a bid by Vasudan contractors to sell their own ships.
But the Vasudans don't sell Vasudan ships to Terran navies. Although I don't know the specifics of ship manufacture in FS. And in addition to that, is there anything said about the Vasudans having that much of a disdain post-GW to do something like that? Not counting the NTF insurgency.
It has nothing to do with disdain, it's just economics. Happens IRL all the time. Say the Hecate's planned as a universal Terran/Vasudan fleet destroyer; Vasudan contractors handicap the Hecate, aided by some fluctuating design requirements and intentionally bad calls by Vasudan elements of the requisition process. Then they say it doesn't meet design requirements and roll out the Hatshepsut to take its place in Vasudan battle groups.
-
Or they're purchasing some insurance, if you know what I mean.
-
Indeed. Doesn't hurt that the Hattie's components probably come exclusively from Vasudan contractors, making it a very popular ship back home.
-
I...actually wouldn't be surprised if design compromises or even intentional mishandling undercut the Hecate as part of a bid by Vasudan contractors to sell their own ships.
But the Vasudans don't sell Vasudan ships to Terran navies. Although I don't know the specifics of ship manufacture in FS. And in addition to that, is there anything said about the Vasudans having that much of a disdain post-GW to do something like that? Not counting the NTF insurgency.
It has nothing to do with disdain, it's just economics. Happens IRL all the time. Say the Hecate's planned as a universal Terran/Vasudan fleet destroyer; Vasudan contractors handicap the Hecate, aided by some fluctuating design requirements and intentionally bad calls by Vasudan elements of the requisition process. Then they say it doesn't meet design requirements and roll out the Hatshepsut to take its place in Vasudan battle groups.
Hmm, interesting. Although is it said anywhere that they planned to roll out the Hecate for use by both species? Looking at the wiki, the description looks a little ambiguous in that regard. The differences in mainhall design make me think that perhaps the two species have different philosophies regarding even the internal design of the ship; making the possibility of the Hecate being sold as a vessel for both species unlikely in my opinion (as someone said on the thread mentioning the Vasudan mainhall, the thing looks like it's designed to be operated in 0-G, a Hecate mainhall in 0-G doesn't look the slightest bit helpful).
I could be missing the point you're making here, however. Also, out of curiosity, where's it said that the Hecate is manufactured by both Terran and Vasudan designers/contractors?
-
It's not solid canon, I'm just supposing.
-
I did, based off of vague memories/no evidence at hand.
If you look at design elements on the hull, however, there are a lot more superfluous curves than you see on the Orion. Also, it'd be absurd to assume that internal systems didn't have at least some Vasudan contractors work on them.
-
That's true. It still looks distinctly 'Terran' to me though. I suppose if you take a very loose view of the thing, it bears slight resemblance to the Herc I and II. But I see where you're coming from.
-
If anything, the Hecate looks very similar to the Colossus thematically, and we know the Colossus was a 50/50 joint effort.
-
Oh yeah, thematically, I agree with you. But it's vertical stabiliser (why on Earth do spaceships need one of those? If that's what it is) bears similarity in shape to the Herc's, from memory. If you look at the back half, it bears slight resemblance to the Herc II; I digress.
-
(to the previous comments)
You can judge the Hecate as canonically bad all you want. However, logic dictates that it would be supposedly a better warship than the Orion. As I've said, it's as good as it can get...beyond the boundaries of the damn canon, which apparently screws up realism for game balance.
However, one thing. The Hecate may be bad against fighters and bombers, but you have the Orion which is even worse, with its FS1-based armament (#of turrets, 17).
-
In terms of its armament, I think you have a point. However, the Orion's shape means that 17 turrets are sufficient to cover the surface area of the vessel, and that there really isn't such a glaring deficiency in anti-fighter cover. With the Hecate, however, all those jutting angles (why on Earth does it have canards and stabilisers?) mean that you need turrets to cover them. Meaning that more turrets+more energy+more crew are required to cover the damn thing, let alone get it to wield some firepower, which I understand it lacks in. I believe the Orion has more anti-cap turrets than the Hecate, doesn't it?
-
Oh yeah, thematically, I agree with you. But it's vertical stabiliser (why on Earth do spaceships need one of those? If that's what it is) bears similarity in shape to the Herc's, from memory. If you look at the back half, it bears slight resemblance to the Herc II; I digress.
Thematically also in degree of curviness, color (?), and general feel. Not so much shape, which I realize is the first thing most people think about when they think thematic. Sorry.
-
*cancel that apostrophe, my bad.
