Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: Mars on March 09, 2011, 04:21:17 pm

Title: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 09, 2011, 04:21:17 pm
I found this rather amusing:

(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3174/warshipinflation.png) (http://img580.imageshack.us/i/warshipinflation.png/)

UEF Cruiser size comparison - one Sanctus = ~5 GTVA cruisers
Also note that the Hyperion is nearly twice the size of the Leviathan.

(http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/4490/shipinflation2.png) (http://img192.imageshack.us/i/shipinflation2.png/)

Frigate class comparison. FS2 to BP

It seems that warships of the same class are generally much bigger than they were in FS2, a continuation of the same theme from FS1 to FS2. I hadn't noticed really before.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 09, 2011, 04:24:55 pm
Do an Uriel next to a Loki!
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 09, 2011, 04:33:41 pm
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/2680/strikecraft.png) (http://img69.imageshack.us/i/strikecraft.png/)
The reason I hate the Uriel = It's HUGE.

The two "fleet bombers" in this picture clearly dwarf everything else however. The Vaj over 50 meters in length - twice as long as most indoor pistol ranges.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 09, 2011, 04:52:40 pm
Not that Narayana isn't really much bigger than Karuna.
It's enormous cannons give it such appearance, but actual ship is about 2/3 lenght of the entire frame.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 09, 2011, 04:53:58 pm
Not that Narayana isn't really much bigger than Karuna.
It's enormous cannons give it such appearance, but actual ship is about 2/3 lenght of the entire frame.

Still a part of the ship. The only things I didn't include were the spires at the bottom. You have a point though.

I get the impression with most of the new GTVA ships that the beam cannons take up a good deal of space. The Hyperion, Chimera, Bellerophon, and Titan all have tubes sticking back most of their length, I think from the beam cannons?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 09, 2011, 04:59:34 pm
Dragon does have something of a point - a lot of the length of the Karunas and Narayanas is pretty hollow.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 09, 2011, 05:05:22 pm
Wait. . . have I been looking at this wrong?
(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4378/chimeracannons.png) (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/chimeracannons.png/)


I always assumed that the tubes on the new Tev ships were cannons. Thus making up a lot of their size.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 09, 2011, 05:06:29 pm
No, I imagine you're right. I didn't say anything to the contrary.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 09, 2011, 05:08:16 pm
These indeed seem to be the tunnels cannons are build into (though they have a lot of plating outside, unlike UEF guns).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 09, 2011, 08:16:14 pm
Huh. Seems like in BP Terran Capital ships in general are moving towards that weird Japanese fixation with enormous Spinal Mounted guns.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 09, 2011, 08:21:53 pm
Not the Solaris!
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 09, 2011, 08:25:03 pm
Good Point. Though when I first saw it I thought those two auxiliary bays on either side of the main one were stupidly huge railguns.


I will admit I was slightly disappointed when I found out what they actually were. Still the most beautiful Destroyer Class ship currently in Freespace, though. 
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 09, 2011, 09:13:09 pm
Huh. Seems like in BP Terran Capital ships in general are moving towards that weird Japanese fixation with enormous Spinal Mounted guns.

Hmm... it seems like there are broadsiders like the Raynor, Solaris, Orion, Deimos, and Diomedes and there are attack ships like the Karuna, Narayana, Titan, Chimera, Hecate and Bellerophon.

Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 09, 2011, 09:39:18 pm
You can be capable of Broadsides while still having an enormous Forward Mount that runs the length of the ship. For instance, I'm sure the Raynor's Main Gun up front takes up a good chunk of the ship, if the size of the Beam Cannon...firing shafts, I guess, in the pic above are anything to go by (and also assuming that Battutta's lack of contradiction as actual confirmation in that regard.) Giant Forward mounts don't necessarily indicate head on attack doctrine exclusively, its just a damn big forward facing gun (or set of said guns, in most cases in BP.)

That being said, yeah, you're right. It does seem like, with the smaller vessels at least, they are basically being divided up into two camps. Destroyers seem to remain capable of tackling anything no matter the situation, though. And UEF ships have the advantage of Torp Spam, so even direct Assault ships like the Narayana can engage targets from any angle, if not favorably.  Thats more then the recent GTVA corvette generation can claim.

I was also being semi-facetious, truth be told.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 09, 2011, 10:52:18 pm
Huh. Seems like in BP Terran Capital ships in general are moving towards that weird Japanese fixation with enormous Spinal Mounted guns.

Spinal mounts make a great deal of sense in a space setting, to be fair. Although arguably the ranges for FS are still too short.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: esarai on March 10, 2011, 02:12:31 am
Back to the idea of hull size inflation, it does seem that there's a definite pattern with the cruisers. I think related to BP, this was for a reason--the UEF wanted all-mission-capable combat ships.  The cruisers got larger so they could be a threat to destroyers. Though, relating to the frigates, in FS2, the only frigate is the Iceni, and it and the Karuna and Narayana have no shared design philosophy, as they developed in complete isolation.  BP-wise, the UEF's frigates are downsized destroyers made so for increased maneuverability.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 10, 2011, 03:08:38 am
Out of the capships, the Sanctus is the only one that is borderline ridiculous. It is practically corvette sized, yet packs firepower equivalent to a cruiser. It simply does not carry its weight in combat situations. I tried to fix that a bit in the wartime weapons refit of Sanctus that you will see in R2, but even then I still think it's more equivalent to a heavy cruiser rather than corvette.

I too had suggested putting in a fighterbay, since the Sanctus is large enough to have one. But unfortunately it does not fit anywhere on the model. Which would mean replacing the model with something else that has a fighterbay or at least suitable position for one.

Karuna and Narayana have far less mass than destroyers do, even if length is almost there. It's only Sanctus that's stupidly large. The UEF stealth fighter is stupidly large too, but that is another issue entirely.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 10, 2011, 05:15:13 am
The Sanctus is one of the earliest UEF ship, dates from the equivalent of early Reconstruction era in the GTVA side. Also, it was obviously built to deal with Gefs threats and not to be part of large capital ships manoeuvres. It does excel at anti-fighter duties and warhead interception, the job you'd expect from a anti-fighter and escort ship. All in all it's not bad for what it was designed and for an old ship, it's just getting outdated and outmatched in the WiH setting.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 10, 2011, 09:27:21 am
The difference in size between UEF frigates and GTVA destroyers makes a lot of sense to me. The GTVA needs a vessel which can operate as a de-facto headquarters. When sent into a far-away system it doubles as a base of operations, when there's no Arcadia station nearby. It probably houses a lot of crew and various stations and may have even served as a semi-logistical vessel for it's escorts during the second Shivan war, until later the dedicated logistical vessels of the 2380's were put into production. The UEF however only had to deal with handling problems within one solar system, where a few jumps brings you right back home (an emergency jump sent the Indus from Neptune all the way to Sol, the sun). Those frigates thus needed no great amount of crew or stations to operate and in turn were designed to be more maneuverable (and more importantly, to be less expansive on resources!). So in that context, it makes sense as well that the Solaris-class destroyer was a blasphemy. There was absolutely no need for such a large vessel in the eyes of the people and military experts, unless like the Ubuntu council you have the knowledge that such ships would in the long run become necessary for the problems which were to come. You don't give the lone sheriff of a calm backwater town a battle-tank to do his patrols with, unless you have intel that the town is in imminent, hidden danger.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 10, 2011, 10:00:59 am
I never thought the Sanctus was that bad a ship at all. In fact, the first mission of WiH makes it perfectly clear which job the Sanctus excels at. It simply gets thrown into stupid situations that it's not designed for throughout the rest of the campaign.

I'm looking forward to this Refit Fury is talking about though. It's certainly large enough to have more guns.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 10, 2011, 10:02:10 am
Good Point. Though when I first saw it I thought those two auxiliary bays on either side of the main one were stupidly huge railguns.
Funny thing you noticed that, since they were supposed to be giant cannons on the original design, but they got changed into fighterbays in the BP version.
IIRC, Earth Defense is using another variant, upside-down and with cannons operational.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 10, 2011, 10:08:02 am
Spinal cannons on destroyers are really annoying because it is much harder to get destroyers to simultaneously do all three of the following when compared to corvettes:

1) point at targets in a smooth, not-stupid-looking fashion
2) follow waypoint paths
3) exhibit tactics that are not 'jump in and fly directly at the target'
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 10, 2011, 10:09:52 am
IIRC, Earth Defense is using another variant, upside-down and with cannons operational.
Big Guns = Awesome.

Upside Down =  :wtf:

And if the cannons remain railgun style and use solid rounds, and assuming said rounds are roughly the size of the barrel, Ammo Logistics =  :banghead:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 10, 2011, 10:15:15 am
I don't know what ED mounted there, but they might as well be plasma cannons. Also, keep in mind that FS doesn't really care about ammo logistics on big ships.
As for being upside down, it's the Solaris that's been flipped (I prefered the original position, but I was outvoted).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 11, 2011, 04:16:25 am
Upside Down =  :wtf:

IIRC it's BP's Solaris that is actually upside down; they thought the model looked better inverted. I am not inclined to disagree.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 11, 2011, 07:19:01 am
The idea with the inversion was to have a big manly jutting chin instead of a Pinocchio nose.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Rodo on March 11, 2011, 11:16:43 am
a good call.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 11, 2011, 01:21:15 pm
Just about the Uriel's size, yes it's big and blocky but it's absolutely not defenseless. That turret is the most infuriatingly annoying thing to get shot with during a dogfight.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 11, 2011, 01:39:54 pm
Yeah the Uriel is actually really ****ing annoying to dogfight against. Jesus, that turret.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 11, 2011, 02:31:55 pm
Just about the Uriel's size, yes it's big and blocky but it's absolutely not defenseless. That turret is the most infuriatingly annoying thing to get shot with during a dogfight.

Yeah, it's pretty damn hard - maneuverable enough to keep the turret on you pretty effectively as well.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Jellyfish on March 11, 2011, 04:29:38 pm
Spinal cannons on destroyers are really annoying because it is much harder to get destroyers to simultaneously do all three of the following when compared to corvettes:

1) point at targets in a smooth, not-stupid-looking fashion
2) follow waypoint paths
3) exhibit tactics that are not 'jump in and fly directly at the target'

I say it's much better than mounting everything on the sides and going back to the Age of Sail tactic of doing the T
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 11, 2011, 04:33:10 pm
Spinal cannons on destroyers are really annoying because it is much harder to get destroyers to simultaneously do all three of the following when compared to corvettes:

1) point at targets in a smooth, not-stupid-looking fashion
2) follow waypoint paths
3) exhibit tactics that are not 'jump in and fly directly at the target'

I say it's much better than mounting everything on the sides and going back to the Age of Sail tactic of doing the T

Age of Sail tactics are much easier to FRED, though.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 11, 2011, 04:42:15 pm
The difference in size between UEF frigates and GTVA destroyers makes a lot of sense to me. The GTVA needs a vessel which can operate as a de-facto headquarters. When sent into a far-away system it doubles as a base of operations, when there's no Arcadia station nearby. It probably houses a lot of crew and various stations and may have even served as a semi-logistical vessel for it's escorts during the second Shivan war, until later the dedicated logistical vessels of the 2380's were put into production. The UEF however only had to deal with handling problems within one solar system, where a few jumps brings you right back home (an emergency jump sent the Indus from Neptune all the way to Sol, the sun). Those frigates thus needed no great amount of crew or stations to operate and in turn were designed to be more maneuverable (and more importantly, to be less expansive on resources!). So in that context, it makes sense as well that the Solaris-class destroyer was a blasphemy. There was absolutely no need for such a large vessel in the eyes of the people and military experts, unless like the Ubuntu council you have the knowledge that such ships would in the long run become necessary for the problems which were to come. You don't give the lone sheriff of a calm backwater town a battle-tank to do his patrols with, unless you have intel that the town is in imminent, hidden danger.

Aside from the hidden motives of Byrne/the Elders I'm sure the Buntu PR machine would have passed it off as an anti-Shivan asset, in the unlikely event they would ever make it into Sol. Key word being unlikely...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 11, 2011, 05:02:04 pm
(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/413/destroyercompare.png) (http://img845.imageshack.us/i/destroyercompare.png/)

Destroyers and common escorts. The Solaris is apparently about a Karuna longer than the Orion.

There's a definite size progression by time as well -  all three of the newer destroyers are significantly bigger than the Orion or Hecate.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 11, 2011, 05:24:12 pm
Stick the Solaris next to the Hades for comparison. If it had an uber weapon it'd easily be a super destroyer.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 11, 2011, 05:39:56 pm
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/herecompare.png)
 :mad:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 11, 2011, 05:42:35 pm
The Hades looks cool.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 11, 2011, 05:51:00 pm
I'm quite excited about the updated Narayana and Karuna.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 11, 2011, 05:52:37 pm
The new texture job isn't far off, the new model I'll be doing will be.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 11, 2011, 05:55:06 pm
I just wish Stratcomm's ships didn't look so dated - I tried to fix up the Bellerophon, but I fail at texturing and modeling XD
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Qent on March 11, 2011, 06:01:56 pm
They look dated? :nervous:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 11, 2011, 06:06:42 pm
The new texture job isn't far off, the new model I'll be doing will be.

The Karuna has actually had some geometry changes already.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 11, 2011, 06:17:58 pm
The new texture job isn't far off, the new model I'll be doing will be.

The Karuna has actually had some geometry changes already.
Sure but remember, I'll be making a completely new model, sort of a HTL really.

They look dated? :nervous:
Absolutely. Their texturing is horrendous and details are non-existent or somewhat poorly done, the Chimera only has little boxes for detail on it, most of the polygons on the Titan are used on the impractically-built fighterbay.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: headdie on March 11, 2011, 06:19:42 pm
They look dated? :nervous:

I think what Mars is on about is that the actual mesh is low detail especially compared to the UEF capships.  I understand that most of the BP improvements are confined to texture upgrades which have done an amazing job in improving the looks but sill has it limits, i wonder what would happen if Stratcomm revisited the mesh on each ship
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 11, 2011, 06:34:09 pm
Has the Hades been sexed up in that pic? It looks good.

The Chimera and Bell are a little on the low res side of things, but they look great as long as they're dressed up in pretty light. The Titan looks fine. My only beef with it is the fighterbay can't fit an Ursa! :P Not like trying to squeeze in an Elysium sized bomber is easy, but all the same...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 11, 2011, 06:49:13 pm
Has the Hades been sexed up in that pic? It looks good.

The Chimera and Bell are a little on the low res side of things, but they look great as long as they're dressed up in pretty light. The Titan looks fine. My only beef with it is the fighterbay can't fit an Ursa! :P Not like trying to squeeze in an Elysium sized bomber is easy, but all the same...

That is the new Hades! I don't know if Hades made the Hades or if someone else did.

Chimera is the best looking of the three, the biggest problem with the Chimera and Bellerophon is the rear "fins."
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 11, 2011, 06:54:42 pm
The Hades was made by Vasudan Admiral.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 11, 2011, 07:06:29 pm
The Hades looks cool.
It also looks a little lonely being displayed by the same person again.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Darius on March 11, 2011, 09:26:49 pm
Lvlshotted for humanitarian reasons.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 11, 2011, 09:33:01 pm
Once again, Solaris is as long as Hades, but is by no means as big. Hades is wider, especially at the nose, which makes it bigger than Solaris.
UEF ships are long and composed of a lot of empty space, so while visually impressive, they are similar in actual volume (which, in fact, is what matters here) to GTVA ships.
Sanctus is the exception to this, but it's the armament that classifies it as a Cruiser.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 12, 2011, 11:56:31 am
Warship inflation?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4655667549_ccf47b0dc3.jpg

On a serious note, I wonder how many more resources a Sanctus costs compared to GTVA cruisers with similar tactical capabilities. Would there for example be some chance that Sanctus-class cruisers still in construction may be stripped of a lot of it's hull in favour of housing only space for the most nescesary stations?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 12, 2011, 12:50:53 pm
Well, I think it's been stated that the Deimos is not nearly as expensive as a Karuna, and they really do have similar tactical capabilities. The Aeolus is supposed to be pretty cheap as well, not sure about the Hyperion.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 12, 2011, 12:53:58 pm
Seriosuly don't start we'll be at it all day.

(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3387/6a9d6b0057fa3f521a012b6.jpg) (http://img9.imageshack.us/i/6a9d6b0057fa3f521a012b6.jpg/) = $1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000

Didn't it say somewhere the Sanctus is a cargo barge? Seems to suggest a lot of it is already empty space.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 12, 2011, 01:01:48 pm
Sanctus does have cargo hauling capabilities and is stated to be sometimes used to ferry supplies between major military bases IIRC.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 12, 2011, 01:24:18 pm
Yes, in fact, plenty of it's volume is made of torpedo magazines and cargo holds.
That's one of the reasons it's called a Cruiser and not a Corvette (also, UEF didn't bothered inventing a new designation for just one ship class).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Black Wolf on March 12, 2011, 04:32:21 pm
Hmm, that actually makes a lot of sense. Unless corvette is a legacy designation (i.e. pre Great War, and were just never used in FS1) there's no logical reason why the UEF would use the same ship class designations. So while the Karuna may be longer than the Iceni, in GTVA terms it's probaby considered a corvette, as (possibly) is the Sanctus.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 13, 2011, 07:39:58 am
I remember it being stated that the Sanctus was all about hauling cargo. Basically a huge transport with military grade defenses.
Well, I think it's been stated that the Deimos is not nearly as expensive as a Karuna, and they really do have similar tactical capabilities. The Aeolus is supposed to be pretty cheap as well, not sure about the Hyperion.
Deimos doesn't have a fighterbay. :nervous:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 13, 2011, 09:26:15 am
I remember it being stated that the Sanctus was all about hauling cargo. Basically a huge transport with military grade defenses.
Well, I think it's been stated that the Deimos is not nearly as expensive as a Karuna, and they really do have similar tactical capabilities. The Aeolus is supposed to be pretty cheap as well, not sure about the Hyperion.
Deimos doesn't have a fighterbay. :nervous:

But the Diomedes does and it's pretty much the Karuna's equal. Same hitpoints, more firepower, arguably more capable except for the anti-fighter department and then only slightly. I wonder how much more expensive it is to make one of those monsters than it is to commission a Deimos. I can't get enough of the design too, the asymmetry just it makes it look so uber cool. It's such a total nightmare to face, when I think of how overpowering the Tevs are this is the ship that comes to mind.

When was the Diomedes introduced anyway? Was it in service during AoA? It must have been on the drawing board at least...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 13, 2011, 09:56:23 am
It was, there just weren't any with the 14th.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Darius on March 13, 2011, 10:00:21 am
You'll rarely find them in big fleet actions. Mostly they'll be puttering about on their own.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 13, 2011, 10:08:32 am
Diemos and Diomedes are 2 different ships. o_o But I agree with, Diomedes are scary...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 13, 2011, 10:56:39 am
You'll rarely find them in big fleet actions. Mostly they'll be puttering about on their own.

How come?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Darius on March 13, 2011, 10:59:51 am
Being so versatile, one can send them on any mission where a destroyer would be too much (or one is not available) but a base for strikecraft is still required.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 13, 2011, 03:08:24 pm
One thing I noticed in WiH is that two Karunas seem to run through whole battle groups strangely easily; far more easily than I would expect with the comparatively small firepower they have, then suddenly one corvette will jump in and take down a Karuna in seconds.

I've even had several times where the Valarie takes out the Indus with pulse cannons. Two Deimos are theoretically at least equal to a Diomedes, so it's kind of a shock that the entire Carthage battlegroup goes down so easily, for instance. I suppose it has more to do with the Uriel than anything else.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 13, 2011, 03:10:33 pm
Ah, thanks Darius, I got ya.

One thing I noticed in WiH is that two Karunas seem to run through whole battle groups strangely easily; far more easily than I would expect with the comparatively small firepower they have, then suddenly one corvette will jump in and take down a Karuna in seconds.

I've even had several times where the Valarie takes out the Indus with pulse cannons. Two Deimos are theoretically at least equal to a Diomedes, so it's kind of a shock that the entire Carthage battlegroup goes down so easily, for instance. I suppose it has more to do with the Uriel than anything else.

It's down to good drills.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 13, 2011, 03:13:48 pm
And armor types. The ships perform as well or worse as plot/mission requires. It's not consistent so that annoys a lot of people, but it's necessary evil for such movie-like campaign.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 13, 2011, 03:38:08 pm
The use of armor types is pretty consistent on the Karunas though. And no, they don't have small firepower - those torpedoes put out a surprising amount of DPS with their shockwaves (which go right through armor classes.)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 13, 2011, 03:56:23 pm
The use of armor types is pretty consistent on the Karunas though. And no, they don't have small firepower - those torpedoes put out a surprising amount of DPS with their shockwaves (which go right through armor classes.)

I had not thought of the shockwaves O_O
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 14, 2011, 12:15:40 am
those torpedoes put out a surprising amount of DPS with their shockwaves (which go right through armor classes.)
Which really is an oversight from development phase of WiH. I never realized until it was too late that shockwaves have different damage type. Can only wonder how things would have turned out if shockwaves had damage types set.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 14, 2011, 02:50:58 am
The campaign would be two missions long? :P
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 14, 2011, 06:53:59 am
I think it's fine right now. Make the UEF any weaker and you'd have a even more one-sided campaign, or a short one like Zane said. :lol:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 14, 2011, 11:00:46 am
those torpedoes put out a surprising amount of DPS with their shockwaves (which go right through armor classes.)
Which really is an oversight from development phase of WiH. I never realized until it was too late that shockwaves have different damage type. Can only wonder how things would have turned out if shockwaves had damage types set.

Karunas would still be monstrous.

The notion that the UEF ships are tactically weak is a bit of a mistake. Most of the effort in FRED was spent trying to power them down, not power the GTVA up. They were extremely proficient at knocking all the turrets off GTVA ships and turning fights into one-sided pecking matches.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 14, 2011, 11:08:25 am
The Karuna is one of the most tactically flexible Warships I've seen in FS. Incredible range with it's main damage dealers, the Railguns aren't too shabby (plus, we're no strangers to having to have your ship face the target to brings most of its guns to bear,) decent armor, speed, and the ability to carry strike craft. I saw a lot of people wanting to play a capship mission as the GTVA, but I honestly wonder how many of them realize how hard it would be due to how one sided GTVA capship combat really is. If the enemy does something unexpected and gets out of range or your main firing arc, you dont have a lot of options. UEF capships, and especially Karunas, do.

Offtopic, but I keep forgetting to ask, does the Solaris-class have any heavy anti-capital firepower besides Apoc-Spam? I read in the tech entry about turreted Railguns for anti-subsystem, but I never saw them in action, and I may actually be misremembering that tech entry.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 14, 2011, 11:17:18 am
It has very fast-firing railgun turrets which have low DPS but are good against subsystems.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 14, 2011, 11:24:00 am
Were those the rapid fire salvo turrets with the yellow bolts? I just though those were random PDS guns, since they didn't seem to be able to fire the length of the ship, though the Solaris is a BIG ship.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 14, 2011, 11:53:05 am
There are two kinds of yellow blobs. Ones are same point-defense blobs as in every other UEF capship. The other blobs, fired by those huge multipart turrets are same kind of rounds as fired by Gattler, only with far longer range. 4km if my memory serves.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 14, 2011, 12:29:19 pm
And I'm assuming that those Gattler Guns are the aforementioned anti-subsytem turrets? If so, then that makes sense.  If not, then it would appear that, for whatever reason, the Toutatis did not use it's railguns during my three playthroughs of Aristeia. Which would sadden me greatly.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 14, 2011, 12:58:57 pm
I actually dunno what Battuta really meant there. Solaris has no anti-subsystem railguns, or at least didn't have in R1. The gattler turrets are inaccurate and do only quarter subsystem damage. These turrets are saturation weapons, not anti-subsystem weapons.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 14, 2011, 01:03:43 pm
I actually dunno what Battuta really meant there. Solaris has no anti-subsystem railguns, or at least didn't have in R1. The gattler turrets are inaccurate and do only quarter subsystem damage. These turrets are saturation weapons, not anti-subsystem weapons.