Oh yeah, that's what I thought you were getting at, just thought I'd bring up shape in case, though.
-
In terms of its armament, I think you have a point. However, the Orion's shape means that 17 turrets are sufficient to cover the surface area of the vessel, and that there really isn't such a glaring deficiency in anti-fighter cover. With the Hecate, however, all those jutting angles (why on Earth does it have canards and stabilisers?) mean that you need turrets to cover them. Meaning that more turrets+more energy+more crew are required to cover the damn thing, let alone get it to wield some firepower, which I understand it lacks in. I believe the Orion has more anti-cap turrets than the Hecate, doesn't it?
Didn't someone state earlier that the Hecate can fire through its hull?
Plus, the Hecate has more turrets (about 26 if I remember correctly). The odd superstructures, as I've said, also help confuse the enemy (considering AI-type enemies).
-
As much as they may confuse a spatially less aware enemy, hit the structure and you cause damage, which impacts the overall hull integrity, which in turn has an effect on the probability of the ship blowing up. :P
-
(to the previous comments)
You can judge the Hecate as canonically bad all you want. However, logic dictates that it would be supposedly a better warship than the Orion. As I've said, it's as good as it can get...beyond the boundaries of the damn canon, which apparently screws up realism for game balance.
What logic would that be? Canonicity in FS is simple, if it appears in-game in a certain way, that's how it appears in the Universe. And no, it's not as good as it can get. This has got nothing to do with realism vs canon. Or realism vs gameplay. The Hecate is a ****ty design, there are no indicators for it being better anywhere else, there is no hint given to us in-universe that it is even considered to be better than the Hatshepsut, Typhon, or Orion.
The point is, it's useless to argue against canon. You can make stories about how this ship is so much better than the game portraits it to be, but those stories won't be canon. You can make theories about the ship's capabilities to give it redeeming features that are not modelled in FS2's gameplay or mission design, but those theories won't be canon.
However, one thing. The Hecate may be bad against fighters and bombers, but you have the Orion which is even worse, with its FS1-based armament (#of turrets, 17).
And yet, the Orion is easier to defend, more durable in combat, and (IMO) better looking. And it has greater firepower to boot.
In terms of its armament, I think you have a point. However, the Orion's shape means that 17 turrets are sufficient to cover the surface area of the vessel, and that there really isn't such a glaring deficiency in anti-fighter cover. With the Hecate, however, all those jutting angles (why on Earth does it have canards and stabilisers?) mean that you need turrets to cover them. Meaning that more turrets+more energy+more crew are required to cover the damn thing, let alone get it to wield some firepower, which I understand it lacks in. I believe the Orion has more anti-cap turrets than the Hecate, doesn't it?
Yep. The Hecate has more turrets than the Orion, but at the same time, the Hecate is undergunned due to her geometry. Her turrets do not have many overlapping fields of fire, something which the Orion's turrets manage without problem. So the effective firepowwer it can bring to bear on a given threat is severely reduced.
The odd superstructures, as I've said, also help confuse the enemy (considering AI-type enemies).
Except, they really don't. As Dilmah said, you don't need to be near it to launch bombs at it. And considering the many, many possible approaches that are only lightly defended, it's pretty much given that the ship will be hit. The odd superstructures make it harder for the AI, yes. Unfortunately, it's the defending AI that is most affected by this.
-
The point is, it's useless to argue against canon. You can make stories about how this ship is so much better than the game portraits it to be, but those stories won't be canon. You can make theories about the ship's capabilities to give it redeeming features that are not modelled in FS2's gameplay or mission design, but those theories won't be canon.
It seems that I wouldn't be arguing against anyone's point anymore. However, Kosh, the starter of the thread, already proposed non-canonical roles for the Hecate. Being a strike carrier, being a good anti-fighter/bomber but poor anticapital warship, etc. etc.
So, considering what you stated, as far as canon gets, the Hecate sucks. Its design is pretty bad, worse than the Orion. Good. So that's what you think. Apparently, for the past hundreds of replies, there have been instances of members arguing non-canonical roles for the Hecate (which already includes the starter of the thread).
Canonicity in FS is simple. It refutes realism in some aspects. BUT still it seems that this has got something to do with realism vs. canon, based on the expansive post number of the thread. Look back.
-
However, one thing. The Hecate may be bad against fighters and bombers, but you have the Orion which is even worse, with its FS1-based armament (#of turrets, 17).
As Dilah pointed out, the Orions shape is an asset. Have you tried attacking my up-turret Orion? With 26 turrets and anti-fighter armament comparable to the Hecate? Much harder to take out, trust me.