They're still excellent against subsystems, particularly big dish beam emitters. They might not look it on the table level but it's how they perform in-game.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 14, 2011, 01:04:37 pm
Huh. Alright then, thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 14, 2011, 01:18:36 pm
They also do massive hull damage, due to their fire rate, though I had some trouble to get them to fire in some experiments I did.
The Solaris just wouldn't fire them in some cases (especially against a Sath).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 14, 2011, 01:31:11 pm
Yeah, that's been a really worrisome issue. We're not sure if it's a problem with the model or with the way FreeSpace turret AI works.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Droid803 on March 14, 2011, 06:56:40 pm
Well, it's probably not the model as I can get it to fire those same turrets using other weapons (basically the Sanctus' Gauss Cannon) just fine.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 15, 2011, 05:31:03 pm
(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3540/fleets.png)
15th Battlegroup vs. First Fleet Earth

Explain to me how Sol is suppose to be losing?
EDIT:
(Wasn't actually a challenge, but the UEF would seem to have a sizable advantage numerically.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 05:39:14 pm
Well a battlegroup vs. a fleet isn't entirely fair! There are generally 2+ battlegroups per GTVA fleet.

(That is, however, a really cool shot).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 15, 2011, 05:40:26 pm
Uh, the tevs have many, many battlegroups (around 24 if I'm not mistaken) while the UEF has only 3 fleets, one of which is shown there and the other two are mostly decimated.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 15, 2011, 05:48:49 pm
Yes, in a straight-up, all-in fleet battle between 1st Fleet and the 15th, the UEF would probably have an edge.

Which is why Steele isn't giving them one.

Note that the 15th is only one of three GTVA formations operating in Sol, there's the Carthage BG, and the Hood/Meridian BG (minus the Meridian, of course) also running around shooting things.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 06:04:38 pm
Also don't forget that the 15th working together would have a killer alpha and very good subspace mobility. That alpha in particular would be quite telling.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 15, 2011, 06:10:36 pm
True. I suppose it's surviving that Alpha strike (which really is designed to take out a Sath!) which is tricky. You really can't count on having the Solaris and the Narayanas under those circumstances.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 15, 2011, 06:13:53 pm
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6404/everylastone.png)
Every last confirmed ship in Sol, just prior to the Artemis attack


I understand that, but GTVA ships must be very powerful indeed for that to be a possibility. Even with crazy losses to the Jovian Fleet, the Sol forces still outnumber the TEVs severely.

EDIT:
The Arcane is with the 13th because it was the only confirmed ship still remaining from the 16th.

Also, the Sanctus has got to be the most produced ship ever.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 15, 2011, 06:20:16 pm
Wow, you must have a good computer to fit all that on screen, even if it's in FRED.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 15, 2011, 06:21:17 pm
Wow, you must have a good computer to fit all that on screen, even if it's in FRED.

It's pretty old, but she's a fighter. I ran out of subsystems though (>4000)

EDIT:

There could have been another 15 Sanctus's, but they aren't 100%

PS.

The TEV ships are only the confirmed ones, chances are there are additional remnants of the 16th battlegroup, and perhaps another destroyer in the Carthage group.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 06:21:58 pm
Wait, why did you do that instead of just opening up bp2 massive battle and taking a screenshot of that?

I mean if you want to know how the battle would go down if the two sides just rolled out and fought, you can run that mission (at 4 FPS). The UEF usually but not always wins, but with such losses it would never be able to repel the inevitable follow-up.

Neither side wants that battle to happen.

That mission doesn't include the Sanctii nor the equivalent GTVA cruisers and assets, nor any fighters or bombers.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 15, 2011, 06:27:10 pm
Wait, why did you do that instead of just opening up bp2 massive battle and taking a screenshot of that?

I mean if you want to know how the battle would go down if the two sides just rolled out and fought, you can run that mission (at 4 FPS). The UEF usually but not always wins, but with such losses it would never be able to repel the inevitable follow-up.

Neither side wants that battle to happen.

That mission doesn't include the Sanctii nor the equivalent GTVA cruisers and assets, nor any fighters or bombers.

Yeah, I never managed to sit through Massive Battle. Massive battle didn't include the entire composition of fleets, as you mentioned.

The UEF has a strong advantage even in a strategic way though; even assuming terrible tactics, unless the UEF loses twice as many ships, they still have a fairly easy victory.

Are there more Tev forces the player hasn't seen?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 06:31:08 pm
Yeah, loads of battlegroups on the other side of the node, and a few more ships in Sol. The UEF has a lot more territory to cover too.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 15, 2011, 06:32:59 pm
Yes. There's the rest of the GTVA fleet (20+ Destroyers on the terran side alone), which the Sec Council has so far declined to deploy to Sol. Remember, the GTVA forces you see there are basically the mobile reserve forces the GTVA could send to Earth without weakening their defense commitments elsewhere. So, unlike the UEF, they do have reserves that they can bring into the fight in a pinch. The only reason they haven't done it is because doing so would undermine the political rationale for the invasion of the Sol system.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 15, 2011, 06:36:36 pm
The UEF has more forces in-system, but the TEV's have more total forces.  The GTVA wants the war to become a slow, fatiguing, morale-destroying grind for the UEF, while the GTVA can rotate warships and fighter squadrons in and out as necessary to maintain fresh forces and increase their number of trained, veteran pilots in case of a third Shivan incursion.  The longer the war goes on, the better the GTVA will become at fighting it and since it is in UEF territory, they'll lose more the longer it goes on.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 06:41:04 pm
Indeed. Though the GTVA has to balance their desire to take Sol's infrastructure with their strategic need to degrade that infrastructure - a balance that tipped sharply towards 'wreck' when Steele arrived with his plan to end the war rapidly.

It's not as if the UEF has only persisted this long at the GTVA's sufferance. The GTVA could have piled ten or twenty destroyers into the system at the start of the war, and the result would've been a mutual bloodbath, with the UEF having the subspace tracking advantage required to drop their bomber wings right down destroyers' throats, the GTVA shock-jumping everything it could find, and the two faction's air wings shredding each other. It would have been over soon, and the GTVA probably would have been victorious, but the cost would have been staggering, including, most likely, the best of the GTVA's equipment and personnel.

Both sides misunderstood the strategic intent and tactical capabilities of the other - something that comes up again and again in the history of war. (In fact, one of the marked statistical trends in the history of warfare is the overconfidence of aggressors, something I had the distinct pleasure to write a lengthy paper on at one point.)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 15, 2011, 06:45:57 pm
The UEF has more forces in-system, but the TEV's have more total forces.  The GTVA wants the war to become a slow, fatiguing, morale-destroying grind for the UEF, while the GTVA can rotate warships and fighter squadrons in and out as necessary to maintain fresh forces and increase their number of trained, veteran pilots in case of a third Shivan incursion.  The longer the war goes on, the better the GTVA will become at fighting it and since it is in UEF territory, they'll lose more the longer it goes on.

I was actually curious about how the forces IN Sol stacked up (Sol Expeditionary Force vs UEF military) the whole GTVA is likely to include many more ships. The interesting numbers are the ones in Sol.
Yeah, loads of battlegroups on the other side of the node, and a few more ships in Sol. The UEF has a lot more territory to cover too.
Ahha, you make a good point. Defense is easy with one choke point.

_________________________________
Interesting dicking about with fighter numbers

Assuming 12 fighters for Karunas, [fudged]12 fighters for Narayanas[/fudged], and 192 fighters for Solaris destroyers:
12(21) + 12(14) + 192(3) =  996 fighters in the UEF fleet (around 62 squadrons) (not stationed on an installation)

Assuming 96 fighters on an Orion, 150 for a Hecate, [megafudged] 200 for a Titan, 96 for a Raynor, and 12 for a Diomedes: [/megafudged]
96(1)+150(2)+200(1)+96(1)+12(4)= 740 in the Sol Expeditionary Force arsenal (around 46 squadrons)




Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 15, 2011, 06:47:28 pm
The GTVA doesn't have to actually defend the node, either. Any attempt at a close blockade you can simply dump Meson Bombs on.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 15, 2011, 07:05:52 pm
Does the UEF even have a tenable long-term aim, militarily? I understand that most of the UEF leadership is pushing solely for diplomatic resolutions, but for those hardliners, like Calder, do they really have an actual objective? They cant win. They GTVA has installed a Backdoor to the Sol system, Kicked it in, and theres no way for Sol to get rid of it, short of collapsing it again. They cant invade, they cant hold it, as the Tevs wouldn't give them time to entrench (and they can just fry close blockades with Area-Denial Meson weapons, as was stated above,) and if they back off to allow for not being simply annihilated, as soon as the GTVA wants back in, then they have the room they need to simply disperse back into the system again, even if the UEF does somehow drive them out in the first place.

I cant help but feel that for all their tenacity, the minds behind the Wargods don't really have any sort of actual plan, beyond hoping that the folks back home in the Tev systems get sick of the war. That seems like a flimsy thing to base your entire strategy off of.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 07:10:01 pm
I cant help but feel that for all their tenacity, the minds behind the Wargods don't really have any sort of actual plan, beyond hoping that the folks back home in the Tev systems get sick of the war. That seems like a flimsy thing to base your entire strategy off of.

It's won a few wars, and the longer the war goes on, the better the chances.

In the short term their goal was to McClellan Steele.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 15, 2011, 07:15:20 pm
It's won a few wars, and the longer the war goes on, the better the chances.

Oh, undoubtedly, but thats still an incredibly finicky variable, even by the standards of Warfare. One would hope that Calder and Mars-guy (Curse my memory) have some sort of tangible goal in terms of military action. However...

In the short term their goal was to McClellan Steele.

This....this makes more sense. If only because doing so would set the GTVA admiralty back on it's heels, and would cement Calder and his buddy as gods among tacticians.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 07:22:16 pm
Poor Netreba. Always forgotten.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 15, 2011, 07:27:08 pm
Netreba doesn't have a tech room entry, which is probably why.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 07:31:33 pm
For the interested!

Quote
Kyle Netreba is the current Commander In Chief of 2nd Fleet Mars. Among the triumvirate that commands the UEF Navy, he is the least "military" officer. Originally trained as an engineering specialist (software subspecialty), he switched to the command track after he demonstrated good leadership skills during an incident in which he had to take command of a frigate after its command staff died during combat. His market-based algorithms for logistical handling earned him the praise of the Council of Elders, a lasting relationship with scientist-elder Svetlana Henriksson, and eventually a place in the Admiralty.
His leadership style is unorthodox. He has structured his command less like a traditional fleet, and more like a design bureau, hand-selecting 2 Fleet's ship captains for their ability to think and act independently. Yet the outbreak of the war saw an abrupt shift in his disciplinary approach, including crackdowns on traditionally lax Martian standards. Some suspect Netreba sought advice from Admiral Calder on wartime conduct.

During the war against the GTVA, Netreba found himself in a difficult position. Calder and Byrne used his fleet as a reserve asset pool for their own very different priorities, and Netreba feels increasingly dissatisfied with this position. His cooperation has not always been rewarded, either in terms of assets for his own OrBat or rest and repair time for his crews and ships. Between having to guard assets that are nominally in 1st Fleet's remit, and supporting offensive actions by 3rd Fleet, his own command and the abilities of the people within it are being wasted, a state of affairs that he feels threatens 2 Fleet's effectiveness as a unit.

While the Admiral is unsatisfied with Admiral Byrne's strategic directives, and much more comfortable with Admiral Calders' aggressive strategies, his ability to work with Admiral Calder is limited. Given their vast differences in command styles, this comes as no surprise. Where 2 Fleet relies on each element acting independently in support of a broad strategy, the Jovian Rim Fleet relies on detailed pre-battle planning and pre-rehearsed maneuvers that can be executed with a minimum of forethought. Whether or not the two commands can overcome these structural differences and produce results when acting in concert will probably be one of the deciding factors in determining the war's outcome.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Rodo on March 15, 2011, 07:39:38 pm
LOL! I thought Netreba was a woman!

Well at least I DID remember her/his name.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 15, 2011, 08:45:06 pm
I knew Netreba was a man, but he had nowhere near as much presence as either Calder or Byrne. Though, to be fair, I remembered the admirals by their ships for the most part, save for Steele.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 15, 2011, 09:54:09 pm
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6404/everylastone.png)
Every last confirmed ship in Sol, just prior to the Artemis attack


I understand that, but GTVA ships must be very powerful indeed for that to be a possibility. Even with crazy losses to the Jovian Fleet, the Sol forces still outnumber the TEVs severely.

EDIT:
The Arcane is with the 13th because it was the only confirmed ship still remaining from the 16th.

Also, the Sanctus has got to be the most produced ship ever.

This picture is missing one Leviathan and one Charybdis on the GTVA side. /lolminornitpick

(And one Diomedes, but that's semi-confirmed at best) You remembered the Arcane! <3
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 15, 2011, 10:39:20 pm
I don't think I am missing a Leviathan, I think there were three.

I didn't put any non combatants, ECM units are not included.

EDIT:

You're right, one of the Levis is MIA, I did put it in there though. It's probably inside the Carthage.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 15, 2011, 11:06:44 pm
So here's some interesting numbers:
So, assuming 3000 crew on a Karuna (Collateral Damage), 5000 on a Narayana (Collateral Damage), 1000 on a Sanctus (The Cost of War), and 10,000 on a Solaris (the number that seems to always get thrown out for destroyers)


3000(21) + 5000(14) + 10000(3) + 1000(60) = 223,000

I'm off a few Sancti, but the UEF armada has around a quarter million people on ships.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 15, 2011, 11:08:43 pm
Probably lots more than that on installations and various non-shipboard duties.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Jellyfish on March 16, 2011, 12:39:28 am
[of Netreba]

Yet, Calder lost Jupiter, Byrne almost loses Earth, and Mars remains in Netreba's hands. Perhaps it is because Mars is a relatively low strategic value target?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 01:59:05 am
They GTVA has installed a Backdoor to the Sol system, Kicked it in, and theres no way for Sol to get rid of it, short of collapsing it again. They cant invade, they cant hold it, as the Tevs wouldn't give them time to entrench (and they can just fry close blockades with Area-Denial Meson weapons, as was stated above,)

Once you manage to control the node and you have driven back the GTVA from Sol, put 4 Naras at max range of the node. Negates the advantage of meson bombs.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 16, 2011, 04:36:23 am
Wasn't the Knossos copy horribly expensive to create? I can't see the Tevs letting all that money go to waste.
Indeed. Though the GTVA has to balance their desire to take Sol's infrastructure with their strategic need to degrade that infrastructure - a balance that tipped sharply towards 'wreck' when Steele arrived with his plan to end the war rapidly.

It's not as if the UEF has only persisted this long at the GTVA's sufferance. The GTVA could have piled ten or twenty destroyers into the system at the start of the war, and the result would've been a mutual bloodbath, with the UEF having the subspace tracking advantage required to drop their bomber wings right down destroyers' throats, the GTVA shock-jumping everything it could find, and the two faction's air wings shredding each other. It would have been over soon, and the GTVA probably would have been victorious, but the cost would have been staggering, including, most likely, the best of the GTVA's equipment and personnel.

Both sides misunderstood the strategic intent and tactical capabilities of the other - something that comes up again and again in the history of war. (In fact, one of the marked statistical trends in the history of warfare is the overconfidence of aggressors, something I had the distinct pleasure to write a lengthy paper on at one point.)

That scenario reminds me slightly of the Battle of Tannenberg (WW1). Proves your point well I guess.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 16, 2011, 04:38:55 am

Yet, Calder lost Jupiter, Byrne almost loses Earth, and Mars remains in Netreba's hands. Perhaps it is because Mars is a relatively low strategic value target?

No, it's definitely not. Among other things, Mars is home to the Bradbury Fleet Yards, which are the shipyards that built the Solaris class.

But the problem was, before the Tevs could take Mars, they had to take Jupiter first, and Steele, well.... He's the kind of guy who has no problems going straight for the throat if he sees an opening. So he bypassed Mars and attacked Earth directly, but remember that the only reason the assault on Rheza is so light in terms of capital ships is because all of them are tied up keeping the Eris and Solaris busy.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 16, 2011, 08:42:38 am
I realized that I might be missing the entire 16th battlgroup - so there could be up to 7 more corvettes, and 4 or 5 more cruisers on the Tev side.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dilmah G on March 16, 2011, 08:55:14 am
Netreba doesn't have a tech room entry, which is probably why.
I was meant to fix this. :S

Also, for those interested, the tech room entries on the other UEF Admirals have a little bit on the military goings on prior to the war. One of them was even decorated for his conduct in such actions.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 16, 2011, 09:02:48 am
I realized that I might be missing the entire 16th battlgroup - so there could be up to 7 more corvettes, and 4 or 5 more cruisers on the Tev side.

It's likely the 16th retreated with the Requiem (and possibly a second 16th BG destroyer?  Not sure if there is one) when it was ambushed and forced to withdraw.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 16, 2011, 09:18:00 am
Netreba doesn't have a tech room entry, which is probably why.
I was meant to fix this. :S

Also, for those interested, the tech room entries on the other UEF Admirals have a little bit on the military goings on prior to the war. One of them was even decorated for his conduct in such actions.

The detailed information is also in the tech room in game.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 16, 2011, 10:02:57 am
Playing through WiH I noticed that all three of the UEF Admirals are "Fleet Admirals". Is this their actual rank or a positional title? If the former it sorta suggests there could be other admiral rank UEF officers.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dilmah G on March 16, 2011, 10:12:05 am
Whilst Fleet Admiral is a Naval Rank, to my understanding I think it's safe to assume those three are regular 4 stars. I'm not totally in the know WRT to this, so my word isn't gospel.

My understanding of what Fleet Admirals actually do makes me think that it's highly unlikely that those three hold that rank, especially since I don't believe more than one person can hold that rank.

EDIT: Spelling.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 16, 2011, 11:08:40 am
Whilst Fleet Admiral is a Naval Rank, to my understanding I think it's safe to assume those three are regular 4 stars. I'm not totally in the know WRT to this, so my word isn't gospel.

My understanding of what Fleet Admirals actually do makes me think that it's highly unlikely that those three hold that rank, especially since I don't believe more than one person can hold that rank.

EDIT: Spelling.

I get that it's the uber-rank, which is why it's confusing there are three of them. I was thinking that as a "title" maybe they just throw it around, like a WWI British Major-General getting called "Field Marshall".
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dilmah G on March 16, 2011, 11:12:12 am
Yeah, I think it's far more likely that it's thrown around as a title, in the same league as Commander-in-Chief: Jovian Rim Fleet or Officer Commanding - GTVA 4th Fleet kinda thing.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 11:59:07 am
This is, the three UEF fleets are pretty separated hierachy-wise, despite the very close collaboration between them and the possibility to get reaffected from one fleet to another. Remember that the UEF is a Federation, with 3 main states with their own fleet. There is no unified UEF fleet and hence no UEF Fleet master or anything like that. You've got three Fleet admirals, with their respective fleet, none of the three command the others.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 16, 2011, 12:23:22 pm
Once you manage to control the node and you have driven back the GTVA from Sol, put 4 Naras at max range of the node. Negates the advantage of meson bombs.

Then you get leaky on the fighter strikes, and might as well not be accomplishing anything. In a very real sense as long as the node remains open the UEF has no actual path to victory.

In fact I think that's their real problem. The various responses of the UEF leaders to the issue at hand don't hold out any real hope of winning. Calder's offensive operations are probably the best answer, in that he is at least attempting to impose his will on the enemy and retain the initiative, but in the end all the answers offered so far are hollow. They offer tactical solutions but no answer to the strategic problem.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 16, 2011, 12:45:49 pm
The GTVA could have piled ten or twenty destroyers into the system at the start of the war, and the result would've been a mutual bloodbath, with the UEF having the subspace tracking advantage required to drop their bomber wings right down destroyers' throats, the GTVA shock-jumping everything it could find, and the two faction's air wings shredding each other. It would have been over soon, and the GTVA probably would have been victorious, but the cost would have been staggering, including, most likely, the best of the GTVA's equipment and personnel.
Am I the only one hoping this happens later in the war? That would be a legendary set of missions. :cool:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 16, 2011, 01:21:29 pm

Then you get leaky on the fighter strikes, and might as well not be accomplishing anything. In a very real sense as long as the node remains open the UEF has no actual path to victory.

In fact I think that's their real problem. The various responses of the UEF leaders to the issue at hand don't hold out any real hope of winning. Calder's offensive operations are probably the best answer, in that he is at least attempting to impose his will on the enemy and retain the initiative, but in the end all the answers offered so far are hollow. They offer tactical solutions but no answer to the strategic problem.

This is exactly what I was going for earlier. And, having continued to look at it, the only way the UEF can "win" is to metaphorically not play. If the node remains open, the conclusion is inevitable.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 01:32:46 pm
Then you get leaky on the fighter strikes, and might as well not be accomplishing anything. In a very real sense as long as the node remains open the UEF has no actual path to victory.

In fact I think that's their real problem. The various responses of the UEF leaders to the issue at hand don't hold out any real hope of winning. Calder's offensive operations are probably the best answer, in that he is at least attempting to impose his will on the enemy and retain the initiative, but in the end all the answers offered so far are hollow. They offer tactical solutions but no answer to the strategic problem.
First, fighters can cover the node. They have much better subspace mobility than capships, so they can instaflee if a meson bomb arrives. Unless I'm mistaken, the Meson bomb still needs a few seconds to detonate, and anyway using a meson bomb to blow a few fighter wings that can be replaced by fresh reinforcements a few seconds later is a total waste.

Second, if the GTVA can't send anything else than fighter and bomber wings through the node, then the fighters are stranded and without logistical support in an hostile system. Then their threat becomes nothing more than that of Gefs with better tech. The UEF can easily live with that.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 16, 2011, 01:41:28 pm

Second, if the GTVA can't send anything else than fighter and bomber wings through the node, then the fighters are stranded and without logistical support in an hostile system. Then their threat becomes nothing more than that of Gefs with better tech. The UEF can easily live with that.

Or they could, you know, use those fighters for their intended purpose in the event of such an assault, tying up defenders, disrupting formations and such, clearing the way for corvettes and destroyers to come through the node and reestablish a foothold.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 16, 2011, 01:54:31 pm
Once you manage to control the node and you have driven back the GTVA from Sol, put 4 Naras at max range of the node. Negates the advantage of meson bombs.
You're assuming the UEF can drive the GTVA from Sol, because at the conclusion of WiH, one fleet is almost totally decimated, another is getting to that point, and the last fleet is just sitting around Sol, the GTVA forces are mostly still intact while the UEF was hit hard.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 16, 2011, 02:00:11 pm
Yeah and the GTVA have forces already in-system, taking control of the node is one thing, holding it against forces from the bottleneck is another thing, holding it against forces from within the system is another another thing.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 16, 2011, 02:43:02 pm
First, fighters can cover the node. They have much better subspace mobility than capships, so they can instaflee if a meson bomb arrives. Unless I'm mistaken, the Meson bomb still needs a few seconds to detonate, and anyway using a meson bomb to blow a few fighter wings that can be replaced by fresh reinforcements a few seconds later is a total waste.

Second, if the GTVA can't send anything else than fighter and bomber wings through the node, then the fighters are stranded and without logistical support in an hostile system. Then their threat becomes nothing more than that of Gefs with better tech. The UEF can easily live with that.

Spoken like a man who has no conception that seconds can and do matter. A few seconds, you say, no time at all. A few seconds is all it takes to deploy a complete strike package in FS. Never forget that the rapidity of subspace travel works both ways. In a few seconds the GTVA can deploy a sixty-fighter strike to engage the Naras and damage them enough to require yardwork to repair.  Eventually you run out of Naras to stand the guard at the node because they're all in the shop, and you're ****ed. (The UEF OrBats released have suggested they don't have terribly many to begin with; four Naras is the complete complement of a fleet and after everything that's happened in WiH may well represent half of the total number of them in Sol.) The GTVA has demonstrated that it is able to carry out very tightly timed operations before (Into the Lion's Den) so forcing an entry and and exit both via the use of Meson Bombs for a fighter strike group is entirely reasonable.

Second, comparing a GTVA strike fighter group to the Gefs is hilarious. You are, in essence, saying that militia (if you can even call the Gefs that, and arguably they're a step below militia) is equivalent to professionals. The Gefs don't have Helios bombs and Nyxes, nor do they have the training or discipline of a GTVA fighter group. An equivalent number of GTVA fighters is a threat an order of magnitude greater than a Gef force.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Rodo on March 16, 2011, 03:09:30 pm
But you've got to agree that holding the node is a key factor, Shivans know this and act accordingly.
If the UEF had a few more forces (which I think they do, but are keeping in the wait) they could pull a stunt like that after getting rid of the fleets in Sol.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 16, 2011, 03:16:36 pm
The Shivans can afford to waste hordes of ships on a costly Node Blockade. The GTVA, and certainly the UEF, cannot.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 03:20:31 pm
Quote
In a few seconds the GTVA can deploy a sixty-fighter strike to engage the Naras and damage them enough to require yardwork to repair.
I don't think a node can sustain that many ships at a time. Remember all that has been said about the Delta-Serpentis node as a bottleneck for the GTVA forces in Sol, which is the very reason they have to use logistic ships in the first place. Ships would have to come in waves, that can be dispatched by the superior UEF fighter force more than easily. And Naras can take care of themselves against fighters and bombers more than well enough. Especially given the global inefficiency of tevs bombers. And especially since in that situation they would be covered by a substantial number of Sanctus and Karunas + fighter complements. You'd need beam barrage to break such a formation, and any beam-carrying ship would be nullified before going anywhere in rage, especially given the bottleneck property.

Given the amount of damage the Gefs have been able to put during WiH, for example the fact that they would have disabled and disarmed a fully armed and refitted Hatshepsut-class destroyer if it hadn't crash-jumped. I don't think we can really consider the Gefs as "a step below militia" after such a show of power. They are numerous, coordinated and well-armed for a non-military organisation. You can argue that they have been supplied by the GTVA and the UEF that both wanted to use em to weaken the other, the point still stands.

So I think it's perfectly fair to compare them to what the surviving elements of multiple waves of tevs fighters through a well-defended node would become after they disperse and hide in the system to conduct guerilla warfare. Because that's basically the only remaining option for the GTVA in that scenario.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Luis Dias on March 16, 2011, 03:33:07 pm
The bottlenecking at the nodes is a very interesting key strategy narrative resource available.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: headdie on March 16, 2011, 03:41:49 pm
The Shivans can afford to waste hordes of ships on a costly Node Blockade. The GTVA, and certainly the UEF, cannot.

errrr, i have to disagree with you there in regards to the GTVA, Kings Gambit and End Game are strait up blockade missions and in The Romans Blunder there should have been a blockade in place
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 16, 2011, 03:41:58 pm
The bottlenecking at the nodes is a very interesting key strategy narrative resource available.

Except it doesn't work, since there are GTVA ships already in the system!
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 03:45:50 pm
Yes. There are GTVA in system, that have to rely to logistic ships and captured stations to sustain themselves. They have done everything they could to minimize the bottleneck issue of the node, and this is made pretty clear in the fluff.

Besides, remember that GTVA is in system because they took control of the node even before the UEF started to react, and that they have fortified it ever since. We're talking about a situation here where the GTVA would have been pushed back to DS and the UEF would be holding the Sol end of the node, and would be the one fortifying it.

EDIT:

The Shivans can afford to waste hordes of ships on a costly Node Blockade. The GTVA, and certainly the UEF, cannot.

errrr, i have to disagree with you there in regards to the GTVA, Kings Gambit and End Game are strait up blockade missions and in The Romans Blunder there should have been a blockade in place
Those are situations where the NTF was running the blockades. Keep in mind that they lost their entire fleet in the process. The GTVA can't afford that amount of losses, for multiple reasons that have also been made pretty clear in the fluff and that are also the reason the UEF is still standing after 18 months.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 16, 2011, 03:47:51 pm
Yes. There are GTVA in system, that have to rely to logistic ships and captured stations to sustain themselves. They have done everything they could to minimize the bottleneck issue of the node, and this is made pretty clear in the fluff.

Besides, remember that GTVA is in system because they took control of the node even before the UEF started to react, and that they have fortified it ever since. We're talking about a situation here where the GTVA would have been pushed back to DS and the UEF would be holding the Sol end of the node, and would be the one fortifying it.
Except with a heavily battered military force, with the largest chunk of it on a defensive strategy, how would the UEF push the GTVA out anyway? :p
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Jellyfish on March 16, 2011, 04:17:30 pm
Take out a destroyer and let the public outrage do the rest.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 04:19:33 pm
The goal of the debate here is whether the UEF could hold the node if they were given the opportunity to control and fortify it, the GTVA having retreated to DS. If the UEF can't do that, then they have basically no single chance to survive.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 16, 2011, 04:52:17 pm
Yeah but that scenario seems pretty unlikely to happen in the first place unless the GTVA actually withdraws for whatever reason (Shivan invasion or something).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 05:58:06 pm
And since a Shivan incursion (or even a Vishnan one for what we know of) could happen any time, any place without warning, (this very fact being the sole reason the GTVA hasn't committed more forces in Sol, that the UEF isn't dead yet, and that we're having this very conversation), this isn't that unlikely.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 16, 2011, 06:00:10 pm
Well hinging your main strategic initiative on the invasion of a xenocidal alien species isn't really a great idea.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 16, 2011, 06:22:16 pm
I don't think a node can sustain that many ships at a time.

This is the same node the Lucifer duelled two dozen fighters to the death coming through 50 years ago.  There is no canon cap for number of ships able to go through one node.  The 'bottleneck' refers to the logistics tail being unable to support more than five or so destroyers in the theater at any given time.  Hence, logistics ships.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 06:48:39 pm
This isn't exactly the same node. We don't know for sure how well the Alliance portal has stabilized it.

But I do agree on the fact we have no canon numbers (official canon or BP canon) to confirm either ideas on that point. Still, I think that 4 Naras with Sanctus + Karuna + fighter escort is more than able to sustain the 60+ fighters NGTM-1R mentioned with minimal losses. Especially, again, given how little durable tev bombers are. So the UEF blockade idea still stands.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 16, 2011, 06:56:54 pm
On the topic of the UEF holding the Sol note. Possible reasons for the GTVA not being able to hold the node on the Sol side:

* A sudden Shivan invasion in GTVA territory, as defenses are having a hard time, the Sol battlegroups are recalled.

* Vasudans interfere in political affairs and the GTVA is pressured into removing it's forces from Sol.

* The public image of the GTVA war effort changes, possibly through information of the wars nature leaking (source possibly sympathisers, perhaps Anita Lopez blowing the whistle), politics pressure the GTVA into a treaty.

* Vishans suddenly interfere and change the balance into the UEF's favour.

* A new weapon is employed, it proofs efficient against the GTVA, forcing the latter to retreat.

* A secret unannounced fleet, something wack like a Feyadeen owned fourth Solaris with significant escorts joins the UEF ranks and tops the balance, through a blitzkrieg. Essentially plausible deniability, denying the existence of another Solaris and fleet, by openly lying to the UEF media network while holding up the pretense of a 100% open information policy.

* While holding their lines, the UEF pressures the GTVA by actively destroying hard-needed resources. The GTVA ends the war and calls for a treaty to still try and get those needed resources: possibly by signing a treaty where officially the UEF is subjugated (to hold up the ruse of GTVA victory to it's citizens), but where unofficially and in reality, the UEF decides the terms of the treaty and stays autonomous in the Sol system.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 16, 2011, 07:03:43 pm
About the probability for the UEF to hold such an hypothetical blockade :

If we consider you can send as many ships as you want through the node, I don't know how well such a blockade would resist to a few raynors/titans with fighter complements sent at the same time, but we have Durgas and Vajradhara to sweep clean out of those, so I don't think the GTVA would take such a risk. The only failure possible in that kind of blockade would be if the desties had sprint drives to jump out as soon as exiting the node, before Naras and bombers finish the warship off.

Such is a valid concern, but that escaping ship wouldn't threaten the blockade itself after clearing the node, as long as there is an AWACS jamming beams up, so the destie would, again, be left in Sol without attending ships (since sprint jump drives are still too few and far between to equip a whole battlegroup with em) nor logistical support. We are back to the guerilla warfare I mentioned, just on a much bigger scale. Still better than an open-scale war for the UEF - they have the firepower to deal with a single, isolated and logistic-less destroyer with minimal losses.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 16, 2011, 07:16:59 pm
About the probability for the UEF to hold such an hypothetical blockade :

If we consider you can send as many ships as you want through the node, I don't know how well such a blockade would resist to a few raynors/titans with fighter complements sent at the same time, but we have Durgas and Vajradhara to sweep clean out of those, so I don't think the GTVA would take such a risk. The only failure possible in that kind of blockade would be if the desties had sprint drives to jump out as soon as exiting the node, before Naras and bombers finish the warship off.

Such is a valid concern, but that escaping ship wouldn't threaten the blockade itself after clearing the node, as long as there is an AWACS jamming beams up, so the destie would, again, be left in Sol without attending ships (since sprint jump drives are still too few and far between to equip a whole battlegroup with em) nor logistical support. We are back to the guerilla warfare I mentioned, just on a much bigger scale. Still better than an open-scale war for the UEF - they have the firepower to deal with a single, isolated and logistic-less destroyer with minimal losses.

But you're forgetting the whole political picture here.

First, before I explain, while nodes are infinately long, they are also narrow. Ships have always shown in the freespace games to come out one at a time. A volley of artilery fire and perhaps defense platforms we may not have seen may easily take care of those destroyers.

For the political part, remember the GTVA also has to keep face to it's citizens. They can't sacrifice destroyers, there's no way you can hide their destruction of such a ship. Even if you can, family of those on board probably knew on what ship their loved ones served and were lost. Rumour'd spread. Also sacrificing defenses may lead to the Vasudans retreating from the Alliance. They'd make sure to guard their own systems if the GTVA opens up their ranks by drawing destroyers from other groups away from their respective sectors/systems. Sure they can send through a whole wing of destroyers but it'd have dire consequences. Losing the node is forced negotiations, unless the GTVA really loses it's already not so sane mind.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 16, 2011, 08:42:06 pm
First, before I explain, while nodes are infinately long, they are also narrow. Ships have always shown in the freespace games to come out one at a time.

This is untrue. We have seen multiple cruiser-class ships emerge from a node at the same time in FS1, and a Levi and an Argos plus significant fighter escorts arrived at once during The King's Gambit.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Jellyfish on March 16, 2011, 08:47:15 pm
Different nodes, different tolerances.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 16, 2011, 09:11:08 pm
Baseless assertion.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 16, 2011, 09:51:59 pm
Not to mention, fighters have repeatedly been shown to be able to exit nodes in En Masse. Can't fit more than one Destroyer through at a time? Try 50 Nyx's with a supporting wave of bombers right behind them. All it takes is good strategy for the Tevs to bust any sort of blockade the UEF sets up.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Jellyfish on March 16, 2011, 09:54:40 pm
Baseless assertion.
Makes sense, though. No two things are the same in the universe, and since nodes are a natural occurance, neither are they.
Of course, Sol Gate and Knossos nodes may be an exception.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 16, 2011, 10:31:48 pm
Baseless assertion.
Makes sense, though. No two things are the same in the universe, and since nodes are a natural occurance, neither are they.
Of course, Sol Gate and Knossos nodes may be an exception.

Or, since there's NEVER been ANY indication of a limit or tolerance for any node, it's a baseless assertion.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 17, 2011, 04:31:50 am
First, before I explain, while nodes are infinately long, they are also narrow. Ships have always shown in the freespace games to come out one at a time.

This is untrue. We have seen multiple cruiser-class ships emerge from a node at the same time in FS1, and a Levi and an Argos plus significant fighter escorts arrived at once during The King's Gambit.

A cruiser is no destroyer, big size difference. There have been too many occasions where destroyers and almost equally large ships came out one after another, not to mention ships larger than a cruiser/convoy vessel took turns entering the jump node. I don't think it's assertion entirely.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 17, 2011, 04:41:59 am
Not to mention, fighters have repeatedly been shown to be able to exit nodes in En Masse. Can't fit more than one Destroyer through at a time? Try 50 Nyx's with a supporting wave of bombers right behind them. All it takes is good strategy for the Tevs to bust any sort of blockade the UEF sets up.

Like I said, that kind of assault force would be easily dispatched with minimal losses by a defensive fire pocket comprised of Karunas, sanctus and supporting fighters around the Naras, not to mention the already considerable defences of the Naras themselves. Whatever good strategy the tev have, they still have to close 12k between the node and the Naras. They are out of treb/maxim range and easy pickings during that time.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dilmah G on March 17, 2011, 04:50:49 am
If you go all in with Nyx's covering bombers on SEAD and Strike missions on those Naras, you can force the fighters into combat with the gunship killers.

Assuming SEAD boys get their work done fast, you can strip the thing quite easily. Also, it would be unwise to have your blockade that far out, the way I see it. Giving them that much space would allow the fleet to warp in and then take positions to outflank the frigates.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 17, 2011, 04:57:22 am
Yeah. Narayanas are basically ambush snipers. They are most effective against an enemy that already is engaged in close combat, where they can use their range advantage to take shots at enemy ships. Remember that the main source of Narayana DPS, the Apocalypse torpedo swarms, take a very long time to reach your targets. Parking them somewhere in plain sight only makes sense if you can get the enemy to stay together for a long time. And even then, you're still susceptible to a fighter/bomber wing microjumping around you and coming in on your blind sides. Remember, Narayanas are nowhere near as good as Karunas when it comes to point defense, since most of their anti-fighter weaponry is placed on the wings. While that gives each turret an excellent field of fire, the reduced number of turrets makes them rather vulnerable to Treb/Stilleto attacks.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 17, 2011, 05:22:13 am
Microjumping ? Can you really have 12k subspace jumps in BP ?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 17, 2011, 05:23:34 am
If they allow the Nemesis Maneuver to exist in Blue Planet, then yes.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 17, 2011, 05:27:31 am
If they can, then yeah, microjumps would give tev treb packs the edge to quickly defang the Naras, and the whole blockade is then a bust.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 17, 2011, 05:53:21 am
Even if you can't jump only 12k, what's to stop you from doglegging? You can just make two jumps....
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 17, 2011, 05:54:28 am
Meh. UEF should replace the mass and gauss cannons on Naras with sufficiently high caliber gattler rounds. Make more room for gattler ammo by using missile magazines too. Not much could survive that onslaught very long. Unless all ships are equipped with rapid jump drives or two jump drives, they get decimated before they can jump again. :p
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 17, 2011, 06:29:02 am
Going back a page or two:
I have another reason for a cese fire and GTVA pull out: Economy!
If I understand the backstory right, the GTVA tethers on the brink of an economic collapse due to the demands of the portal project.
With a war going on, the economy will hardly get much of a chance to recover and thus could collapse pretty much at a moments notice. That might be followed by widespread revolts forcing the GTVA to pull in every asset they have to contain the situation.
Apart from needing the Sol forces at home, they might simply be unable to sustain the war-effort in such a scenario and thus would be forced into either a treaty or a constant state of cold war.

While this isn't enough to base a strategy on either, it is far more likely than an alien invasion I think.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SypheDMar on March 17, 2011, 06:43:24 am
Or the war effort is actually helping the economy in the short term, and there are enough public support for the war effort so that the if there needs to be cuts, it'd be on non-military discretionary spending.

I agree that it's more likely than aliens, though.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 17, 2011, 03:33:34 pm
Meh. UEF should replace the mass and gauss cannons on Naras with sufficiently high caliber gattler rounds. Make more room for gattler ammo by using missile magazines too. Not much could survive that onslaught very long. Unless all ships are equipped with rapid jump drives or two jump drives, they get decimated before they can jump again. :p
Maybe this could happen late in the war with the few remaining Naras
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 17, 2011, 03:41:19 pm
Skirmisher variants with Solaris-style Gattler Turrets for cannons? Sounds nasty.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 17, 2011, 03:57:38 pm
And then in the inevitable Toutatis/Atreus duel they can have a go at Serkr team!
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 17, 2011, 04:05:13 pm
Hmm...
Would the story ever introduce a UEF version of Serkr at some point?
It sounds like a Monkey-See; Monkey-Do, but it essentialy is, studying and copying the GTVA TTP (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 17, 2011, 04:11:04 pm
Basically the Nara groups are like Serkr. Jump in at optimal positioning, blast them with overwhelming firepower, get out before the enemy can retaliate.
But with the exception of the counter attack on the Atreus, that the sprint drive nullified, the UEF wasn't in any position to use the Naras that effectively.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 17, 2011, 04:14:31 pm
Well the Nara refits (w/ artillery) have been in-theatre for longer than Serkr team.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 17, 2011, 04:17:15 pm
I don't think a group of Naryanas are quite like Serkr, shot-for-shot their Mass Drivers are powerful, but the Gattler Turret on a Solaris puts out insurmountible firepower with its RoF.
I'd imagine a weapon system like that on more agile Frigates like the Karuna or Naryana would make a more lethal ambush platform for a close range battlespace.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 17, 2011, 04:49:12 pm
Well, the problem is, Serkr is the archetypical example of a glass cannon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GlassCannon). They have a massive alpha strike firepower, but they are quite fragile if said alpha strike doesn't annihilate their opposition. The UEF doesn't have any class in service that can operate on the same principle, since the UEF's main weaponry (Varunastra cannons and Apocalypse torpedoes) don't produce the same kind of damage throughput.
For the most part, UEF weapons seem geared towards saturation attacks, rather than pinpoint damage, while GTVA beam weapons are the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 17, 2011, 04:55:07 pm
Mmmph... Serkr Team isn't that much of a glass cannon. They have excellent anti-fighter weaponry and an entire UEF assault squadron was unable to stop them in Collateral, and they didn't even have the Bloodletters with them in that one. When they got caught with their pants down in Aristeia they were still able to escape.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 17, 2011, 04:58:54 pm
Well, the problem is, Serkr is the archetypical example of a glass cannon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GlassCannon). They have a massive alpha strike firepower, but they are quite fragile if said alpha strike doesn't annihilate their opposition. The UEF doesn't have any class in service that can operate on the same principle, since the UEF's main weaponry (Varunastra cannons and Apocalypse torpedoes) don't produce the same kind of damage throughput.
For the most part, UEF weapons seem geared towards saturation attacks, rather than pinpoint damage, while GTVA beam weapons are the exact opposite.
But the discussion as it is bases it on the concept that some ships are refitted to operate in that principle.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 17, 2011, 05:30:45 pm
Basically the Nara groups are like Serkr. Jump in at optimal positioning, blast them with overwhelming firepower, get out before the enemy can retaliate.
But with the exception of the counter attack on the Atreus, that the sprint drive nullified, the UEF wasn't in any position to use the Naras that effectively.

Narayana = Sniper rifle - They're used to destroy high value components from long range; they don't have advanced jump drives, so they're less able to jump in - shoot - jump out. Instead they need backup or very good aim. Their standard MO is to jump in at maximum range, disarm their targets, and peck them to death. (Presumably while their fighter compliment supplements their point defenses.) EDIT: Narayana's have decent damage output, but it's not the same as being able to instantly take out a Ravana.

Serker = Humvee with ATM launcher - They're used to blow up large capital assets as quickly as possible, they're MO is to jump in, blow stuff up in seconds, and use their powerful point defenses to cover themselves from a counterattack until their jump drives recharge (apparently a minute or two (Collateral Damage). The tech description also calls them escort corvettes, which is what I suppose they're doing in Aristeia; they might seem to suck in this capacity, but remember they would have taken out one Karuna the same instant  the Indus and Yangtze entered in beam range and the other 30 seconds afterward, if ECM support hadn't arrived the second it did. 

Chimeras and Bellerophons aren't actually weak at all. They have much better anti-fighter defenses than a Narayana, and Bellerophons have the same number of hitpoints as Narayanas, Chimeras only have marginally less (80,000 compared to 90,000). The glass aspect is that their anti-capital firepower is exposed, and fairly easy to destroy.

EDIT:

The Narayana has some much better tactical positions though (anything outside of beam range)

 
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Ravenholme on March 17, 2011, 06:40:27 pm
First, before I explain, while nodes are infinately long, they are also narrow. Ships have always shown in the freespace games to come out one at a time.

This is untrue. We have seen multiple cruiser-class ships emerge from a node at the same time in FS1, and a Levi and an Argos plus significant fighter escorts arrived at once during The King's Gambit.

And I'm pretty sure a node that was destructing at the time managed to take the emergence of a lucifer and several fighter wings at the same time. (Fs1 Endgame cutscene anyone?)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 17, 2011, 06:51:51 pm
You're talking about cruisers and fighters here. We were talking about big ships. You never see several corvettes or destroyers come out of a node at the same time.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 17, 2011, 07:25:30 pm
I would be willing to bet that's more because the entry to the node is physically too small for the ships to side-by-side transition.  However, none of this is the point.

Blockade scenario (lol never gonna happen): Naras at long range to bombard.  Fighter screen at the node.

Tevs push through a meson bomb and detonate it, forcing all fighters to either GTFO or die.  Seconds later, a large strike wing arrives, and uses the window of time to either A) burn at the supporting Naras and treb the cannons off of them, before bombers unleash payloads or B) jump further in system to **** with real estate and force more UEF ships away from the node.

Either way, blockade gets borked really damn quick.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 17, 2011, 07:33:24 pm
Naras have their own fighters though.
Also, there would be something guarding them.
And a large fighter wing wouldn't really do much once in system, since they need a base.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 17, 2011, 07:40:36 pm
Naras have their own fighters though.
Also, there would be something guarding them.
And a large fighter wing wouldn't really do much once in system, since they need a base.
We just had this discussion earlier, on one of the topics in this forum. Tev fighters are generally self sufficient,, meaning they can last longer by themselves (without a base) for an extended period of time.

Also, just because the Naras have an escort or fighter compliment doesn't stop the trebs from hitting them, unless its fighters take the trebs for them, which is ****ing hard to do.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 17, 2011, 07:41:45 pm
If the Nara's group of probably four to six ready fighters manages to fight off an entire squadron or more of Tev strikecraft, there's a serious breakdown on at least one level.  The entire complement of a Nara WILL NOT be ready for an incursion.  Keeping the entire complement of pilots ready round the clock is, in a word, dangerous.  Sure, you'd have ready-five wings, but they still won't be ready to intercept.  All it takes it knocking off the cannons or doing some other significant damage to make them rotate off the line.  There aren't near enough Naras in Sol to absorb even light casualties and keep a blockade up.

If the Tevs follow up with any capital or corvette presence at all, the blockade falls apart, and the balance resumes with the UEF in a worse position following the necessary repair and refit of perhaps as much as half of the remaining Nara presence in Sol, without even mentioning Karuna casualties.

Tevs can afford attrition.  The UEF can't, not by any stretch of the imagination.

EDIT:  And also what Hades said.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 17, 2011, 08:01:51 pm
Since UEF wouldn't have much to do with their ships other than keeping the blockade up, I wouldn't be suprised if "something" guarding the Naras was the Solaris.
They could also develop some kind of an artillery platform, which would be cheaper to produce and maintain than Nara, but would still have a large part of firepower (sort of UEF Mijolnir).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 17, 2011, 08:07:13 pm
I'd assume that if and when the UEF decides to take the node, they'd have a large enough explosive device at the ready to send through the subspace node before the GTVA can mount a counter-offense: to either blow up the Delta Serpentis - Sol gate, or to collapse the node entirely if that is possible with the gate.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 17, 2011, 08:07:38 pm
They could also develop some kind of an artillery platform, which would be cheaper to produce and maintain than Nara, but would still have a large part of firepower (sort of UEF Mijolnir).

This would take a far greater amount of time than the UEF would have. If they do manage to kick the Tevs out, and the Tevs want back in, the UEF is only going to have as long as it takes the Tevs to gather a sufficient strikeforce. Which, if they're smart, will already be waiting within striking distance of the Sol Gate, just in case.

Edit: Semi-ninja'd by Sara, and that still seems to be the only tenable long term military goal the UEF can have.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Liberator on March 17, 2011, 08:29:59 pm
Economic Crisis or not, the GTVA(I refuse to call them TEVs) could and probably should have deployed undeniable force to Earth and forced the issue with pinpoint bombardment from orbit.  That said, on topic, the ships seem to be getting larger in profile.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Droid803 on March 17, 2011, 08:58:43 pm
Economic Crisis or not, the GTVA(I refuse to call them TEVs) could and probably should have deployed undeniable force to Earth and forced the issue with pinpoint bombardment from orbit.