-
However, Kosh, the starter of the thread, already proposed non-canonical roles for the Hecate. Being a strike carrier, being a good anti-fighter/bomber but poor anticapital warship, etc. etc.
He was trying to come up with something it would be good at. Which, while laudable effort for campaign designers, has little bearing on the fact that even in those roles a well-deployed Hecate would be outperformed by a well-deployed Orion or the basic premise behind them has been disproved.
For strike support, an Orion can bring a heavier broadside to bear, and most importantly it can do this while using its own hull to shield fightercraft launch and recovery from enemy fire, thus protecting against accidental or deliberate beaming of fightercraft trying to take off or land.
The Hecate's antifighter superiority has been discussed numerous times in this thread. The general response has been poor. Its vastly increased surface area makes it much more vulnerable than an Orion to attack, not entirely compensated by its higher number of turrets. Its strange, rambling superstructures make it difficult for friendly pilots to get to the part of the ship that needs defending (sometimes even to figure out which part of the ship needs defending), thus hampering the true best weapon of any destroyer: its own fighters.
Apparently, for the past hundreds of replies, there have been instances of members arguing non-canonical roles for the Hecate (which already includes the starter of the thread).
But the question has always been "okay, we've got this ship that's kinda crap, what can we accomplish with it?" Nobody (well, almost nobody) has suggested the outright rejection of the Hecate's canonical abilities as a reasonable course of action. Even Trash isn't arguing for total rejection of the Hecate's canonical abilities, but quibbling over the one least likely to be of import in an FS mission, the total fighterbay capacity.
Canonicity in FS is simple. It refutes realism in some aspects. BUT still it seems that this has got something to do with realism vs. canon, based on the expansive post number of the thread. Look back.
Nah, nah, you don't get it. See, canon does not refute realism in the context of stories. Canon defines realism. Canonical is real. Anything else isn't.
-
(http://i56.tinypic.com/nohd05.jpg)
Don't know if that's relevant. But it's neat.
-
However, one thing. The Hecate may be bad against fighters and bombers, but you have the Orion which is even worse, with its FS1-based armament (#of turrets, 17).
As Dilah pointed out, the Orions shape is an asset. Have you tried attacking my up-turret Orion? With 26 turrets and anti-fighter armament comparable to the Hecate? Much harder to take out, trust me.
If you have up turreted the orion it is not canon therefore not comparable
-
(http://i56.tinypic.com/nohd05.jpg)
Don't know if that's relevant. But it's neat.
It has Tomcats on it. And Vikings. lostagia
-
(http://i56.tinypic.com/nohd05.jpg)
Don't know if that's relevant. But it's neat.
It has Tomcats on it. And Vikings. lostagia
And yes...nostalgia.. Damn whatever military/political ****er messed up the F-14 Super Tomcat. Damn you to hell. Thrice and with a rusty halberdup your behind!
But to be more serious:
That image gives a good impression on the size of the actual hangar on a carrier. Which is exactly why 120 seems to low in FS.
If you have up turreted the Orion it is not canon therefore not comparable
No, ti's not canon. But it DOES demonstrate the effectivness of hull shape and it's impact on turret coverage.
-
I thought that the destroyer that Rear Admiral Koth was aboard (can't be arsed to remember the name, NTD something) when the Colossus destroyed it had an added beam turret on top--that is to say, what was usually just a laser turret for fighter killing became a beam cannon for fighting down the Colly.
Does that make it non-canon?
-
I thought that the destroyer that Rear Admiral Koth was aboard (can't be arsed to remember the name, NTD something) when the Colossus destroyed it had an added beam turret on top--that is to say, what was usually just a laser turret for fighter killing became a beam cannon for fighting down the Colly.
Does that make it non-canon?
:v: did it and it was done in a FS game, you cant get more canon, it just means the armament of the Repulse was non standard in that case, just like the Bastion in canon is listed with a larger fighter complement than the standard Orion
-
I thought that the destroyer that Rear Admiral Koth was aboard (can't be arsed to remember the name, NTD something) when the Colossus destroyed it had an added beam turret on top--that is to say, what was usually just a laser turret for fighter killing became a beam cannon for fighting down the Colly.
Does that make it non-canon?
Are you sure it wasn't the bottom turret? The Repulse's armament looks pretty ordinary in the mission file....
Of course it's a moot point since the mission is canon.
-
Funny how the Hatshepsut is a much, much better ship......
Wasn't the Deimos a Terran corvette developed in conjunction with the Vasudans?
-
It's a Vasudan reactor on a Terran design.