That was the plan.
Until AoA happened.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 18, 2011, 06:11:36 am
To be more specific, the plan was to threaten pinpoint orbital bombardment.

At any rate, Orbit-to-Surface bombardment is the very, very last thing the GTVA would want to do. To reiterate, the GTVA does not have the manpower to effectively occupy Sol. They want the UEF to submit to GTVA authority willingly. Threatening death from above is definitely not the right way to do it.

(In real life terms, this would be like the US trying a hostile takeover of the European Union. It just wouldn't work.)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 18, 2011, 06:51:57 am
I would be willing to bet that's more because the entry to the node is physically too small for the ships to side-by-side transition.  However, none of this is the point.

Maybe, but consider that big ass ships like the Colossus and Sathanas are able to traverse nodes no problem. I bet you could squeeze together a few warships based on that level of space. Until FreeSpace I never would've thought of space as being too small. :)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 18, 2011, 08:07:25 am
Economic Crisis or not, the GTVA(I refuse to call them TEVs) could and probably should have deployed undeniable force to Earth and forced the issue with pinpoint bombardment from orbit.  That said, on topic, the ships seem to be getting larger in profile.

That was exactly what they tried to do.  :blah:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 18, 2011, 08:13:46 am
To be more specific, the plan was to threaten pinpoint orbital bombardment.

At any rate, Orbit-to-Surface bombardment is the very, very last thing the GTVA would want to do. To reiterate, the GTVA does not have the manpower to effectively occupy Sol. They want the UEF to submit to GTVA authority willingly. Threatening death from above is definitely not the right way to do it.

(In real life terms, this would be like the US trying a hostile takeover of the European Union. It just wouldn't work.)
Then how in world is the current state of affairs working for the GTVA? Now they can occupy Sol?

This thread is confusing me...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 18, 2011, 10:29:05 am
My guess is the GTVA wants to de-legitimize the Ubuntu leadership by showing that they lack the military force and will to fight off another Shivan incursion.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SD-Beast on March 18, 2011, 10:53:27 am
To be more specific, the plan was to threaten pinpoint orbital bombardment.

At any rate, Orbit-to-Surface bombardment is the very, very last thing the GTVA would want to do. To reiterate, the GTVA does not have the manpower to effectively occupy Sol. They want the UEF to submit to GTVA authority willingly. Threatening death from above is definitely not the right way to do it.

(In real life terms, this would be like the US trying a hostile takeover of the European Union. It just wouldn't work.)
Then how in world is the current state of affairs working for the GTVA? Now they can occupy Sol?

This thread is confusing me...

Break the populace' confidence hard enough and they'll lose faith in the UEF and, thus lose faith in the Ubuntu leadership. Which would make the GTVA's fight much easier, might even cause some UEF units to defect.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Rodo on March 18, 2011, 11:10:03 am
I think they are more concerned about GTVA people actually liking the Ubuntu way and turn to a sol-like life, thus loosing power positions.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 18, 2011, 11:16:23 am
Pred was talking about the impossibility of the GTVA to forcibly occupy Sol, and I hypothesized that the GTVA planned to take it by de-legitimizing Ubuntu and the Council of Elders by proving their ineffectiveness against another Shivan incursion, thereby encouraging the Earth, Mars, and Jovian governments to submit to the will of the GTVA for security purposes.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 18, 2011, 02:23:24 pm
That, and once you control the orbitals, you can dictate terms by the threat of force. You don't have to land and occupy...assuming the other party believes you're willing to do it, and that they are rational.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 18, 2011, 05:52:31 pm
But that would only contain the "threat" of ubuntu. They still can't get access to most of the infrastructure of Sol without the cooperation of the locals.
Granted, much of the ship manufacturing (and probably mining) facilities are in orbit, but it would be one hell of a job to ferry enough workers from GTVA terretory into Sol to run those orbitals, not to mention that they'd need some place to live and supplys. Ferrying all those people between Delta Serpentis and Sol twice a day is just ludicrous.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 18, 2011, 08:04:31 pm
History says that gaining control of the population after a total war scenario is not hard. (Post WWII German, Japan, and Italy demonstrate this)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Hades on March 18, 2011, 08:43:11 pm
But that would only contain the "threat" of ubuntu. They still can't get access to most of the infrastructure of Sol without the cooperation of the locals.
Granted, much of the ship manufacturing (and probably mining) facilities are in orbit, but it would be one hell of a job to ferry enough workers from GTVA terretory into Sol to run those orbitals, not to mention that they'd need some place to live and supplys. Ferrying all those people between Delta Serpentis and Sol twice a day is just ludicrous.
In all likelihood, the facilities either have integrated living quarters and/or have an accompanying installation dedicated for the workers, considering ferrying the workers from Earth to the facilities would be inefficient and a decently long trip too.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 19, 2011, 01:50:38 am
History says that gaining control of the population after a total war scenario is not hard. (Post WWII German, Japan, and Italy demonstrate this)

History has nothing at all to say about someone occupying a nation with 9 billion+ inhabitants.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 19, 2011, 06:56:38 am
But with all the dead civilians, how are the GTVA supposed to convince the Sol populace that they are better.
Just throwing questions out there, and this is getting way off-topic.

Oops! :nervous:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Droid803 on March 19, 2011, 01:21:02 pm
By killing everyone who says otherwise, of course!
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 19, 2011, 01:26:01 pm
But with all the dead civilians, how are the GTVA supposed to convince the Sol populace that they are better.
Just throwing questions out there, and this is getting way off-topic.

Oops! :nervous:

They aren't. If the UEF government acquiesces its populace will either follow or revolt, and the hope (probably backed up by projection on the GTVA side) is that they'll follow.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Liberator on March 19, 2011, 01:58:04 pm
Wait a sec.  You are talking about a populace who willingly follow the commands of a group of people who are basing their whole governmental strategy on the ravings and hallucinations of a 3 pilots, a known madman and a 120 year old Vasudan.  What gives you the idea they would revolt against a government that monitors your every action and thought and forces you to look at kittens and god knows what else AGAINST YOUR WILL so that your mental processes will conform to what they want.  I mean seriously, it's a wonder that the UEF has lasted 18 months against the GTVA(who are not much better mind you)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 19, 2011, 02:27:23 pm
What universe are you talking about here, because Ubuntu not at all what you just wrote.
For the kitten for example, the text goes something like this "Detecting agitantion in the reader. Do you want to see a soothing picture?" not forces at all.
The don't watch every little move every person does either. They monitor the economy on a level that leaves individuals out of the equation and use that to improve said economy.
They didn't form their entire government (first off, the Elders are NOT the government) after any hallucinations. They based their system on economy, science and education.

Unless that was a very poor attempt at a joke, I strongy suggest you actually read the backstory before making comments on it.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 19, 2011, 02:31:59 pm
Ugh. You were banned from GenDisc because you didn't read what people said to you. You've made this exact post already and been corrected on it. I'm going to correct you one more time and then I expect to never see this foolishness again.

The 'whole governmental strategy' of the UEF is based on sophisticated neocapitalist economic models (running on vast simulation farms) which allow them to nudge a free market economy into stable prosperity, a program of constant infrastructure and education expansion which produces a skilled workforce and a vast merchant marine, and a brilliant scientific community with the funding it needs to make breakthroughs.

They do not monitor any action or thought whatsoever, the kitten picture was a piece of software Noemi installed on her personal hardware out of her own free will much as people today buy iPhone apps, the day-to-day governance of the UEF is conducted by elected officials in a healthy democratic system, and there is no program of mental hygiene or thought control or anything.

I don't know what the **** this AGAINST YOUR WILL **** is, the meditation widget even made it pretty clear it was an optional thinking by presenting a 'yes/no' option. Christ.

I need you to acknowledge this post or get out. And no it wasn't funny if it was a joke, you already got yourself banned from one subforum for **** like that.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Liberator on March 19, 2011, 03:12:18 pm
My apologies, I had a brain fart.  Though in my case it would probably be more like a corpse blowing open, but either way, I'm sorry.  And I'd love to read the tech room for BP again.  But I redownloaded it and when it's the selected mod, the launcher goes nuts and 3.6.12 crashes on pilot select. :sigh:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 19, 2011, 03:15:25 pm
Looks like Liberator has been reading too much GTVA propaganda. :P
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 19, 2011, 03:35:54 pm
Seriously though - the GTVA, were they to crush the UEF military completely with 5 battle groups, wouldn't have to lie much to make the point that the Shivans would have utterly destroyed Sol, where the GTVA would have persevered.

Imagine Earth was under threat of alien invasion, and that you live in a small country focusing on social programs. Now imagine a large country invades because they want your nation to help with Earth defense rather than internal social problems. Imagine they have legitimate pictures of aliens blowing up whole planets easily, and they themselves had experienced the loss of an entire star to these invaders (with footage).

With even a small propaganda machine, its easy to see how easily the Tevs could make a case for themselves to the people in the Sol system. "Ubuntu could not protect you" and the like.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 19, 2011, 03:40:09 pm
Seriously though - the GTVA, were they to crush the UEF military completely with 5 battle groups, wouldn't have to lie much to make the point that the Shivans would have utterly destroyed Sol, where the GTVA would have persevered.

Imagine Earth was under threat of alien invasion, and that you live in a small country focusing on social programs. Now imagine a large country invades because they want your nation to help with Earth defense rather than internal social problems. Imagine they have legitimate pictures of aliens blowing up whole planets easily, and they themselves had experienced the loss of an entire star to these invaders (with footage).

With even a small propaganda machine, its easy to see how easily the Tevs could make a case for themselves to the people in the Sol system. "Ubuntu could not protect you" and the like.
Ubuntu citizens are not too likely to turn on the government that has led them into what appears to be the greatest era of prosperity in human history. They're likely to believe more in the great towering skyscrapers on the Moon and the inhabitation of Mars than some obscure, distant video clips of aliens blowing stuff up. Furthermore, the stuff they have seen blown up were blown up by the GTVA, a clear aggressor (in their eyes) and not some random alien race who they've heard nothing of for 50 years.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 19, 2011, 03:49:55 pm
Which, as the UEF would point out, proves exactly nothing, since the GTVA, for all its military prowess, knows nothing at all about the Shivan strength or shivan strategic objectives. It can't even reliably defend humanity against the displayed shivan strength at Capella. Thus, their ability to blow up ships is quite possibly completely irrelevant when it comes to the question of how to deal with the Shivans. But that is a different discussion, one we had ages ago already.

Then there's the simple fact that Ubuntu isn't meant to protect anyone from shivans. As Battuta pointed out, its objectives are economical, social, and scientific, not martial.

Ubuntu citizens are not too likely to turn on the government that has led them into what appears to be the greatest era of prosperity in human history. They're likely to believe more in the great towering skyscrapers on the Moon and the inhabitation of Mars than some obscure, distant video clips of aliens blowing stuff up. Furthermore, the stuff they have seen blown up were blown up by the GTVA, a clear aggressor (in their eyes) and not some random alien race who they've heard nothing of for 50 years.

I would believe that the average Ubuntu citizen's reaction to seeing footage from Capella would be more along the lines of "Yeah, Shivans are ****ing scary, we knew THAT already. Why haven't you come up with a better solution than 'Shoot them till they stop glowing' yet? What is that you say? You don't have the R&D infrastructure to do that because you poured every bit of money you can spare into the fleet? Well, that is a quite a conundrum, isn't it?
Hmm?
Oh, yes, of course we'll help you build up defenses. Of course, that would have been a bit easier if you hadn't smashed our fleet and its infrastructures, but since you obviously have more experience in such matters, we shall defer to your superior judgment.
Oh, by the way, it would really help if we could get the Elders back. Cos, you know, dem Bookworms be badass."
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Ravenholme on March 19, 2011, 04:08:49 pm
Well, given that the GTVA has weapons that are effective against the Shivans and more specimens of said foe to R-eng (Hallo Beam weapons), I think they've got the R capacity, and Sol in their pocket would increase the D capacity available to them by... a lot.

Sorry, any way you look at it, the UEF is a loser's bet. The GTVA (with a more mild leadership) is the only horse worth backing against the Shivans/Vishnans.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 19, 2011, 04:18:05 pm
That's my point. They have badass ships and good weapons. But they have no clue what they are facing, they are preparing for a fight against an enemy with unknown resources and unknown (but vastly superior) technological capabilities. In all fights against the Shivans, the recurring theme has been that whatever humanity can come up with, the Shivans are superior. The conclusion that "Shoot them till they stop glowing" just isn't going to cut it in the long term is just as logical as yours.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 19, 2011, 04:30:34 pm
From my point of view, the problem with siding with the GTVA is that... The UEF are the protagonists. This is probably for a reason. Most protagonists win in the end...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 19, 2011, 04:33:10 pm
Not if we get BP:Tev out the door before BP3 is released.  Then they're both protagonists. :P
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 19, 2011, 05:11:26 pm
They're protagonists in WiH, but not in AoA but I'd have to say that I personally have more emotional attachment to the GTVA, since every campaign (in the FS universe) I've played, except for this year, has them as the protagonist.

The way I see it:
The UEF fights emotionally - either completely damning violence, or going on a quest for vengeance (See Pawns on a Board of Bone). Yes the GTVA is going up against an unknown force in the Shivans - but they're doing their best to gain tactical and technological ground. Remember what Sam Bei said "Even if we die today, we will embody the true spirit of a GTVA pilot, fighting against the odds to protect those we love." That appears to be the philosophy of the Tevs in WiH - an honorable death against the odds is a fine one (very similar to the Berserks in Viking epics) that's the very thing that makes them a superior force to the UEF armada - a willingness to take losses and die, and a willingness to use every available technology to take down as many enemies as they can.

Even with the example of Capella, the tech room makes it very clear that it was a tactical miracle pulled off by the GTVA.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 19, 2011, 05:27:33 pm
From my point of view, the problem with siding with the GTVA is that... The UEF are the protagonists. This is probably for a reason. Most protagonists win in the end...

Our protagonist is also possibly certifiable.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 19, 2011, 06:07:46 pm
My apologies, I had a brain fart.  Though in my case it would probably be more like a corpse blowing open, but either way, I'm sorry.  And I'd love to read the tech room for BP again.  But I redownloaded it and when it's the selected mod, the launcher goes nuts and 3.6.12 crashes on pilot select. :sigh:

Huh that is really annoying. Have you tried WXLauncher and creating a new pilot? We should try to fix this.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 19, 2011, 08:36:55 pm
They're protagonists in WiH, but not in AoA but I'd have to say that I personally have more emotional attachment to the GTVA, since every campaign (in the FS universe) I've played, except for this year, has them as the protagonist.

The way I see it:
The UEF fights emotionally - either completely damning violence, or going on a quest for vengeance (See Pawns on a Board of Bone). Yes the GTVA is going up against an unknown force in the Shivans - but they're doing their best to gain tactical and technological ground. Remember what Sam Bei said "Even if we die today, we will embody the true spirit of a GTVA pilot, fighting against the odds to protect those we love." That appears to be the philosophy of the Tevs in WiH - an honorable death against the odds is a fine one (very similar to the Berserks in Viking epics) that's the very thing that makes them a superior force to the UEF armada - a willingness to take losses and die, and a willingness to use every available technology to take down as many enemies as they can.
That whole post considers that the GTVA Bei fought for during AoA is the same GTVA we fight in WiH. The last mission of AoA made it pretty clear that, at least for Bei, that GTVA doesn't exist anymore, and that's the very reason Bei defected to the UEF.

Quote
Even with the example of Capella, the tech room makes it very clear that it was a tactical miracle pulled off by the GTVA.
That's what we usually call propaganda dear sir.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 19, 2011, 09:07:10 pm
That section of the tech room is actually written as 3rd person history, it doesn't really lend a great deal of bias either way.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 19, 2011, 10:32:50 pm
They're protagonists in WiH, but not in AoA but I'd have to say that I personally have more emotional attachment to the GTVA, since every campaign (in the FS universe) I've played, except for this year, has them as the protagonist.

The way I see it:
The UEF fights emotionally - either completely damning violence, or going on a quest for vengeance (See Pawns on a Board of Bone). Yes the GTVA is going up against an unknown force in the Shivans - but they're doing their best to gain tactical and technological ground. Remember what Sam Bei said "Even if we die today, we will embody the true spirit of a GTVA pilot, fighting against the odds to protect those we love." That appears to be the philosophy of the Tevs in WiH - an honorable death against the odds is a fine one (very similar to the Berserks in Viking epics) that's the very thing that makes them a superior force to the UEF armada - a willingness to take losses and die, and a willingness to use every available technology to take down as many enemies as they can.
That whole post considers that the GTVA Bei fought for during AoA is the same GTVA we fight in WiH. The last mission of AoA made it pretty clear that, at least for Bei, that GTVA doesn't exist anymore, and that's the very reason Bei defected to the UEF.

Quote
Even with the example of Capella, the tech room makes it very clear that it was a tactical miracle pulled off by the GTVA.
That's what we usually call propaganda dear sir.
And Tevs are already used to dying in large numbers. That could explain why they keep on making bigger ships. The firepower to them is worth the risk of more lives.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 20, 2011, 07:50:22 am
Well no. If you looks at the new Tev designs, they have completely abandoned the idea of Colossus-grade massive warships to go with a fleet comprised mainly of corvettes, with only a few destroyers leading em. They want small, nimble ships with enough firepower to be efficient (contrary to cruisers) but small enough to not be critical losses and be mass-produced (contrary to desties and above).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 20, 2011, 08:20:00 am
Completely slipped my mind. :facepalm: The destroyers are big though! :p
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 20, 2011, 08:39:27 am
They're big (bigger than their Capella-era counterpart), but there's very few of em (two dozens on the tev side, probably a similar number for the zods, 3 for the UEF). They're only flagships, carriers and command centers, and are rarely sortied as heavy hitters. Corvettes probably number in the hundreds, and they form the core of the Tev fleet, just like Karunas for the core of the UEF fleet.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 20, 2011, 08:56:38 am
They're protagonists in WiH, but not in AoA but I'd have to say that I personally have more emotional attachment to the GTVA, since every campaign (in the FS universe) I've played, except for this year, has them as the protagonist.

The way I see it:
The UEF fights emotionally - either completely damning violence, or going on a quest for vengeance (See Pawns on a Board of Bone). Yes the GTVA is going up against an unknown force in the Shivans - but they're doing their best to gain tactical and technological ground. Remember what Sam Bei said "Even if we die today, we will embody the true spirit of a GTVA pilot, fighting against the odds to protect those we love." That appears to be the philosophy of the Tevs in WiH - an honorable death against the odds is a fine one (very similar to the Berserks in Viking epics) that's the very thing that makes them a superior force to the UEF armada - a willingness to take losses and die, and a willingness to use every available technology to take down as many enemies as they can.
That whole post considers that the GTVA Bei fought for during AoA is the same GTVA we fight in WiH. The last mission of AoA made it pretty clear that, at least for Bei, that GTVA doesn't exist anymore, and that's the very reason Bei defected to the UEF.
Apart from what Matt said, how is fighting technologically and numerically inferiour pacifists (including blowing up civilian ships and structures and bombarding Luna) "protecting those we love" and "fighting against the odds"?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Rodo on March 20, 2011, 09:17:01 am
These are just side effects to the unification plan.

I bet you'll see two different solutions to the same problem, each faction has it's own way to deal with the Shivan problem, we'll just have to wait to see which one is the correct one.. if there is a correct way to handle that problem.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 20, 2011, 09:39:35 am
These are just side effects to the unification plan.

I bet you'll see two different solutions to the same problem, each faction has it's own way to deal with the Shivan problem, we'll just have to wait to see which one is the correct one.. if there is a correct way to handle that problem.

Well the GTVA's solution seems to work well enough although given enough time there won't be any nodes left to cut off.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 20, 2011, 12:26:45 pm
It did work the first time, but now the Shivans know that "solution". Will it work a second time? Or a third time?
With the Shivans adaptability I wouldn't count on the node-collapse being a secure strategy.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 20, 2011, 12:40:43 pm
They're protagonists in WiH, but not in AoA but I'd have to say that I personally have more emotional attachment to the GTVA, since every campaign (in the FS universe) I've played, except for this year, has them as the protagonist.

The way I see it:
The UEF fights emotionally - either completely damning violence, or going on a quest for vengeance (See Pawns on a Board of Bone). Yes the GTVA is going up against an unknown force in the Shivans - but they're doing their best to gain tactical and technological ground. Remember what Sam Bei said "Even if we die today, we will embody the true spirit of a GTVA pilot, fighting against the odds to protect those we love." That appears to be the philosophy of the Tevs in WiH - an honorable death against the odds is a fine one (very similar to the Berserks in Viking epics) that's the very thing that makes them a superior force to the UEF armada - a willingness to take losses and die, and a willingness to use every available technology to take down as many enemies as they can.
That whole post considers that the GTVA Bei fought for during AoA is the same GTVA we fight in WiH. The last mission of AoA made it pretty clear that, at least for Bei, that GTVA doesn't exist anymore, and that's the very reason Bei defected to the UEF.
Apart from what Matt said, how is fighting technologically and numerically inferiour pacifists (including blowing up civilian ships and structures and bombarding Luna) "protecting those we love" and "fighting against the odds"?

I was showing a culture of being willing to die in the military. I wasn't saying anything about the current war, other than GTVA fighters are more willing to die for their cause in general.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 20, 2011, 01:09:23 pm
It did work the first time, but now the Shivans know that "solution". Will it work a second time? Or a third time?
With the Shivans adaptability I wouldn't count on the node-collapse being a secure strategy.

If the GTVA shuts them off fast enough then there shouldn't be a problem, but I catch your drift. The only truly practical limitation is how many bombs and how many million-ton ships they can afford to throw away, plus how quickly they can get them ready. It would be a real kicker to find out that the Shivans traversed some unknown, unstable node too, making all those efforts for nought. :)

I was showing a culture of being willing to die in the military. I wasn't saying anything about the current war, other than GTVA fighters are more willing to die for their cause in general.

I don't think they're more willing to die - noone really is - but they just don't give a sh*t. That's the only real difference between the UEF and GTVA, otherwise they're both quite similar. The Feds are as you said: they're sensitive to 'right' and 'wrong' and keeping to the rules of war. Even in Delenda Est where the Wargods were at their most aggressive they still offered Lopez a chance to surrender. The 'no civilian' aspect of BETAC is the Tev's side of the mercy coin. The difference being they can choose to ignore it via the "total war clause", where as I doubt the Feds would bomb civvies...not yet anyway.

EDIT: I think the last two pages of this topic should be merged with General Discussion.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 20, 2011, 02:09:29 pm
I don't think they're more willing to die - noone really is - but they just don't give a sh*t. That's the only real difference between the UEF and GTVA, otherwise they're both quite similar. The Feds are as you said: they're sensitive to 'right' and 'wrong' and keeping to the rules of war. Even in Delenda Est where the Wargods were at their most aggressive they still offered Lopez a chance to surrender. The 'no civilian' aspect of BETAC is the Tev's side of the mercy coin. The difference being they can choose to ignore it via the "total war clause", where as I doubt the Feds would bomb civvies...not yet anyway.

They're rather willing in general to throw civilian lives away by the end - Pawns on a Board of Bone. The whole point of that is that they lost themselves.

The funny part about the GTVA total war clause is that they still give the civilians a chance to surrender - the first mission of WiH for instance. It's not like they randomly kill civilians for the hell of it.

EDIT: I think the last two pages of this topic should be merged with General Discussion.

Agreed, but I think the BP discussion thread might do better.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 20, 2011, 02:12:22 pm
They're rather willing in general to throw civilian lives away by the end - Pawns on a Board of Bone. The whole point of that is that they lost themselves.

You are inferring a general shift in UEF military behaviour from the behaviour of one task force. That is a wrong thing to do.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 20, 2011, 02:14:36 pm
They're rather willing in general to throw civilian lives away by the end - Pawns on a Board of Bone. The whole point of that is that they lost themselves.

You are inferring a general shift in UEF military behaviour from the behaviour of one task force. That is a wrong thing to do.

I was actually referring just to the Wargods, but I by no means made that clear at all. I just got back from a run, so I'm probably making little sense; sorry!
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 20, 2011, 02:26:39 pm
I don't think they're more willing to die - noone really is - but they just don't give a sh*t. That's the only real difference between the UEF and GTVA, otherwise they're both quite similar. The Feds are as you said: they're sensitive to 'right' and 'wrong' and keeping to the rules of war. Even in Delenda Est where the Wargods were at their most aggressive they still offered Lopez a chance to surrender. The 'no civilian' aspect of BETAC is the Tev's side of the mercy coin. The difference being they can choose to ignore it via the "total war clause", where as I doubt the Feds would bomb civvies...not yet anyway.

They're rather willing in general to throw civilian lives away by the end - Pawns on a Board of Bone. The whole point of that is that they lost themselves.

The funny part about the GTVA total war clause is that they still give the civilians a chance to surrender - the first mission of WiH for instance. It's not like they randomly kill civilians for the hell of it.

EDIT: I think the last two pages of this topic should be merged with General Discussion.

Agreed, but I think the BP discussion thread might do better.


Woops, I meant BP discussion. :P And no they don't go blasting civvies for kicks, but they do if there's just cause, like armed escort or supposed military targets. Like I said I can't see the Feds doing the same...yet. :)

They're rather willing in general to throw civilian lives away by the end - Pawns on a Board of Bone. The whole point of that is that they lost themselves.

You are inferring a general shift in UEF military behaviour from the behaviour of one task force. That is a wrong thing to do.

Maybe, but they're getting there. The war for the Feds is only going to get worse and they'll get more desperate. The fact they proved themselves resilient enough for the GTVA to have to initiate the total war clause proves they've got it in them to adapt. Who's to say they won't be open to some sacrifices? (Apart from the dev team :))
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 20, 2011, 03:12:17 pm
The fact that the high ups cover up for Laporte if she kills a POW says something.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 20, 2011, 05:50:58 pm
The funny part about the GTVA total war clause is that they still give the civilians a chance to surrender - the first mission of WiH for instance. It's not like they randomly kill civilians for the hell of it.
Erm... no. That was the decision of a wing leader to offer the surrender. The first two (or three?) waves of attackers that came before the one that offered them a chance to surrender, didn't bother with any such offers. They just immediately started to blast away at the convoy.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 20, 2011, 05:54:27 pm
That we know of.  Combat was already joined when the player jumps in.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 20, 2011, 05:58:16 pm
The funny part about the GTVA total war clause is that they still give the civilians a chance to surrender - the first mission of WiH for instance. It's not like they randomly kill civilians for the hell of it.
Erm... no. That was the decision of a wing leader to offer the surrender. The first two (or three?) waves of attackers that came before the one that offered them a chance to surrender, didn't bother with any such offers. They just immediately started to blast away at the convoy.


They were being escorted by two cruisers therefore they're fair game. The wing leader was just being courteous. :) When exactly was the total war clause activated anyway? I thought it must've been just before Severanti decided to up his ante.

Ninja'ed: what Scotty said.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 20, 2011, 07:21:49 pm
That's exactly what I meant to say. The wingleader decided to give them another chance, even though he was not obligated to do so by their rules of engagement.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 06:20:41 am
The GTVA and the UEF philosophy and military doctrines...heh. The UEF's never seen how deep crap can get, like the GTVA have. I'd say this makes the UEF, inherently weak. The UEF never faced the Shivans. The GTA did. The UEF doesn't understand why the GTVA is big ships and big guns. Having fast, maneuverable corvettes and frigates and battlegroups whatnot are nothing to hitscanning, giant, evil pulsating red beams that always seems to have a tendency to hit Alpha 1 when shooting at a capital ship. And especially the...sheer numbers (read: SF Dragon) of the Shivans which can turn your surprise 'jump behind into the blindspot', useless. As with the Solaris, the UEF was built for a 'non-existent threat'. The GTVA, engineered for the Shivan threat. The GTVA Colossus. I'd like to see it in Blue Planet.

The threat that threatens to destroy all that they hold dear. Vasuda. Capella. Both...gone. If the GT of the GTVA takes that one more step, Earth will be theirs. Why don't they take that extra step, I do not know. Perhaps the GTD Aquitane's battlegroup, which could (help) win the war, could've been sent. But why not? There are threats looming. For every ship taken away from GTVA systems, the higher the chance that particular system could be lost to a sudden invasion by XXX. Heh, I'm not sure how this relates to ship size inflation, but it explains itself to me in a philosophical way. I do expect to hear someone saying biased, though. Just my two ¥.


Also, can't forget to mention Lieutenant Commander Snipes.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 06:40:21 am
The GTVA and the UEF philosophy and military doctrines...heh. The UEF's never seen how deep crap can get, like the GTVA have. I'd say this makes the UEF, inherently weak. The UEF never faced the Shivans. The GTA did. The UEF doesn't understand why the GTVA is big ships and big guns. Having fast, maneuverable corvettes and frigates and battlegroups whatnot are nothing to hitscanning, giant, evil pulsating red beams that always seems to have a tendency to hit Alpha 1 when shooting at a capital ship. And especially the...sheer numbers (read: SF Dragon) of the Shivans which can turn your surprise 'jump behind into the blindspot', useless. As with the Solaris, the UEF was built for a 'non-existent threat'. The GTVA, engineered for the Shivan threat. The GTVA Colossus. I'd like to see it in Blue Planet.

The threat that threatens to destroy all that they hold dear. Vasuda. Capella. Both...gone. If the GT of the GTVA takes that one more step, Earth will be theirs. Why don't they take that extra step, I do not know. Perhaps the GTD Aquitane's battlegroup, which could (help) win the war, could've been sent. But why not? There are threats looming. For every ship taken away from GTVA systems, the higher the chance that particular system could be lost to a sudden invasion by XXX. Heh, I'm not sure how this relates to ship size inflation, but it explains itself to me in a philosophical way. I do expect to hear someone saying biased, though. Just my two ¥.

Not trying to be overly dismissive here, but have you read the supplementary materials for Blue Planet? Techroom entries, and the fiction posted on our website? Because most of what you said there was adressed, in one form or another.

Also, you are contradicting yourself massively. The GTVA fleet in BP is in the process of converting to a model where you have fast and maneuverable Corvettes as the main source of firepower (See: Serkr Team. Those guys are built to take down Sathanases without having to commit multiple Destroyers in the process). Big dreadnoughts like the Colossus are, in the BP universe, a really bad idea, because they represent a single concentrated force, which can be outmaneuvered with ease (Yes, the Colossus is the ultimate blockade breaker. It would be utterly helpless in the Sol theater.). Also, never underestimate the firepower a UEF frigate squadron can put out. Or the firepower of fighters like the Durga, Izra'il or Vajradahara.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Pred the Penguin on March 21, 2011, 07:25:28 am
We haven't seen the full military might of the UEF yet. R2 is gonna be awesome! :D
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 09:02:22 am
The GTVA and the UEF philosophy and military doctrines...heh. The UEF's never seen how deep crap can get, like the GTVA have. I'd say this makes the UEF, inherently weak. The UEF never faced the Shivans. The GTA did. The UEF doesn't understand why the GTVA is big ships and big guns. Having fast, maneuverable corvettes and frigates and battlegroups whatnot are nothing to hitscanning, giant, evil pulsating red beams that always seems to have a tendency to hit Alpha 1 when shooting at a capital ship. And especially the...sheer numbers (read: SF Dragon) of the Shivans which can turn your surprise 'jump behind into the blindspot', useless. As with the Solaris, the UEF was built for a 'non-existent threat'. The GTVA, engineered for the Shivan threat. The GTVA Colossus. I'd like to see it in Blue Planet.

The threat that threatens to destroy all that they hold dear. Vasuda. Capella. Both...gone. If the GT of the GTVA takes that one more step, Earth will be theirs. Why don't they take that extra step, I do not know. Perhaps the GTD Aquitane's battlegroup, which could (help) win the war, could've been sent. But why not? There are threats looming. For every ship taken away from GTVA systems, the higher the chance that particular system could be lost to a sudden invasion by XXX. Heh, I'm not sure how this relates to ship size inflation, but it explains itself to me in a philosophical way. I do expect to hear someone saying biased, though. Just my two ¥.

Not trying to be overly dismissive here, but have you read the supplementary materials for Blue Planet? Techroom entries, and the fiction posted on our website? Because most of what you said there was adressed, in one form or another.

Also, you are contradicting yourself massively. The GTVA fleet in BP is in the process of converting to a model where you have fast and maneuverable Corvettes as the main source of firepower (See: Serkr Team. Those guys are built to take down Sathanases without having to commit multiple Destroyers in the process). Big dreadnoughts like the Colossus are, in the BP universe, a really bad idea, because they represent a single concentrated force, which can be outmaneuvered with ease (Yes, the Colossus is the ultimate blockade breaker. It would be utterly helpless in the Sol theater.). Also, never underestimate the firepower a UEF frigate squadron can put out. Or the firepower of fighters like the Durga, Izra'il or Vajradahara.
I know, I've been stalking lurking HLPBB for years on the end (remember AoA on it's first release with that Balor?). The Exigency, Meson fluctuations, SJ Dante, watching the Serkr team blow up that frigate and running from the three anti-ship wings, the Yangtze's destruction. But what's the use of the Serkr team in the face of this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BlCM-3Ivbo) (Naturally I can't imagine anything like that ever happening in any scenario, nor would it be sensible) As you've stated, not the entirety of the GTVA has converted to the 'wolfpack' combat doctrine. However I do truly believe that if the GTVA takes that one more step, Earth is theirs. I can kinda feel like...they're...holding...back. I've FREDed the Durga, that white fighter, the super-bomber, flew it myself. They can't make a difference, if that one step is taken. The GTVA is like a beehive or anthill or something. If they decide to toss a few more 'stuff' into Sol...actually:

If you leave the Atreus and Imperieuse to go whack other UEF stuff in Sol instead of joining the Colossus, the Colossus battlegroup (I daresay, Capella-era ships only, although it would be rather large and FPS eating) would still singlehandedly eliminate the Earth blockade (especially in the wake of the blitzkrieg by Balls of Steele) and end the war, even with all three Solarises gathered. Of course, I'm not trying to change anything or anyone's opinion, just how I feel about the ships (their sizes too, strangely) and how they're deployed. I may seem like downplaying the UEF and making the GTVA seem so powerful and in the end contradict myself, so forgive me on that even though I'm neutral. I am enjoying BP myself,on the contrary, blowing up GTVA fighters and the Cho with Gattlers, disarming Deimoses with Archers and all that. The story is deep and immersing and all that but...hey, this is 'warship inflation'. Haha.

(I enjoy a good debate and everyone stands to gain if we manage to get the team to flesh out more details, no?)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SD-Beast on March 21, 2011, 10:30:40 am
I'm not so sure the Colossus would be useless in the Sol Theater, it would simply fill the UEF public with terror and dread. Here they are struggling hard again Raynor's and Titan's, then suddenly this gigantic, gritty, ugly tev juggernaut appears through the node. Bristling with enough firepower to rival nearly half an entire UEF fleet all by itself? Terrifying to your average 'buntu. Granted, in direct combat a Colly would struggle with it's Capella-era green beams. But the psychological impact of the GTVA possessing such a vessel and using it would be very beneficial to undermining the UEF's will to fight.

Besides, I'm sure Steele could do very magical things to the UEF if he had command of a Colossus.  :P
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 21, 2011, 10:36:11 am
Well if, the GTVA had a Colossus, that would mean that all the resources spent to buy it wouldn't have been spent toward most other military stuff. That means nearly no SSM strikes, probably no Serkrs, maybe no Atlanta/Draco/Nyx, less AWACS, most likely a smaller overall fleet... You get my point. Those things are not cheap. There is a good reason the GTVA has "never considered building a fleet of Colossus", as the tech room says.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 10:38:23 am
Ahem.

There is no Colossus in the BP continuity. The Colossus project died when the Colossus got beamed to death. Now, you have observed that the GTVA is holding back. They aren't. They are sending every last ship they can spare to Sol, so that by the start of WiH, there are three Battlegroups operating in the system. They can't send more ships without weakening their standing defense commitments elsewhere, and given that the stated reason for going to war is rather thin at best, they cannot allow their populace to start doubting now. If they were to weaken other fleets, they would undermine their main argument for going to war in the first place.

Second, there is no blockade. At the beginning of WiH, the GTVA has firm control over the node and the outer system.

Third, the Solaris class is incredibly powerful. While they may take a while to whittle down the Collossus' HP until it asplodinates, the Colly will be disarmed and disabled long before then. Same goes for the Karunas and Narayanas, what they lack in terms of sheer DPS output, they make up in precision. The only reason why the UEF isn't steamrolling over the GTVA fleets is because of politics; up until the battle of Artemis station (AKA WiH's opening cinematic), only 2 of the three UEF fleets were actively conducting offensive combat operations.

As for Durgas and Vajradaharas not making a difference, you're pretty much very wrong there. A single wing of Vajras can utterly annihilate any but the biggest capital ships fielded by the GTVA.

I'm not so sure the Colossus would be useless in the Sol Theater, it would simply fill the UEF public with terror and dread. Here they are struggling hard again Raynor's and Titan's, then suddenly this gigantic, gritty, ugly tev juggernaut appears through the node. Bristling with enough firepower to rival nearly half an entire UEF fleet all by itself? Terrifying to your average 'buntu. Granted, in direct combat a Colly would struggle with it's Capella-era green beams. But the psychological impact of the GTVA possessing such a vessel and using it would be very beneficial to undermining the UEF's will to fight.

Besides, I'm sure Steele could do very magical things to the UEF if he had command of a Colossus.  :P

NGTM-1R is very right when he say the Colossus is a blockade breaker. It is neither made nor suitable for stand-up line combat, especially against a foe who is just as maneuverable, and has the ability to track the Colossus in real-time. "Feint, Parry, Riposte" only worked because Koth wasn't aware that the Colossus was operational and in his system. The UEF, on the other hand, is far better at gathering intelligence, and thus at evading the Colossus until it can be suckered into a trap. The name of the game is subspace chess, and one of its rules is that the most powerful piece is one that has not yet entered the field.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 21, 2011, 10:41:50 am
I'd have to say that Blue Planet continuity seems to indicate many other reasons why the UEF hasn't "steamrolled" the GTVA.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 21, 2011, 10:48:33 am
I doubt the GTVA has the resources or time to build another one of those monstrosities. It took twenty years to build the first and it got vaporised in seconds. The Colossus was designed to hunt Lucifer class ships. The closest the UEF has that matches the juggernaut's mission profile is the Solaris and there are only three. Even if somehow the Tevs got ahold of another Colossus and drived it through Sol what then? It has absolutely no use other than to hunt smaller ships, save for being an oversized carrier. Can you hunt Gef with a juggernaut?

For the cost of one Colossus the GTVA could probably build an entire battlegroup. Which would you want? A gas guzzling ubership or a more flexible, more powerful and more economic solution?

Ninja'ed. :(
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 21, 2011, 10:57:22 am
Colossus would actually be an usefull asset for the GTVA against the UEF, seeing as it can use long range beams and is invurnable to flanking, making attacking it really difficult.
Also, it's fighters would have been usefull in case of fighter attack. Speed and cost of operating are the downsides of Colossus, UEF would simply flee from it wherever it shows up, such ship can't be in multiple places at once.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Qent on March 21, 2011, 11:00:07 am
I think the GTVA made the right decision in tossing the Colossus idea, but "Helios" is still a pretty awesome "What If?" :P
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 11:02:54 am
Colossus would actually be an usefull asset for the GTVA against the UEF, seeing as it can use long range beams and is invurnable to flanking, making attacking it really difficult.
Also, it's fighters would have been usefull in case of fighter attack. Speed and cost of operating are the downsides of Colossus, UEF would simply flee from it wherever it shows up, such ship can't be in multiple places at once.

Range advantage is nullified by Narayanas and fighter strikes. Carrier capacity is better supplied via Hecate- or Titan-class ships. Ressources spent to build a massive juggernaught are better employed building strike corvettes and Raynors or Titans.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 21, 2011, 11:27:50 am
seeing as it can use long range beams and is invurnable to flanking,

The LRBGreens are actually shorter ranged than BBlues, meaning Raynor's actually have both of those areas covered.
Range advantage is nullified by Narayanas and fighter strikes.

Actually every bit of range helps, Karunas are significantly outranged by BBlues for example. Although artillery ships are powerful, the UEF fleet only has 11 of them (including known Fedayeen ships) at the beginning of WiH.

You in general seem to believe that the UEF have a huge tactical advantage over the Sol Expeditionary Force; does this reflect a general shift in the BP team? Originally they seemed pretty clearly envisioned as the underdog.

EDIT:

Tactical underdog, that is. I know politics was supposed to be a major factor from the start. It seemed to be implied that the UEF had certain important defensive advantages tactically, but lacked the offensive punch of the Tevs

Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 11:35:39 am
Nope, that's just my personal bias. I am firmly of the opinion that the UEF forces, if they had fought competently, could have secured Sol rather easily; Calder almost single-handedly holding back the GTVA invasion for over a year should be proof of that. As it is, infighting amongst the three fleets gave Steele and Severanti all the openings they needed to slowly chip away at the UEF naval force.

In terms of technological capabilities, the UEF is at least the GTVA's equal. However, because they didn't use the chances they had to establish a permanent blockade of the node, the GTVA can now exploit their much greater reserves.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 21, 2011, 11:53:16 am
Range advantage is nullified by Narayanas and fighter strikes. Carrier capacity is better supplied via Hecate- or Titan-class ships. Ressources spent to build a massive juggernaught are better employed building strike corvettes and Raynors or Titans.
Colossus has it's own fighters to defend itself and at the time of return to Sol, it would have most likely been upgraded with new beams. Though, as I said, costs of deploying and operating such a ship make it less effective compared to smaller, more versatile warships. The biggest adventage Colossus would have against UEF would be it's size, which makes a great psychological weapon. I doubt UEF would dare to fight a ship of such size (and so though it would appear invincible, even when technically not being so), it could also serve as a morale booster for GTVA. If they did dare to fight it, however, it would soon turn out to be less usefull than regular carriers and destroyers, being a single ship (thus unable to defend two locations at once) and being rather slow.

I am firmly of the opinion that the UEF forces, if they had fought competently, could have secured Sol rather easily;
Also, if 1st fleet wasn't mostly standing near Earth and guarding their secret project (though they do it for a good reason, which will be revealed when the time comes), they could shift the balance in favor of UEF. If all three fleets answered to a single commander, and if that commander was a good tactican, then UEF could be doing much better.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Qent on March 21, 2011, 12:00:18 pm
If it gets destroyed however, the same phenomenon would work against the GTVA, trashing morale more than they would have had the GTVA never invested in a second Colossus.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 21, 2011, 12:02:54 pm
In terms of technological capabilities, the UEF is at least the GTVA's equal. However, because they didn't use the chances they had to establish a permanent blockade of the node, the GTVA can now exploit their much greater reserves.

But thats the hell of it. Even if the UEF military did begin a unified effort to push the GTVA  out of Sol, it would be too little, too late. They've nullified the "home field advantage" by giving the GTVA the outer systems, allowing them to service damaged vessels in-theater and therefore get them into the fight quicker. Technologically even grounds is nothing in  the face of the greater numbers and, more importantly, experience, the GTVA has. And while UEF ships may be better at this kind of war then their Tev counterparts, the Tev captains have already demonstrated the tactical competence to retain the advantage.

tl;dr, at this point, the UEF is hosed barring the Deus ex Machina FS narrative so loves. Which is a shame, as I really like the UEF.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 12:16:12 pm
There is no deus ex machina at the end of BP. Everything that will happen has been foreshadowed.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 21, 2011, 12:28:00 pm
I wasn't trying to imply that the BP team was restricted to using said Deus, just stating that I dont see a way for the UEF to win if the war remains conventional. Either way, I look forward to seeing this ending come about.

Also, the Colossus was a terrible idea and thank god the Tevs smartened up.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Luis Dias on March 21, 2011, 12:32:44 pm
yep, UEF is doomed. Time for shivans to come and mess up the fight again, just like in FS1 and FS2.

And in the middle of the mess, an UEF pilot will save the galaxy. His name won't be Sheppard.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: crizza on March 21, 2011, 12:36:56 pm
Range advantage is nullified by Narayanas and fighter strikes. Carrier capacity is better supplied via Hecate- or Titan-class ships. Ressources spent to build a massive juggernaught are better employed building strike corvettes and Raynors or Titans.
Colossus has it's own fighters to defend itself and at the time of return to Sol, it would have most likely been upgraded with new beams. Though, as I said, costs of deploying and operating such a ship make it less effective compared to smaller, more versatile warships. The biggest adventage Colossus would have against UEF would be it's size, which makes a great psychological weapon. I doubt UEF would dare to fight a ship of such size (and so though it would appear invincible, even when technically not being so), it could also serve as a morale booster for GTVA. If they did dare to fight it, however, it would soon turn out to be less usefull than regular carriers and destroyers, being a single ship (thus unable to defend two locations at once) and being rather slow.

I am firmly of the opinion that the UEF forces, if they had fought competently, could have secured Sol rather easily;
Also, if 1st fleet wasn't mostly standing near Earth and guarding their secret project (though they do it for a good reason, which will be revealed when the time comes), they could shift the balance in favor of UEF. If all three fleets answered to a single commander, and if that commander was a good tactican, then UEF could be doing much better.

Well, a Colossus in Sol would most certainly lure UEF ships out...so it would be a perfect bait to crush any attempts to destroy it.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 21, 2011, 12:38:11 pm
And what would you destroy the UEF forces with, if all your budget went in the Colly itself ?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 12:42:43 pm
Darn it, too slow to post and new replies. Actually Dragon, you do not need to defend anything with the post-Capella Colossus. Drag the Imper-something and Steele's flagships along with their battlegroups, to the Colossus for more psychological impact, and jump into Earth orbit together, to sign a peace treaty with beams.

Quote
And what would you destroy the UEF forces with, if all your budget went in the Colly itself ?
You already have ships built, like that annoying GTD Raynor Steele captains and the GTD Imper-something, and their battlegroups. Just put them on node guard for...ten or twenty years.

-------------

[TheColossusTheory]Oh and just for a note on my point: It's pitting the UEF against a Colossus and it's battlegroup. Not alone~

Considering the GTVA can swarm the skies (space) with more fighters than the UEF can output, I doubt the Durgas and Vajras, will ever get to reach a Colossus battlegroup enough to do anything. You can shoot down bombs anyway. Of course, there is no Colossus, I'm just stating a 'what if'. Sixty fighter wings from the Colossus itself, and the XXX fighter wings Orions/Hecates around it. If you want, maybe the GTD Titans and Raynors, or other carrying shippy. Oh and, don't forget...the popup Trebuchet strike~ The UEF may be good at gathering intel, but that doesn't mean the GTVI is drinking tea and eating crumpets. (Wonder if I got that British phrase right...?)

The blockade I mention, actually is a misnomer; actually should be the 'orbital defense of Earth'. My bad on that one, sorry. But yeah, having the Colossus battlegroup even appearing in Sol would fill the people with what SD-Beast said. Public morale, pilot morale, squad morale, ship morale, fleet morale...if that pilot (Noemi?) was scared or something that the GTVA had two dozen Hecates, wouldn't a single Colossus be a super-nightmare? Psychological warfare is quite effective for one, look at Steele and the Vasudans.

Remember, this is a 'what if'. All theoretical, nonsense and rubbish stuff. Yes, the resources used to build a Colossus can be used for many other ships. I could build a buncha Raynors and steamroll the orbital defense network of Earth. But is there any ship that has the hull strength, firepower, sheer amount of turrets all over the place uselessly and especially, the psychological impact of the GTVA Meatshield in the Galactic Terran-Vasudan Alliance? No. Since it's stated that the GTVA has firm control of the node itself, the Colossus battlegroup jumping into Earth orbit will be capable of making anyone crap in their flightsuits and sue for peace immediately. After building the Colossus, anyway...[/TheColossusTheory]

Although I do agree with you on several points, The E. If only Byrne had the balls. The whole thing of the Elders and First Fleet's doctrine is hopelessly flawed. How can they ever dream of trying to attrition against a faction that controls many, many many systems, capable of pumping out warships like...well...<insert word here>? I'm starting to think that Byrne and the Elders are mental somewhat.

And if the GTVA put the Colossus in Sol...yeah, I think the UEF might wanna...not suffer that tragedy at Saturn with the Carthage.

On the case of technological level, I'd say the UEF is much, much more primitive. What do the UEF have in comparison to an antimatter torpedo? (GTVA has many suns, the Antimatter complex at Mercury could be blown up and...poof.) They don't even possess basic (AAA) beams, even. If the blob turrets had better AI instead of Captain and quit shooting at fighters when there are bombs/anti-ship missiles around...and from what I see, the UEF as of R1, has no sentry guns (Hey, they're not useless!) at all for some odd reason. The GTVA (well...the NTF I guess) had asteroids which could shoot and transform into a destroyer-armed frigate! Oh and, don't you love firing TAG-Cs at UEF bombers?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Luis Dias on March 21, 2011, 12:44:31 pm
Well, a Colossus in Sol would most certainly lure UEF ships out...so it would be a perfect bait to crush any attempts to destroy it.

Perhaps the UEF fleet would just avoid it at all costs... In this sense, the Colly would be the ultimate defender of any given position the tevs would like to preserve in the middle of the war. It could also serve as a counter-bait. You move the colly, everyone there flees and then you attack the UEF fleet to wherever they went.

There's another problem with the Collossus. That ship was built by both humans and vasudans. It was voiced by humans, but it was a joint endeavour. I seriously doubt that the Vasudans would okay the release of such a ship for the civil war of humans... at least there would be created a huge point of tension.

And of course, it's incredibly bad economics.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 21, 2011, 01:05:49 pm
Calder almost single-handedly holding back the GTVA invasion for over a year should be proof of that.

I think that Severanti's general attitude of moderate-intensity war of attrition is a primary contributing factor to the longevity of the war.  Granted, Steele wouldn't have had an excellent staging situation for his blitzkrieg if it hadn't happened, I'm almost entirely sure that the war would have only lasted between six and eight months if a more aggressive admiral had been present and in command for the whole war.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: crizza on March 21, 2011, 01:08:48 pm
We need -Sara- to finish her Helios mission:)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 01:10:56 pm
Destiny, please, please remember what was being said before. In BP, the Colossus is dead, and will never be rebuilt, because it just isn't a practical ship.

And you are consistently overestimating the psychological effect that that overgrown watergun has. Your "What If" scenario is very, very flawed because it discounts the realities of combat and warfare in BP. Let me repeat: The Colossus is only scary in two situations. The first being its role as a node blockade breaker. In that role, it is excellent, as it has the all-around firepower and durability to jump into a contested system, take whatever the defenders can dish out in a node blockade, and smash said blockade to pieces.
The second is its role as a surprise attacker, as the ultimate trump card in a subspace speed chess match (See: "Feint, Parry, Riposte").

However, during line combat, its role is largely relegated to that of overly big fighter base, as a force like the UEF (or the Shivans, for that matter) can track it, and thus avoid it with ease.

Quote
On the case of technological level, I'd say the UEF is much, much more primitive. What do the UEF have in comparison to an antimatter torpedo?

The Apocalypse torpedo, Warhammer, Jackhammer and Sledgehammer missiles all carry antimatter warheads. If there is one resource the UEF has ample supply of, it's antimatter.

Quote
(GTVA has many suns, the Antimatter complex at Mercury could be blown up and...poof.) They don't even possess basic (AAA) beams, even.

Umm.

Have you actually played War in Heaven? The Burst Flak/PD Gun one-two punch is arguably more effective than any AAA beam short of the Ultra.

Also, the Mercury facilities are the one installation in Sol space the GTVA can never assault and take over successfully, due to environmental factors. Any ship sent there will be shot down in a matter of seconds.

Quote
If the blob turrets had better AI instead of Captain and quit shooting at fighters when there are bombs/anti-ship missiles around...and from what I see, the UEF as of R1, has no sentry guns (Hey, they're not useless!) at all for some odd reason. The GTVA (well...the NTF I guess) had asteroids which could shoot and transform into a destroyer-armed frigate! Oh and, don't you love firing TAG-Cs at UEF bombers?

Sentry guns, in general, are only good to annoy fighters or supplement your point defence. Given that the GTVA relies on beams, having something that is stationary to bolster your missile defense makes no sense for a force like the UEF, which is built on mobility and having tons of flak guns on their ships.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 21, 2011, 01:17:35 pm
The Apocalypse torpedo, Warhammer, Jackhammer and Sledgehammer missiles all carry antimatter warheads. If there is one resource the UEF has ample supply of, it's antimatter.
Haven't played WiH for a while, doesn't the Redeemer fire antimatter-tipped shells also?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 01:22:33 pm
Yes, it does.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 01:25:28 pm
I do know the Colossus is dead and won't ever appear in BP, The E. That's why I've said 'Remember, this is a 'what if'. All theoretical, nonsense and rubbish stuff.' I'm accounting for the Superbat being the endgame because there is something huge in path that they (UEF) can't blow up. And because the UEF has to avoid the Colossus, wherever the Colossus goes = Area denial. Go to Luna...there. Earth, endgame. The other's comments do matter as well. Whatever, past the Colossus finally:


Technology level, not the weapon effectiveness. That's the key point. I'm leaning towards that the UEF is technologically inferior. Your 'never' in the Mercury topic is quite unstable. I'm sure the environmental factors are nothing if they drag a AWACS or two over. If the Indus didn't already melt badly being that close to the sun, yet only taking structural damage and rad poisoning, somewhere as 'far' away as Mercury wouldn't be that bad at all.

Well, a Colossus in Sol would most certainly lure UEF ships out...so it would be a perfect bait to crush any attempts to destroy it.

Perhaps the UEF fleet would just avoid it at all costs... In this sense, the Colly would be the ultimate defender of any given position the tevs would like to preserve in the middle of the war. It could also serve as a counter-bait. You move the colly, everyone there flees and then you attack the UEF fleet to wherever they went.

There's another problem with the Collossus. That ship was built by both humans and vasudans. It was voiced by humans, but it was a joint endeavour. I seriously doubt that the Vasudans would okay the release of such a ship for the civil war of humans... at least there would be created a huge point of tension.

And of course, it's incredibly bad economics.
I'm not sure where would the GTVA have the Colossus defend actually. Do they actually have anything to defend in Sol? I didn't know they had any. But it's best position would be scaring people for defense (dress up as the Colossus on Halloween), and counter-bait, yeah. Like Saturn.

A joint project and the Vasudans agreeing wouldn't be a problem, Steele did a number to the Ubuntu-Vasudan relationship by smashing that shuttle with the Pegasus fighters and the Vasudan admiral arrived in the Hatshepsut.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 01:38:35 pm
Let me explain why the antimatter farms will never, and never can be assaulted.
One, getting them intact is one of the main objectives of the GTVA.
Two, getting to them involves figuring out its orbital elements with a very high degree of precision. Despite their name, they are nowhere near Mercury at any given time, they are, in fact, quite a bit closer to the Sun. If you do not know exactly where they are, or your jump is even slightly imprecise, you end up in full view of the Sun, which means that you'll burn to a crisp rather quickly. And even if you do get all of that together, you end up staring down the business end of literally thousands of Apocalypse missiles, not to mention the defenders stationed there (Hint: Where do you think the Masyaf was before coming to the Indus' rescue?).

Now, as you are aware, the Indus had quite a few problems near the end. That's because she isn't built to handle that environment; the antimatter farms on the other hand are there not only for protection (of the rest of the solar system as much as anything else), but also because that's where they get their energy from. They are engineered to withstand the thermal pressure there, and they can use the energy available in quite a number of incredibly destructive ways.

If you have ever seen the film "Sunshine", the AM farms basically look like the Icarus.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Rodo on March 21, 2011, 01:42:22 pm
The UEF, on the other hand, is far better at gathering intelligence

Really?, yet they fell completely on that last plan to destroy the Wargods.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 01:43:41 pm
They are better than Koth and the entire NTF, who seem to have had a giant, Colossus-shaped hole in their intel.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 01:44:53 pm
Hmm, never knew the GTVA wanted them intact. What purpose would they actually serve? They already have so many suns. A Pegasus or two SOC people could do something, but otherwise I thought that Fedayeen was from Venus since it has never been mentioned and Venus seems like a pretty mysterious place to me...I'm getting the feeling we're going a bit off-topic here, so...ha. End of story.

I like that Colossus joke, but I was surprised they managed to find out the discrepancies of our dossiers when we infiltrated the NTF.

Quote
Really?, yet they fell completely on that last plan to destroy the Wargods.
Actually I don't think UEF intelligence banked on him being a double agent. It kinda sucks, since there's no double-cross or something spy system Britain used in WWII, here.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Qent on March 21, 2011, 01:49:00 pm
I do know the Colossus is dead and won't ever appear in BP, The E. That's why I've said 'Remember, this is a 'what if'. All theoretical, nonsense and rubbish stuff.' I'm accounting for the Superbat being the endgame because there is something huge in path that they (UEF) can't blow up. And because the UEF has to avoid the Colossus, wherever the Colossus goes = Area denial. Go to Luna...there. Earth, endgame. The other's comments do matter as well. Whatever, past the Colossus finally:
Is your "What If?" a free Colossus for the GTVA? Because if they had built another Colossus (and not gotten a free one from God) then they would not have had all those other ships.

Also I wouldn't like having to supply that thing through the node.

Technology level, not the weapon effectiveness. That's the key point. I'm leaning towards that the UEF is technologically inferior.
How so? Most of the R&D got stuck on the Sol side. They developed jump gates by themselves. They developed fighter primaries outclassing the Kayser without the benefit of studying Shivans from the Second Incursion.

Your 'never' in the Mercury topic is quite unstable. I'm sure the environmental factors are nothing if they drag a AWACS or two over. If the Indus didn't already melt badly being that close to the sun, yet only taking structural damage and rad poisoning, somewhere as 'far' away as Mercury wouldn't be that bad at all.
I'm pretty sure if The E say it's true then it's true. :nervous:

A joint project and the Vasudans agreeing wouldn't be a problem, Steele did a number to the Ubuntu-Vasudan relationship by smashing that shuttle with the Pegasus fighters and the Vasudan admiral arrived in the Hatshepsut.
He would have to convince the Vasudans not only that they should support the Terrans in the war against Sol, but also that the Colossus is an effective ship. And I doubt Steele would even want to.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 01:51:55 pm
Umm. Here are the facts. While the GTVA (terran half) has over a dozen systems, their population is only about equal to that of Sol. Every single world currently colonized is still in one or another stage of terraforming. As a result, they simply do not have the resources to build up the kind of infrastructure the UEF has. Taking an installation like the AM farms intact is a very big concern for the GTVA, as having it would increase the supply of AM significantly.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 02:01:52 pm
Wow, I'm surprised humans reproduce so slowly, many years after Capella blew up? Considering they've already got that accelerator at Antares, I doubt harvesting antimatter from many suns would have to take extremely hard to do with all they've gone through with both Shivan Incursions, making so many breakthroughs. I guess they're taking it easy?


Oh and Qent:
Well in the previous page I had stated "after building the Colossus anyway..." multiple times, actually. But yeah, looks like the Colossus is quite sensitive topic. If the Colossus dragged a Anemoi or two along, it should be okay, I'd like to get over the Colossus already. Well, most of the Great War R&D got stuck in Sol. No Meson bombs capable of blowing up an entire jump node, nor guns capable of discharging zero-point energy microbursts upon impact (Rapier's energy projectile isn't specified, but being a descendant of the Prometheus, perhaps plasma?). I believe the UEF lacks any EMP weaponry of sorts either...at least they've got a Akheton SDG and Lamprey counterpart. I've no idea what the Cyclops is armed with, but the GTVA has a bunch of exotic weapon/technologies. But I agree, don't think Steele is a man of words.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 21, 2011, 02:07:40 pm
Oh and just for a note on my point: It's pitting the UEF against a Colossus and it's battlegroup. Not alone~
And where do you take this battlegroup from, since you already sent all your money into the Colossus ?

Remember that the Tevs are on the verge of economic collapse. One of their main drive to wage war in Sol is to get hold of their economical and industrial power. They already have sent most their resources to build the Sol Portal. More than half their fleet is still comprised of Capella-era ships or older. If they had tried to build a Colossus, especially in parallel of such a project as the Sol portal, none of the newest Terran tech would probably even happen. No blue beams, no Balors, no SSMs. And the UEF warships are more than a match to Capella-era stuff.

The GTVA would basically have been toast. They would never have the firepower to defend such a big and slow target as the Collossus if it was deployed in the Sol theater. A couple of Narayana or a few wings of Varjas and you can say bye to the Collie, not to mention a wing of Karunas with AWACS support. Which means that the GTVA would never risk to send the Colly in Sol. Which means that they'll have to fight a war in the Sol system with assets even inferior to what they have in WiH. Since they didn't manage to gain any sizeable foot on Sol during 18 months even with the new tech, they would probably have been fought back in a few months without it.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 02:10:38 pm
Oh and just for a note on my point: It's pitting the UEF against a Colossus and it's battlegroup. Not alone~
And where do you take this battlegroup from, since you already sent all your money into the Colossus ?

Remember that the Tevs are on the verge of economic collapse. One of their main drive to wage war in Sol is to get hold of their economical and industrial power. They already have sent most their resources to build the Sol Portal. More than half their fleet is still comprised of Capella-era ships or older. If they had tried to build a Colossus, especially in parallel of such a project as the Sol portal, none of the newest Terran tech would probably even happen. No blue beams, no Balors, no SSMs. And the UEF warships are more than a match to Capella-era stuff.

The GTVA would basically have been toast. They would never have the firepower to defend such a big and slow target as the Collossus if it was deployed in the Sol theater. A couple of Narayana or a few wings of Varjas and you can say bye to the Collie, not to mention a wing of Karunas with AWACS support. Which means that the GTVA would never risk to send the Colly in Sol. Which means that they'll have to fight a war in the Sol system with assets even inferior to what they have in WiH. Since they didn't manage to gain any sizeable foot on Sol during 18 months even with the new tech, they would probably have been fought back in a few months without it.
I feel like all the points the others and I made in favor of the Colossus (and why it would suck anyway) was overlooked for some reason, heheh.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 02:12:43 pm
Slowly? You are talking about a total population for the GTVA alone that is somewhere over 9 billion. Also, antimatter isn't harvested. It's manufactured using rather large particle accelerators. Which take a lot of supplemental infrastructure to build and operate. Which the GTVA does not have to the same extent as the UEF, due to being scattered across a dozen, not completely terraformed systems.

As for UEF weaponry, well.... You are calling a fleet that has bombers that carry guns that shoot friggin Antimatter projectiles less advanced? Also, you are forgetting the Shrike missile, which is an EMP warhead. So yeah. Take a look at weapons like the Apocalypse, Hydra, Slammer, Redeemer, Vajra, UX Accelerator and Shidhe and tell us again how inferior UEF weaponry is.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Liberator on March 21, 2011, 02:39:45 pm
So what you aren't saying is that the Beis and what's left of the Wargods either will or will not have or not have an impact or no impact at all. :banghead: :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 21, 2011, 02:46:49 pm
the Wargods either will or will not have or not have an impact or no impact at all. :banghead: :rolleyes:
Wait...what?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 02:51:57 pm
Well Noemi is getting transferred to the Eris...

Anyways:

The Apocalypse, Redeemer, those Sledgehammer and Jackhammer bombs and all that are all antimatter. The GTVA also uses antimatter. The Warhammer is just a bomb version of the Hornet, used in the Great War. Old stuff. GTVA also uses swarm weaponry. The Slammer is just a different version of the Infyrno that so happens to explode in one direction and has aspect lock, GTVA also fields this kind of weapon except it explodes differently and is dumbfire, and they also have one that launches missiles. Mass drivers, railguns, gauss cannons, EMP missiles, energy vampires, shieldbreakers are all under electromagnetic weaponry, which the GTVA has as well. Hell, they've even got a rapid firing mass driver on multiple gunbanks even. Flak weaponry, the GTVA also employs this. The GTVA uses plasma weaponry as well.

You don't see the UEF utilizing Meson weaponry. Xaser weaponry. Subatomic weaponry w/ zero-point energy. That annoying Morning Star. The UEF lacks even target acquisition beacons, the TAGs. Even without the TAGs, the Charybdis can do ECCM against an Ocular.

Oh and: Beams
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 21, 2011, 02:58:18 pm
Okay, I give up. Continue believing wrong things.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 03:02:35 pm
Each to his own opinion, I'm satisfied with that outcome actually so...end of story.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 21, 2011, 03:04:52 pm
Except the Hornet isn't used to overwhelm point defense to ensure that ship hull is impacted even to a degree.
The Slammer and Infyrno have to be used differently in order to work to their perscribed function. Also the Piranha isn't really all that effective.
You're confusing EM when you throw EMP into the list, those mass drivers, railguns, gauss cannons, Lampreys, Circes aren't causing the EMP effects that the Shrike and EMP Adv. use.

Sans the fact that they have antimatter projectiles, the UEF has a weapon that is even better than the Prometheus (which was extremely advanced based on the Tech Lab description), the Rapier.
The GTVA has the Maxim, being a devastating hull-breaker to ships all the way up to Cruisers like the Fenris, Aten, and Cain. But the UEF has similar weapons that break the hulls of Corvettes. On Bombers.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 21, 2011, 03:16:55 pm
Look how far we got from topic...
Anyway, UEF does have their own version of Maxim, the Gattler.
It uses ammo, but is quite effective (I'm too lazy to check the table to compare them now though).
It has an equivalent of every fighter weapon GTVA has, and more.
They are on the same tech level as GTVA, just developed in a different direction.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Qent on March 21, 2011, 03:21:12 pm
The Apocalypse, Redeemer, those Sledgehammer and Jackhammer bombs and all that are all antimatter. The GTVA also uses antimatter.
Antimatter has been used as a weapon since the Great War. Nothing new here except that the UEF has more. And it's improved since.

The Warhammer is just a bomb version of the Hornet, used in the Great War. Old stuff. GTVA also uses swarm weaponry.
I don't know why you think that "swarm" counts as technology, but the ability to put swarm torpedoes on bombers is new.

The Slammer is just a different version of the Infyrno that so happens to explode in one direction and has aspect lock, GTVA also fields this kind of weapon except it explodes differently and is dumbfire, and they also have one that launches missiles.
True that aspect lock and cluster missiles are not new, but one has to wonder how the UEF made something so vastly more powerful than Piranhas or Infyrnos with medium-long range to boot.

Mass drivers, railguns, gauss cannons, EMP missiles, energy vampires, shieldbreakers are all under electromagnetic weaponry, which the GTVA has as well.
Lamprey and Circe are kinda terrible.

Hell, they've even got a rapid firing mass driver on multiple gunbanks even.
Maxim techroom entry indicates that it is at least partially a firearm.

Flak weaponry, the GTVA also employs this. The GTVA uses plasma weaponry as well.
I don't know why you're using this as an example, since again this plasma has been around since the Great War, just that the UEF's is better.

You don't see the UEF utilizing Meson weaponry.
We don't know how meson bombs work, but there was speculation a while back that it's just a cool name for a big matter-antimatter bomb.

Xaser weaponry.
"Xaser" in BP is just a specific kind of plasma weapon.

Subatomic weaponry w/ zero-point energy.
I guess you got me there. The UEF has nothing approaching that level of technobabble. Then again, since it is technobabble, I have no idea how advanced it really is.

That annoying Morning Star.
The Flail is ooold, works on the same principles, and is arguably better.

The UEF lacks even target acquisition beacons, the TAGs. Even without the TAGs, the Charybdis can do ECCM against an Ocular.
Yeah. I wouldn't cite this as an example of "technology," however.

Oh and: Beams
The UEF does have beam technology from the defectors if nothing else. They do not have the means to mass-produce it.

Most of these things amount to tactical doctrine more than technology.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 03:26:53 pm
Oh, Xaser weapons are considered as plasma in BP? That's interesting. I don't think I can look at the Subach the same now...for the Slammer, I guess they just...well, tossed more explosives or something into it. For me, I think swarm as a technology is plausible, you'd have to do a lot of research on it, so the warheads don't hit each other or something and require intense synchronization, something that should be out of the norms for any 'normal' missile/bomb technology. I personally don't use the Circe and Lampreys myself unless I'm bored or have three banks. Limited utility, but I believe it's playstyle. Although I admit, classifying the Maxim as a firearm is...hilarious. I guess tactical doctrine is a better word than classifying it as a class of technology, yeah.

--------------
Dragon:
Well...I'm not referring to the effects of the technlogy, just what they're classified under. Hornets, Tornadoes, that swarm bomb, they're all swarm weaponry. Slammers and Infyrnos are high explosive, anti-fighter/bomber screen weapons or something like that...I'd forget about the Piranha anyway. Under electromagnetic weapons, electromagnetism used to propel things, and electromagnetic pulses to mess with people's cockpits, are still electromagnetic. It's simple classification, like bullets are bullets, bombs are bombs, rockets are rockets and missiles are missiles (be it nuclear missiles, anti-tank guided missiles, air-to-ground missiles, etc.). Going into subclasses of weaponry is an entirely different matter, like EMP missiles to railguns and stuff.

Although I still don't know what the Rapier is classified as besides as an energy weapon, actually. The Gattler does have more ROF and damage IIRC, but being ammo-bound is kinda sucky...especially when we're Morning Staring the topic.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 21, 2011, 03:27:11 pm
Most of these things amount to tactical doctrine more than technology.

This. You're confusing "technologically inferior" with "practical", Destiny.  The UEF is not behind in the slightest. In fact, in many ways, they're ahead, especially on the weapon miniaturization front.

If anything, the technological achievements of the UEF are more impressive, simply because they didn't have a metric asston of fresh Shivan wreckage to root through and reverse engineer, save for the few parts of the Lucifer that made it through.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 03:34:03 pm
I think you're right with that confusion actually, or something like that. A bit stubborn, I am. Although I thought the Lucifer ejected some fighters or something on the first time I watched the endgame cutscene, replaying it showed that it was flares and stuff. Watching it on Youtube again shows that one (the other one exploded I think) of the Shivan Super Laser prongs survived.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 21, 2011, 03:46:01 pm
Yeah, one prong made it, but I highly doubt that one prong had it's internals anywhere near intact enough to base any real Beam research on, and unless I'm horrifically mistaken, aside from the Prometheus, most GTA weapons research during the great war was done outside Sol. Unfortunately, I cant remember where in FS I read that, so if I'm wrong, someone please point it out.

In any case, lacking the tech necessary to produce beam weaponry, and with Blob turrets obviously not being up to snuff, it was more Practical for the UEF to pursue a different Anti-Capital heavy weapon, in this case High Energy Kinetics, which, while less fanciful than other FS weapons, are easily the equal of many of the older GTVA beams when used correctly, as shown many times in WIH.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 21, 2011, 03:53:00 pm
Pretty sure most were done outside Sol, like in the Laramis and that Luyten<numbers here system>. I believe having to go back to use kinetic weaponry led to the UEF ships being...well, long and sleek like that. Although they do seem kinda empty with holes/gaps, haha. It would be kinda dangerous to fly out while the cannons were firing too.

Wiki says a bit.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 21, 2011, 04:10:43 pm
I would say the GTVA demonstrates a higher level of technology, but not necessarily effectiveness.

The Rapier is just a higher quality Prometheus,

Beam cannons were not developed in Sol,

the intrasystem gate system is not mentioned as new technology, it's likely it would just be impractical to the GTVA. I doubt very highly it required the same level of technology as the Sol gate.

The GTVA is continuously shown with better subspace drives on vessels of comparable size. They're also referred to as much more efficient in general.

While the Balor isn't better than the Rapier, a particle gun mass produced on such a wide level seems much more advanced. It's akin to a weaponized laser that isn't necessarily any better than an assault rifle - it still displays a lot of technological ability.



Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 21, 2011, 04:17:20 pm
The Balor is still crazy deadly nonetheless.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 21, 2011, 04:28:46 pm
The Balor is still crazy deadly nonetheless.

I find the Kayser (and to a certain extent the Prometheus S) more deadly to small, maneuverable fighters. The Balor is incapable of landing volley shots, which makes it less effective when you're dealing with something hard to hit. The new ships like the Atalanta and Nyx can handle Kaysers on Insane pretty easily.

Balor is freakin excellent against Shivan bombers however, Forced Entry is almost easy with a quad bank of Balors in an Aurora.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 21, 2011, 06:33:52 pm
Is your "What If?" a free Colossus for the GTVA? Because if they had built another Colossus (and not gotten a free one from God) then they would not have had all those other ships.

Was gonna make this point myself. If you're gonna gift the GTVA a whole Colossus you might as well gift the UEF another three Solaris', then we'll see how well the Tevs fair.

On the subject of GTVA's supposed tech superiority: don't forget that they got left with the R&D branch of the GTI after Sol was closed off, even if they did rebel. :P Plus the Tev's technological inovations are due in large part to Vasudan contributions as well. IIRC it's mentioned somewhere in BP fluff that the current line of Terran ships have Vasudan designed reactors. Sort of implies that the BBlue et al. wouldn't be possible without the Vasudans. Heck beam weapons in any form might not have been possible if it wasn't for the T-V alliance.

In other words the UEF, in a single star system, has managed to equal if not best the technological advancements of two species! Course saying all this we have yet to see the Zods' new ships in action, I really hope R2 is friendly to the poor old Buntu.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dragon on March 21, 2011, 06:46:32 pm
Once you see the new Vasudan ships in action, you cetrainly won't be disappointed.
I don't know when they'll come in (it's possible that they won't be in R2 at all), but when they will, it will be awesome.  :)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 21, 2011, 06:55:48 pm
Is your "What If?" a free Colossus for the GTVA? Because if they had built another Colossus (and not gotten a free one from God) then they would not have had all those other ships.

Was gonna make this point myself. If you're gonna gift the GTVA a whole Colossus you might as well gift the UEF another three Solaris', then we'll see how well the Tevs fair.

On the subject of GTVA's supposed tech superiority: don't forget that they got left with the R&D branch of the GTI after Sol was closed off, even if they did rebel. :P Plus the Tev's technological inovations are due in large part to Vasudan contributions as well. IIRC it's mentioned somewhere in BP fluff that the current line of Terran ships have Vasudan designed reactors. Sort of implies that the BBlue et al. wouldn't be possible without the Vasudans. Heck beam weapons in any form might not have been possible if it wasn't for the T-V alliance.

In other words the UEF, in a single star system, has managed to equal if not best the technological advancements of two species! Course saying all this we have yet to see the Zods' new ships in action, I really hope R2 is friendly to the poor old Buntu.

That's not really an accomplishment. The Sol system has roughly the same population and a better infrastructure as the Terran half of the GTVA, and they haven't faced gigantic Shivan attacks wiping out whole sections of their economy. Yes the Tevs have had help from the Vasudans, and yes they had the GTI, but it makes little difference how they have the technology, the fact is, they have it.

I think it's fair to say that the UEF has done fairly well for itself technologically and tactically, I'm not disputing that. What I do dispute is that the Feds are technologically even with the GTVA.
Once you see the new Vasudan ships in action, you cetrainly won't be disappointed.
I don't know when they'll come in (it's possible that they won't be in R2 at all), but when they will, it will be awesome.  :)

I worry that the Vasudans will be brought in as stupidly powerful, flawless creatures. I have faith in the writers, don't get me wrong, it just seems like that's what would happen in the "average" universe (which BP is not)

Battuta's analysis of his (and the rest of the teams?) plans for the Vasudan's rather medieval "byzantine" politics gives me hope, however.

EDIT:

It's not that I fear the story will be bad, I'm just so entirely engrossed in it so far I fear the day when I'm not XD
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 21, 2011, 09:58:10 pm
(http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4306/updatedz.png)

So I updated my collection with all of the misc. TEV ships in Massive Battle. The ranks look a bit more even I think.  (They're clearly still UEF heavy)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Liberator on March 22, 2011, 03:25:11 am
It would be a close battle, but the GTVA would still win.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: headdie on March 22, 2011, 03:35:40 am
i dont know, the GTVA might have 2 more destroyers but the UEF has a ton more smaller ships, ok some of those would have to be committed to patrol/escort/other non directly fighting the GTVA duties but the UEF still has enough ships to make a good scrap of it
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 22, 2011, 03:52:37 am
There wouldn't be a single GTVA fighter left with that number of Frigates. :P
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 22, 2011, 04:04:59 am
I think it's fair to say that the UEF has done fairly well for itself technologically and tactically, I'm not disputing that. What I do dispute is that the Feds are technologically even with the GTVA.
As far as military technology goes you might be right, but we have little idea about other sectors. I wouldn't be surprised if the UEF was far ahead in civilian technologies, since they didn't put much money into their military, while the GTVA seems to live and breathe for their military (small wonder with the looming threat of the Shivans being ever present).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 22, 2011, 04:18:31 am
Fleet formation is important too, right now as it stands the both fleets have horrible formations.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 22, 2011, 04:29:21 am
Fleet formation is important too, right now as it stands the both fleets have horrible formations.
You try spending only five minutes putting down every ship from a list  and putting them in perfect formations and fitting all of them in a screenshot that gives good estimations of numbers. The UEF simply has too many cruisers to easily display. I like stacked (vertical) formations, but then you couldn't see the ships clearly.
EDIT:

I mostly didn't put them in tactical formations at all. Especially the UEF side, which is so crowded with cruisers it's damn near impossible.
There wouldn't be a single GTVA fighter left with that number of Frigates. :P
Assuming 12 fighters for Karunas, [fudged]12 fighters for Narayanas[/fudged], and 192 fighters for Solaris destroyers:
12(21) + 12(14) + 192(3) =  996 fighters in the UEF fleet (around 83 squadrons) (not stationed on an installation)

Assuming 96 fighters on an Orion, 150 for a Hecate, [megafudged] 200 for a Titan, 96 for a Raynor, and 12 for a Diomedes: [/megafudged]
96(1)+150(2)+200(1)+96(1)+12(9)= 800 fighters in the Sol Expeditionary Force arsenal (around 66 squadrons)

I get the impression that GTVA fighters are a hell of a lot cheaper in general though.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 22, 2011, 04:35:37 am
Yes, they are. Also note that there are only very few frigates that have full fighter complements, and that the UEF shipyards have only just begun to ramp up to full wartime production, and that the UEF suffers from a severe lack of trained pilots. Basically, they have more fighters than they have people to pilot them.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 22, 2011, 04:51:32 am
Oh I was just saying that they would be splattered by point-defense like tomatoes through a spinning jet turbine. :)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 22, 2011, 05:22:03 am
Oh I was just saying that they would be splattered by point-defense like tomatoes through a spinning jet turbine. :)

I'd have to say, I think a Chimera has point defenses at least equal to a Karuna, possibly stronger.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 22, 2011, 05:31:39 am
Yeah except looking at the fleet comparison image, they have a mere four Chimeras.
There's 21 Karunas.
That alone is a very tight defensive screen.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 22, 2011, 06:48:00 am
The Deimos isn't exactly lacking for anti-fighter weaponry, heck any Corvette is a nuisance to fighters to say the least. No UEF pilot would get through that engagement unscathed. Destiny, if it was an honest battle scenario the formation wouldn't look anything close to that. For one thing the ships are only set out on two axis. I wish more people would play Homeworld, or watch the end battle between Kirk and Khan. Space is 3D.

Looking at that pic really rams it home just how reliant the UEF are on the Sanctus.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: crizza on March 22, 2011, 07:07:39 am
Another problem are shockwaves.
I think The E said it already, but the Apocalypse has a nasty shockwave, which damages ships more than the actual warhead.
I wonder what would happen, if Tev ships would cover each other with flack and AAA...
What drains more energy, an Ultra AAA or a small beam, so the TEVs could refit their Aeolus-cruisers with AAA instead of their two small beams.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 22, 2011, 07:56:38 am
For one thing the ships are only set out on two axis. I wish more people would play Homeworld, or watch the end battle between Kirk and Khan. Space is 3D.
For one thing they're purposely laid out as such so you can actually see the ships.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 22, 2011, 08:18:48 am
For one thing the ships are only set out on two axis. I wish more people would play Homeworld, or watch the end battle between Kirk and Khan. Space is 3D.
For one thing they're purposely laid out as such so you can actually see the ships.

I know, I was saying what they would look like if it was a battle formation, which it isn't.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 22, 2011, 04:55:51 pm
I know, I was saying what they would look like if it was a battle formation, which it isn't.
Hmm, if you want, you could try to have a go at it. I've attached the mission file. The ships aren't named; I suppose they could be, but that would take a while. You'll also get a lot of errors when you fist open it.
Yeah except looking at the fleet comparison image, they have a mere four Chimeras.
There's 21 Karunas.
That alone is a very tight defensive screen.

The UEF heavily outnumbers TEVs in general; but consider that Hyperions, Aeolous's, and Leviathans have better anti-fighter equipment than Sancti; Chimeras, Bellerophons and Diomedes have at least comparable anti-fighter defenses to Karunas (I think they're better with AAA and pulse guns); and every destroyer there (including the Carthage) has some serious anti-fighter potential. The Carthage has been modified with flak guns, Hecates were always all right, and the new destroyers eat wings of bombers quite easily with large pulse guns and AAA.

Solari carry 19 Point Defense Turrets and 15 burst flak - deadly to be sure, but at various times I've watched Shivan bombers sitting in burst flak, pounding away at their target. Remember also that most GTVA point defenses get better with difficulty (pulse cannons on insane fire faster - up to 2 every second) it's hard to make comparisons when most UEF weaponry fires at the same rate all the time.






[attachment deleted by ninja]
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 22, 2011, 05:15:38 pm
I know, I was saying what they would look like if it was a battle formation, which it isn't.
Hmm, if you want, you could try to have a go at it. I've attached the mission file. The ships aren't named; I suppose they could be, but that would take a while. You'll also get a lot of errors when you fist open it.

I don't know if something's getting lost in the text, but I wasn't criticising. It was a response to Destiny's comment. God knows I've got the free time to try and move all those ships into formation, but I'm not going to even try, my poor old rig will die of shame evn simply attempting to load so many ships. :) Heck one Karuna is enough of an fps killer...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 22, 2011, 08:13:39 pm
lol, I didn't see it as criticism. I just don't trust my ability to move them into formation. I'll give it a go tomorrow or something.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 22, 2011, 10:03:47 pm
I've watched Shivan bombers sitting in burst flak, pounding away at their target. Remember also that most GTVA point defenses get better with difficulty (pulse cannons on insane fire faster - up to 2 every second) it's hard to make comparisons when most UEF weaponry fires at the same rate all the time.
Were they Seraphims, by any chance? Owwie.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 22, 2011, 10:06:32 pm
Nahemas. I was playing around with UEF ships in Forced Entry.

(it doesn't work, because UEF ships are so fast, they usually departed before they could be attacked.)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 23, 2011, 12:45:50 am
Alright, took a few screenshots in game.



(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/8749/sefi.jpg)
Looking over at the 15th from a Carthage escort


(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4557/buntuarmada.jpg)
The UEF Armada.


(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/8665/glaivefacedown.jpg)
The view of the Home Fleet from the Marcus Glaive


(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7955/tevarmada.jpg)
Approximated Terran destroyer fleet and some escorts.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 23, 2011, 12:59:58 am
Goddamn, that would be a pretty (and short and incredibly stupid) fight.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 23, 2011, 01:04:07 am
Goddamn, that would be a pretty (and short and incredibly stupid) fight.
lol yup. And unless you have a $10,000 rig, it'd be about 4 fps.

I actually went and named all of the UEF ships that are named, and organized them into detachments, and I realized something - Sanctus cruisers are EVERYWHERE.

Does the GTVA have that many cruisers? And if not, why don't they have more corvettes?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 23, 2011, 01:55:30 am
GTVA has more or less stopped to mass-produce cruisers. Those they currently have in service are a few Great War relics (Fenrises in backwater systems, a few Leviathans as destroyer escort), some Aeoluses that are still in production and the new Hyperions as heavy gunboats, and that's it. I'd expect the GTVA shipyards to produce more Deimoses than any other capships.

They probably have much more corvettes than what we see on your last picture Mars.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 23, 2011, 01:58:14 am
GTVA has more or less stopped to mass-produce cruisers. Those they currently have in service are a few Great War relics (Fenrises in backwater systems, a few Leviathans as destroyer escort), some Aeoluses that are still in production and the new Hyperions as heavy gunboats, and that's it. I'd expect the GTVA shipyards to produce more Deimoses than any other capships.

They probably have much more corvettes than what we see on your last picture Mars.

I actually figured, the number seems to run with a 1-4 cruisers and 5 corvettes per destroyer, which is petty compared to the UEF's 20 cruisers + 11 frigates.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 23, 2011, 03:23:05 am
The problem with those numbers isn't that the UEF has so many escorts per destroyer, but rather that they have so few destroyers. Most of the time UEF fleets work independently while their destroyer sits at the homebase sending fighters their way if necessary, so you can hardly compare that with GTVA battlegroups.

lol yup. And unless you have a $10,000 rig, it'd be about 4 fps.
Yes, it would show 4 FPS, because that's the lowest the counter can go. But considering "massive battle" it would be more realistic to measure in SPF (seconds per frame)  :P
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 23, 2011, 07:05:13 am
Most of the time UEF fleets work independently while their destroyer sits at the homebase sending fighters their way if necessary, so you can hardly compare that with GTVA battlegroups.
Well, that's how GTVA battlegroups operate too. Unless you have front-line desties, you don't send your Hecate do the dirty work.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Jellyfish on March 23, 2011, 08:26:06 am
Why so many Hecates?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Darius on March 23, 2011, 08:36:07 am
Approximated Terran destroyer fleet and some escorts.

Those numbers are around about how I imagined the Galactic Terran destroyer strength to be by the time of AoA. Good call :D
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 23, 2011, 08:39:40 am
There are probably still a few more Orions and stuff.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Darius on March 23, 2011, 08:44:09 am
Yeah, substitute a few ships here and there but it's not a bad approximation.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 23, 2011, 09:23:47 am
I'd assume that for every 2.5 GTD Hecate's there's still 1 GTD Orion in service or such?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 23, 2011, 09:37:38 am
Probably that or less. Orions are oooooold. There are probably no more than 5-6 or them, and I guess half of those are holding up with Duct Tape(tm).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 23, 2011, 10:53:36 am
The Carthage was decently scary, so I figured the GTVA might have a few more retrofits like her lying around somewhere.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 23, 2011, 10:57:32 am
I don't think there are that many combat evaluation destroyers around. The idea behind experimental tech is that you don't spread it around until it's ready to be mass-produced. And building a Hecate is probably cheaper than doing a major refit on an Orion like the Carthage.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 23, 2011, 10:58:35 am
Not that many. The Carthage is a special case, as it was almost completely rebuilt following the Nebula campaign and recommissioned as a testbed for new tech. The other Orions are closer to the standard spec.

And yeah, it's easier to build new Raynors and Titans than it is to bring every remaining Orion to the Carthage standard.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 23, 2011, 11:01:50 am
I'm curious though, is the Phoenicia and the Aquitane in there?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 23, 2011, 11:02:35 am
Yes, both those destroyers are still active.

Keep in mind that nothing in this thread should be taken as canon until it turns up in a release.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 23, 2011, 01:01:42 pm
Aye, captain.

What happened to the 14th Battlegroup? "Departed Sol theater hours after commencement of hostilities." doesn't really...say anything other than they just...well jumped somewhere.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 23, 2011, 01:06:21 pm
They were pulled back, slapped into dock, and examined component by component for a period of at least a few months.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 23, 2011, 01:14:45 pm
And then probably reaffected somewhere as far from Sol as possible, or the whole battlegroup might have been disbanded and ships reaffected to separate fleets. I mean, a large proportion of the 14th battlegroup defected even before starting the hostilities with the UEF, and the others were under significant mutiny when they finally retreated to Delta Serpentis, and that despite the fact the commanders and the crew were chosen among the more loyal of the GTVA. I'd expect Command to not take any more chances with them.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 23, 2011, 01:23:52 pm
Guess they were posted to the Vega or Epsilon Pegasi to wait for Shivans to come through the nodes again. *giggle* But yeah, having gone through that ordeal in that universe, then having to deal with Earth. The UEF must've used a lot of stuff from the Solace in that secret project.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 23, 2011, 01:25:35 pm
The crews and commanders of the 14th's ships were probably swapped out.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 23, 2011, 02:11:37 pm
Just how rare are the Titan and Raynor classes? I can't see the Orestes and Temeraire not seeing action in Sol if they're the only other ships of their type, they're far too effective to leave lying around...unless they're still getting restocked with crew and fighters of course.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 23, 2011, 02:17:06 pm
I'd put a rough guess at three or four of each.  Two seems too low, since I personally doubt that ALL of them would have been deployed to Sol during the war, but they're also presumably pretty damned expensive, so five or six each (considering the Word of God on destroyer numbers) is equally odd.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 23, 2011, 02:46:42 pm
2-3 is probably a reasonable estimate. I'd expect the Tevs to have focused on corvette classes rather than destroyers with the few money they had left after the Sol portal and the researches on the threat emergency initiative.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 23, 2011, 03:08:52 pm
Are Hecates still in production? I know they're not the best, especially in ship combat, but as a carrier they seem to get the job done pretty well. I mean they are getting on a bit but IIRC Orions were still being built during FS2 and they were thirty plus years old by then.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 23, 2011, 03:15:13 pm
We know of 2 Titans and 2 Raynors. There may be one more of each; but yeah, Raynors and Titans are rather expensive, and we figure that they are too new for there to be many more. For information, the Atreus was the first ship of the Raynor class, the Orestes was the second.

Are Hecates still in production? I know they're not the best, especially in ship combat, but as a carrier they seem to get the job done pretty well. I mean they are getting on a bit but IIRC Orions were still being built during FS2 and they were thirty plus years old by then.

No, they're not in production anymore. Basically, the GTVA is slowly replacing or mothballing Hecates as Titans and Raynors come online, with Hecates being relegated to second-line carriers.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 23, 2011, 03:17:48 pm
Did the "two dozen" figure given in Post Meridian ("I can't believe the Tevs have two dozen of these!" or sth like that) refer to Tev destroyers in general?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 23, 2011, 03:19:12 pm
Ambiguous! (probably just hecates)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 23, 2011, 03:21:01 pm
wat 24 hecates srsly wtf
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 23, 2011, 03:22:35 pm
Well I dunno I'd have to ask someone
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 23, 2011, 03:22:43 pm
It's more or less generally assumed it refers to desties in general. Given the proportion of Raynors, Titans and Orions in service, the total number of desties wouldn't go much higher than 30 if it was only about the Hecates anyway.

We know of 2 Titans and 2 Raynors. There may be one more of each; but yeah, Raynors and Titans are rather expensive, and we figure that they are too new for there to be many more. For information, the Atreus was the first ship of the Raynor class, the Orestes was the second.

Are Hecates still in production? I know they're not the best, especially in ship combat, but as a carrier they seem to get the job done pretty well. I mean they are getting on a bit but IIRC Orions were still being built during FS2 and they were thirty plus years old by then.

No, they're not in production anymore. Basically, the GTVA is slowly replacing or mothballing Hecates as Titans and Raynors come online, with Hecates being relegated to second-line carriers.

This is why the GTVA can't afford to loose destroyers. Since they stopped building Hecates, and replaced them with Raynor and Titans, so expensive and long to build, a lost destroyer might take years to replace. That is of, of course, not taking into account the loss of crew, the blow to morale and all that goes with it.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: crizza on March 23, 2011, 03:54:18 pm
So...the Orestes and Temaraire are being examined piece by piece, system by system...let's say...6 month?
Training of two completly new crews...well...
In you serve nine month in the Bundeswehr...so i guess...one year for the normal desroyer crew...officers will be simply draft picked from other destroyers...or the crews of ships reaching the end of their lifetime will be transfered.

So...on one hand, Steeles possibilitys of warfare would greatly increase with another Raynor and Titan...but on the other hand...he's not the guy having onother Raynor-class in system stealing him possible victories...
Please excuse my bad english.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 23, 2011, 03:57:44 pm
I actually assumed they were talking about Hecates only, but I may have been wrong. Also the UEF or even just Laporte might not even have decent numbers as far as the size of the GTVA armada.

If I was admiral Calder, I wouldn't want everyone in the UEF to know that the Tevs have 5 times the force they're crushing us with. I especially wouldn't want them to know that they had a 3 sets of the new stuff.
So...the Orestes and Temaraire are being examined piece by piece, system by system. . . for let's say. . . 6 month?
Training of two completly new crews...well...
In you serve nine month in the Bundeswehr...so i guess...one year for the normal desroyer crew...officers will be simply draft picked from other destroyers...or the crews of ships reaching the end of their lifetime will be transfered.

So...on one hand, Steele's chances of winning would greatly increase with another Raynor and Titan. . . but on the other hand. . . he's not the guy having another Raynor-class in system stealing him possible victories...
I believe the one thing that the GTVA isn't lacking is well trained personnel. I'm guessing there are masses of officers from cruisers, corvettes, squadrons, or even non-combatant craft FIGHTING to gain command of the Orestes, and that the crew members working on say, reactor systems, could be drafted in from working on cruisers or corvettes, or even decommissioned Hecates.

I think that Sevaranti - if given a Raynor, would probably have not succeeded just as badly. Steele's not winning because he has a Raynor (although it helps) he's winning because he's using the capabilities of every ship and commander in his fleet to destroy things. The Carthage has twice the survivability under Federal fire than a Hecate? Use it as bait. The Impieriuse can destroy a Karuna in one salvo? Use it as the trap.


Speaking of what can destroy a Karuna in one shot -  a Bellerophon and a Hyperion cruiser, two Chimeras, a Chimera and three Hyperions, and 3 Hecates. Obviously the Serkr configuration would work as well.

[
Those numbers are around about how I imagined the Galactic Terran destroyer strength to be by the time of AoA. Good call :D

W00t! Battuta filled me in on a rough number, only thing I really had to guess at was the number of Orions and if there were any more new destroyers. 
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 23, 2011, 04:03:53 pm
So...the Orestes and Temaraire are being examined piece by piece, system by system...let's say...6 month?
Training of two completly new crews...well...
In you serve nine month in the Bundeswehr...so i guess...one year for the normal desroyer crew...officers will be simply draft picked from other destroyers...or the crews of ships reaching the end of their lifetime will be transfered.

Wrong. The GTVA has enough career service personnel to build new crew complements easily; and I don't think it has compulsory service.

Quote
So...on one hand, Steeles possibilitys of warfare would greatly increase with another Raynor and Titan...but on the other hand...he's not the guy having onother Raynor-class in system stealing him possible victories...
Please excuse my bad english.

Steele would be the very last person to say no to another Raynor or Titan. The problem is that neither the Temeraire nor the Orestes are available at the moment.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 23, 2011, 04:05:28 pm
For information, the Atreus was the first ship of the Raynor class, the Orestes was the second.
Hmm, so the GTVA doesn't name the first ship of the class the GTD Raynor? I see...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: crizza on March 23, 2011, 04:13:38 pm
Raynor is a homage to Starcraft;)
Perhaps in BP2, someone can drop something like Admiral ...Raynor?
Would explain it.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 23, 2011, 04:24:58 pm
I'd like the reasoning for the name to reference James Raynor somehow, even if it is only a sideways reference.  The ship already is a reference to his Vulture, so it needs to go full circle.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 23, 2011, 04:25:57 pm
I think it was for his motorcycle somehow. . .?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 23, 2011, 04:29:09 pm
I have no idea, the naming wasn't done by a member of the BP team, but yeah we can try to work in a reason.

Perhaps James Raynor is now a mythological and literary figure.  :blah:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 23, 2011, 04:30:00 pm
I think it was for his motorcycle somehow. . .?
Yeah I'm pretty sure it was named after StratComm or someone's motorcycle.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Black Wolf on March 23, 2011, 04:46:08 pm
The raynor's suposed to look like a vulture, which from certain angles it kinda does.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: crizza on March 23, 2011, 06:37:41 pm
Not quite sure about that...but I think I read somewhere, that the 14th battlegroup was composed out of the finest ships and crews of the TEVs...so...why wasn't the Atreus, as typ-ship, not one of the finest ships? Was it always planed as a Orestes replacement or was it on border patrol?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 23, 2011, 07:03:32 pm
The Orestes could simply have had a better crew.  It's still a Raynor, after all.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 23, 2011, 07:05:21 pm
The first isn't the finest. The first prototype of pretty much anything shows the quirks in the design, that get ironed out in the later objects.
Now let's assume they found those problems, corrected them in the Orestes and then sent the Atreus back to get those errors out too.

Or it was simply upgraded with it's sprint drive at that moment.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 24, 2011, 05:47:53 am
Since the Orestes and Temeraire aren't online I assume they aren't needed for garrison duties or patrol? In other words they should be free to start operations in Sol as soon as they're ready with new squadrons and crew. Maybe Carthage and Hood will be rotated out once they're ready? Not that I want them to go, Carthage looks cool in blue. :)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 24, 2011, 05:52:06 am
Rotating out the Carthage and Hood BGs makes really no sense at all.

Quote from: Carthage's entry on the wiki
The GTD Carthage is one of the oldest capital ships still in service with the Alliance fleet. Launched towards the end of the Great War, she has participated in most major campaigns fought by the GTVA, and her accumulated combat record is unparalleled.
After she was nearly destroyed during the nebula campaign, she was refitted as a Combat Evaluation Unit Destroyer, to field-test new armor, propulsion and ECM designs. Exact details are unavailable, but we do know that her anti-fighter armament has been substantially upgraded to allow her to survive in today's fighter-centric combat environment. Indications exist that she has been fitted with a prototype version of the sprint drive, which essentially consists of a second subspace drive motivator. Her hull plating, in combination with her extensive redesign, have increased her combat survivability by several orders of magnitude. While the ship has been in active duty for the better part of 50 years, ONI estimates that destroying her or achieving a mission kill will take careful planning and considerable firepower.
The Carthage and her escort fleet have been under the command of Admiral Anita Lopez for 15 years, and while her command is primarily composed of old ship designs, all the rough edges have long since been worn away, and the battlegroup is consistently found in the top 10 percent of the GTVA's Fleet Performance evaluations.

Removing the Carthage from the theater makes no sense at all. You don't remove one of the best units in the GTVA from the field without good cause.

Also, badass pic is badass:
(http://hard-light.net/wiki/images/CarthageBP.png)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dilmah G on March 24, 2011, 05:58:31 am
Well Combat stress is a pretty good reason to me to rotate units out of field. Even if the Carthage is one of the best mother****ers of Tev origin chilling in the Sol system, it'll have to come out soon enough before the crew start suffering psychological casualties.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 24, 2011, 06:00:43 am
Certainly. Which is why I said "without good cause"
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 24, 2011, 06:02:17 am
Considering how big the ships are, I would think they have enough crew to rotate personnel internally to prevent, or at least greatly postpone any psychological issues like combat stress. That and the support infrastructure they have in Sol should allow rotating personnel without rotating the ships themselves out of the Sol theater.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 24, 2011, 06:06:01 am
However, now that the Carthage's battlegroup has been quite crippled (all ships heavily battle-damaged, fighter complement nullified, one corvette and one cruiser captured), I'd expect it to be rotated for a new one soon enough.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Dilmah G on March 24, 2011, 06:07:59 am
Yeah, it would probably be more economic on the Alliance to just rotate the entire destroyer to the back of the line out of Sol.
Considering how big the ships are, I would think they have enough crew to rotate personnel internally to prevent, or at least greatly postpone any psychological issues like combat stress. That and the support infrastructure they have in Sol should allow rotating personnel without rotating the ships themselves out of the Sol theater.
Well the Carthage only has a set amount of bunks, and when you have twice the amount of crew necessary onboard, that means you need to cater for twice as many, and then you have additional issues that I believe come about when men and women of the profession of arms sit around all day doing nothing whilst their mates are out fighting and dying (could be wrong, someone with a psych background verify?).

Being able to restaff them in the Sol theater though, is probably something they're able to do.
Certainly. Which is why I said "without good cause"
Ah yeah. I thought that 'when they're ready' in the previous post implied that it was when the time came to rotate them to the back that he meant. Anyway.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 24, 2011, 06:09:49 am
Also, badass pic is badass:
(http://hard-light.net/wiki/images/CarthageBP.png)
I take you badass pic and rise with another badass pic.
(http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2567/screen0311.png)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 24, 2011, 06:10:40 am
Restaf perhaps, flying in new fighters (especially if they come together with the pilots) no problem, but what about repairs?
I doubt the facilities the GTVA has inside Sol are going to get the Carthage battle-ready as fast as those in Delta Serpentis. So a few weeks pause in DS are very likely I think.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 24, 2011, 06:11:27 am
That Carthage needs escorts around it to make it look more badass while flauting it's size...the green Carthage looks spooky actually.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 24, 2011, 06:12:41 am
Well, Destiny, I guess you'll have to wait until you see the mission that pic was taken from. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Note also: Mjolnir.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 24, 2011, 06:13:44 am
Last time the Imperieuse was damaged, it was expected to retreat back to DS. However, DE has showed that the Tevs are more than able to repair such a ship on field, and in total secrecy to boot. I don't know how long it took though.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 24, 2011, 06:23:35 am
Just saw the Halo reference in the Carthage wiki entry. :) Is that an R2 mission or is it set before R1? I ask since it's around Neptune.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 24, 2011, 06:26:47 am
Just saw the Halo reference in the Carthage wiki entry. :) Is that an R2 mission or is it set before R1? I ask since it's around Neptune.

"ONI" is not a Halo reference :P

And yes, it's a mission from R2.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 24, 2011, 08:57:50 am
Last time the Imperieuse was damaged, it was expected to retreat back to DS. However, DE has showed that the Tevs are more than able to repair such a ship on field, and in total secrecy to boot. I don't know how long it took though.
I'd say with the Vasudans going into full gear with logistics support...the Imperieuse must've jumped somewhere deep, maybe even further than Pluto, then put an AWACS on two (Remember the GTA Spectre before the Pegasus fighters splashed the Elder?) nearby. Plus, the UEF didn't have the resources to go find the Imperieuse, let alone try attacking it...oh and, damn Auroras.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 24, 2011, 10:31:42 am
Just saw the Halo reference in the Carthage wiki entry. :) Is that an R2 mission or is it set before R1? I ask since it's around Neptune.

"ONI" is not a Halo reference :P

And yes, it's a mission from R2.

Hot damn, R2 is gonna be sweet! And what does ONI stand for then?

Last time the Imperieuse was damaged, it was expected to retreat back to DS. However, DE has showed that the Tevs are more than able to repair such a ship on field, and in total secrecy to boot. I don't know how long it took though.
I'd say with the Vasudans going into full gear with logistics support...the Imperieuse must've jumped somewhere deep, maybe even further than Pluto, then put an AWACS on two (Remember the GTA Spectre before the Pegasus fighters splashed the Elder?) nearby. Plus, the UEF didn't have the resources to go find the Imperieuse, let alone try attacking it...oh and, damn Auroras.

Which has got me thinking; how far away from a sun's gravity well can a capital ship jump?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 24, 2011, 10:46:46 am
Oni|鬼| are creatures from Japanese folklore, variously translated as demons, devils, ogres or trolls. They are popular characters in Japanese art, literature and theatre.

or

Office of Naval Intelligence: the military intelligence agency that provides for the intelligence and counterintelligence and investigative and security requirements.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 24, 2011, 10:48:49 am
Office of Naval intelligence, too
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Sara- on March 24, 2011, 10:49:26 am
Office of Naval intelligence, too

You ninja'd my edit! :shaking:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 24, 2011, 03:59:25 pm
Which has got me thinking; how far away from a sun's gravity well can a capital ship jump?
Not too sure...does it even apply? I mean, we were quite far away from anything in High Noob, and we know nothing about the mysterious nebula beyond Gamma Draconis - GTVA Colossus intro...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: -Norbert- on March 24, 2011, 04:17:20 pm
I guess the nebula did still have a neutron star or some other star remnant, with enough gravity to hold the nodes together, inside. God I hope this isn't going to spawn another four pages debate among some hardcore astronomers :p
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 24, 2011, 04:47:56 pm
IIRC we definitely see a star ingame in those missions. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 24, 2011, 05:57:18 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the star in the nebula a Mediavps addition? I don't recall seeing it at all in retail (which was a long ass time ago, so my memory is probably screwing with me.)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 24, 2011, 06:00:57 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the star in the nebula a Mediavps addition? I don't recall seeing it at all in retail (which was a long ass time ago, so my memory is probably screwing with me.)
I'm quite sure it was a retail thing.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 24, 2011, 06:04:26 pm
Aight, nevermind then. Did Someone turn up the brightness then? Because I certainly don't remember being near blinded every time I turned the wrong direction while in the nebula.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 24, 2011, 06:09:31 pm
Restaf perhaps, flying in new fighters (especially if they come together with the pilots) no problem, but what about repairs?
I doubt the facilities the GTVA has inside Sol are going to get the Carthage battle-ready as fast as those in Delta Serpentis. So a few weeks pause in DS are very likely I think.

Remember, they have all of the Jovian facilities now - which appears to include some serious resources. Combined with existing logistics ships and damage control facilities, I assume it wouldn't be a miracle to repair some pretty banged up ships.

However, now that the Carthage's battlegroup has been quite crippled (all ships heavily battle-damaged, fighter complement nullified, one corvette and one cruiser captured), I'd expect it to be rotated for a new one soon enough.

Well, assuming that the all of the ships weren't destroyed, those are losses that many in the GTVA are "used" to taking. I assume counseling and psychological services have gotten better.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 24, 2011, 06:16:40 pm
Since you technically CAN destroy all/most of those ships (simply by disabling their engines before they flee), I don't expect WiH2 to consider they are still alive. The Carthage will have to be rotated for a new battlegroup or get a truckload of new warships to replace the losses, whether the losses really happened in WiH or not.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 24, 2011, 08:33:23 pm
Since you technically CAN destroy all/most of those ships (simply by disabling their engines before they flee), I don't expect WiH2 to consider they are still alive. The Carthage will have to be rotated for a new battlegroup or get a truckload of new warships to replace the losses, whether the losses really happened in WiH or not.
I think you're probably right, although I doubt you'll read anything about a true massacre.

Deimos corvettes seem to be pretty replaceable though, which is odd. Back in FS2 Sobeks were said to have 6,000 crew, so you'd think command would get pretty worked up over even the loss of a Deimos.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 24, 2011, 11:15:11 pm
Well since ships always explode even if you shoot a beam and destroy a Deimos even though it was only the turret that got hit...the GTD Legion is one exception, though. It makes no sense, but it's for the game, you'd rather see a Fenris explode into a giant fireball by a fighter-mounted xaser gun than watch it do nothing. Hard to think realistically when they keep happening, the entire crew dead because the furthest part of the ship was hit by a beam that cauterized that part, yet magically the ship still explodes.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: CommanderDJ on March 24, 2011, 11:33:30 pm
High Noob
:wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 25, 2011, 12:38:39 am
Its far too accurate to be funny for me, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 25, 2011, 02:16:17 am
Deimos corvettes seem to be pretty replaceable though, which is odd. Back in FS2 Sobeks were said to have 6,000 crew, so you'd think command would get pretty worked up over even the loss of a Deimos.
Deimoses are the new cruisers, read the tech description. Those things use Capella-era technology yet are extremely useful and well-designed, and hence are cheap, easy to maintain and repair, and have been mass-produced since Capella.

Hard to think realistically when they keep happening, the entire crew dead because the furthest part of the ship was hit by a beam that cauterized that part, yet magically the ship still explodes.
Unless there was a reactor or something similarly fragile and susceptible to blow up on that part.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 02:28:46 am
Deimoses are the new cruisers, read the tech description. Those things use Capella-era technology yet are extremely useful and well-designed, and hence are cheap, easy to maintain and repair, and have been mass-produced since Capella.

Oh, I did, I just think the crew numbers are still a little high, unless they've been revised.


Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 25, 2011, 02:29:42 am
I'd put VSlashes on Deimoses since they use Vasudan reactors to make them more useful, eh. The Deimos and Aeolus are...quite the quintessential ships the GTVA needs beside those new shiny ones the Serkr ones are made up of.

Well Mars, maybe the ships have got more automation and stuff now to reduce crew and etc...?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 02:36:09 am
I'd put VSlashes on Deimoses since they use Vasudan reactors to make them more useful, eh. The Deimos and Aeolus are...quite the quintessential ships the GTVA needs beside those new shiny ones the Serkr ones are made up of.

VSlashes aren't even supposed to be used in fours on the Sobek, that's like putting in BFReds all over the Colossus in High Noob.


EDIT:
Well Mars, maybe the ships have got more automation and stuff now to reduce crew and etc...?

Yeah, I would assume so, at the rate they lose Deimos crews in the Sol theater. Otherwise it'd be like losing a Orion every other mission.

PPS

I should clarify, I'm not trying to flame you, but I find your mispelling of High Noon decidedly humorous. It's nothing personal.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 25, 2011, 02:44:56 am
Yeah, I get that the GTVA is used to hemorrhaging lives during combat, but if the crew count on those Corvettes is in any way proportional to their size, then the UEF  has probably managed to depopulate a few small colonies by now. Automation FTW.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 25, 2011, 02:49:59 am
Wait wait wait. How many Deimoses do we see die in WiH ? There isn't THAT many of them. And definitely much less than we see Sanctus or Karunas die.

Also, remember that the hostilities have got a much more lively since Artemis. I guess the amount of combat we see in the whole WiH is probably as much as there was during the whole 18 months of stalemate. The GTVA didn't loose that many lives.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 02:55:01 am
Way more Deimos's CAN die (than Karunas anyway). Hang on, let me look.

Potential GTVA losses in WiH, confirmed / unavoidable losses in RED

2nd Fleet 2nd Detachment
GTCv Leander - Deimos class
GTCv Legionary - Deimos class
GTCv Deianira - Deimos class
GTCv Iolanthe - Deimos class
GTCv Arethusa - Deimos class
GTC Voronezh - Aeolus class
GTC Joketsu - Aeolus class
GTC Grissom - Leviathan class
GTC Systema - Leviathan class

13th Battlegroup
GTCv Juarez - Deimos class
GTCV Redoubtable - Deimos class
GTCv Cardinal - Deimos class
GTCv Regensburg - Deimos class
GTCv Idomeneus - Deimos class
GTC Cho - Aeolus class
GTC Essex - Aeolus class
GTC Ajax - Aeolus class

15th Battlegroup
GTCv Siren - Chimera class
GTCv Medea - Diomedes class
GTCv Valarie - Diomedes class
GTC Elissa - Hyperion class
GTC Utica - Hyperion class





My point here is that the GTVA has the potential to take more losses than we see the Feds taking. They're ships are generally cheaper, that's BP canon, but I wonder about crew sizing.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 25, 2011, 03:14:20 am
Yes they flee like the cowards they are. :P
Then kill everyone. :(
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 03:41:44 am
UEF Potential losses

Jovian Rim Fleet
FA 3311 Ranvir - Narayana class
FG 3101 Nelson - Karuna class
FG 3102 Cormorant - Karuna class
FG 3103 Katana - Karuna class
FG 3104 Altan Orde - Karuna class
FG 3107 Akula - Karuna class
FG 3108 Rhineland - Karuna class


CA 32XX Dea Nemetona - Sanctus class
CA 32XX St Vincent - Sanctus class
CA 32XX Dea Soucanna - Sanctus class
CA 32XX Sabaragamuwa - Sanctus class
CA 3240 Ironhide - Sanctus class
CA 3241 Suffron - Sanctus class
CA 3242 Dea Bricta - Sanctus class
CA 3243 Auxerre - Sanctus class


Second Fleet Mars
FG 2102 Yangtze - Karuna class


CA 2231 Dea Icaunis - Sanctus class
CA 2233 Kyoto - Sanctus class
CA 2234 Insuperable - Sanctus class

Home Fleet
CA 1225 Vilnius - Sanctus class

Unknown

X3XX - Narayana class
X3XX - Narayana class
X1XX - Karuna class
X1XX - Karuna class
X2XX - Sanctus class
X2XX - Sanctus class
X2XX - Sanctus class
X2XX - Sanctus class


So they DID lose more
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: headdie on March 25, 2011, 03:47:10 am
GTVA                                                      UEF
GTCv Leander -Deimos class               FA 3311 Ranvir - Narayana class
GTCv Legionary -Deimos class               FG 3101 Nelson - Karuna class
GTCv Deianira -Deimos class               FG 3102 Cormorant - Karuna class
GTCv Iolanthe -Deimos class               FG 3103 Katana - Karuna class
GTCv Arethusa - Deimos class               FG 3104 Altan Orde - Karuna class
GTC Voronezh - Aeolus class               FG 3107 Akula -Karuna class
GTC Joketsu - Aeolus class               CA 32XX Dea Nemetona - Sanctus class
GTC Grissom - Leviathan class               CA 32XX St Vincent - Sanctus class
GTC Systema - Leviathan class            CA 32XX Dea Soucanna - Sanctus class
GTCv Juarez - Deimos class               CA 32XX Sabaragamuwa - Sanctus class
GTCV Redoubtable - Deimos class            CA 3240 Ironhide - Sanctus class
GTC Essex - Aeolus class                  CA 3241 Suffron - Sanctus class
GTC Ajax - Aeolus class                  CA 3242 Dea Bricta - Sanctus class
GTCv Siren - Chimera class               CA 3243 Auxerre - Sanctus class
GTCv Medea - Diomedes class               FG 2102 Yangtze - Karuna class
GTCv Valarie - Diomedes class               CA 2231 Dea Icaunis - Sanctus class
GTC Elissa - Hyperion class               CA 2233 Kyoto - Sanctus class
GTC Utica - Hyperion class               CA 2234 Insuperable - Sanctus class
                                                      CA 1225 Vilnius - Sanctus class


edit
readability
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 25, 2011, 03:48:46 am
Losing a frigate hurts the UEF a lot more than losing a Corvette does the GTVA.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 03:52:51 am
GTVA potential losses
10 Deimos
2 Diomedes
1 Chimera
2 Hyperion
5 Aeolus
2 Leviathan
Total:
13 Corvettes
11 Cruisers


UEF potential losses
3 Narayana
9 Karuna
14 Sanctus
Total:
7 Frigates
16 Cruisers

58,000 Personnel



Yeah, I recall *tutta saying a Deimos is about 1/2 the cost of a Karuna for the GTVA.

EDIT:

I imagine those Tev cruisers are much cheaper as well. Those Leviathans are as old as the hills, and the Aeolous is supposed to be very cheap.

The real random numbers here are the costs of the newer ships. I do still wonder about crew sizes though.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 25, 2011, 03:55:55 am
Don't forget, there are also losses that are only mentioned in the narrative and not seen on screen; those would add 3 Karunas and 2 Narayanas to the UEF losses.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 04:03:16 am
Don't forget, there are also losses that are only mentioned in the narrative and not seen on screen; those would add 3 Karunas and 2 Narayanas to the UEF losses.

Oh shiz. . . I can't believe I didn't look at the narrative.

Also 1 Raynor + 1 Chimera + 1 Bellerophon + 1 Anemoi = 25,000
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 25, 2011, 04:21:13 am
Right, so...is the Indus going to be written off or fixed and put back into commission? Just theorizing, not fishing for information~

I should clarify, I'm not trying to flame you, but I find your mispelling of High Noon decidedly humorous. It's nothing personal.
Nah, I totally understand. Flamin' is bad, that zero tolerance policy up there says something.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 25, 2011, 04:26:50 am
Right, so...is the Indus going to be written off or fixed and put back into commission? Just theorizing, not fishing for information~

Not gonna say. Wait and see.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 04:29:31 am
Don't forget, there are also losses that are only mentioned in the narrative and not seen on screen; those would add 3 Karunas and 2 Narayanas to the UEF losses.

I actually can't find any but the Rhineland and four unnamed sub-frigate warships. I'll look again in the morning.
Right, so...is the Indus going to be written off or fixed and put back into commission? Just theorizing, not fishing for information~

I assume(d!) the Indus is was pretty much ****ed, but now I'll just have to wait and see.
Nah, I totally understand. Flamin' is bad, that zero tolerance policy up there says something.

I really don't try to flame people ever, but I take it to mean "be very, very careful. The ice, she is thin"
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 25, 2011, 04:31:16 am
Hmmm. I could have sworn all losses had been mentioned in the story. I was basing that off of our internal OrBat.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 25, 2011, 04:43:34 am
I actually think that the Hyperion is underused. It clearly should be the successor to Aeolus since they share the same mission profile. They both can perform as assault support with their forward firing beams and have ample coverage of turrets for anti-fighter job.

Hyperion's turrets 10-11 could be swapped to a weak variant of blue slasher beam, allowing Hyperion to perform in broadside combat support. Or turrets 8-9, 12-13 could be swapped to torpedo launchers for same mission role. You could change the multipart turrets to flak turrets, giving it better anti-fighter/-bomber interception at the expense of anti-bomb interception.

With little tweaks to Hyperion's armament it could serve in multiple roles, essentially replacing all previous Tev cruisers. They have the platform, why aren't they using it to its full potential? Hyperion is severely underestimated little bugger.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 04:52:32 am
I personally find the Hyperion quite deadly as it is, especially in missions like The Plunder. If the player decides to journey out ahead over Medium, they're in for a rather rude surprise. STerPulse's are not to be toyed with. Also, playing around in a mission that I'm BADLY trying to make, I found an unchecked Hyperion took down a Sanctus with surprisingly little effort, to the point I had to rearrange the thing several times, and lower AI. I'm still trying to balance it properly.

I do think torpedo would be a cool, and I do like the broadside idea. The Aeoulus is only better in the anti-fighter role because it packs two fewer Terran Turret type blobs to add more flak. If the Hyperion only swapped out 2 Terran Turret 2s for STerPulses or something, it would probably be just as good.

There's also the perception that flak is better, just because it fills the players screen with bright exploding light. The pulse cannons are deadly, but not as visually noisy.
With little tweaks to Hyperion's armament it could serve in multiple roles, essentially replacing all previous Tev cruisers. They have the platform, why aren't they using it to its full potential? Hyperion is severely underestimated little bugger.

Isn't it because they're considered just plain too fragile?

IIRC you designed most of the weapons, didn't you Fury? Good a time as any to say that without exception they're pretty awesome.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 05:24:25 am
Whoops, delayed double postage, sorry!
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 25, 2011, 05:46:17 am
The problem with the Hyperion is that it's a cruiser - which means that you don't need bombs or warships to take those out - and that it's a front-line ship, hence pretty expensive. You're better with your money building 2 Deimoses than 3 Hyperions. SBlues are better than SGreens (what isn't) but still suck and still have a very long recharge rate.

I expect Hyperions to be quickly superseeded by the Cretheus in its intended gunboat and warship escort role.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 25, 2011, 05:50:49 am
Isn't it because they're considered just plain too fragile?

IIRC you designed most of the weapons, didn't you Fury? Good a time as any to say that without exception they're pretty awesome.
Hyperion should be more durable than Aeolus, which in turn is more durable than Leviathan. AoA weapons were designed before my involvement in the team. What tweaks were made between original AoA and Director's Cut were minor at best, excluding Balor.
I expect Hyperions to be quickly superseeded by the Cretheus in its intended gunboat and warship escort role.
How the hell you know about Cretheus?

Just merging double posts. I don't know why. Like fighting windmills. -- jeffgreenpowervader
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 25, 2011, 05:53:48 am
Been mentioned in #bp. A good while ago actually. Said there would be an UEF equivalent too.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 25, 2011, 05:56:52 am
While that might be true for the fight against the UEF, remember that the Hyperion was built to fight shivans, where I think it performs much better. But yeah, if there's one lesson for the GTVA to take away from this fight, it's that cruisers are only useful as escort ships for destroyers and corvettes, the lone cruiser patrol we sometimes see in FS2 is really a thing of the past.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 06:07:28 am
Been mentioned in #bp. A good while ago actually. Said there would be an UEF equivalent too.
Well, I suppose it is one of the best designed assets available.
The problem with the Hyperion is that it's a cruiser - which means that you don't need bombs or warships to take those out

Actually I believe all of the WiH cruisers have Heavy Armor 100 "Only huge flagged weapons can trigger piercing effects when hull reaches 5%. Puncture weapons deal 100% damage. Spawn weapons deal 20% damage. Mainly used for large warships, cruisers and up." I think that means non-Huge weapons can only get them to 5%?


Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 25, 2011, 06:10:56 am
For cruisers ? Hell not. I killed an Aeolus with bare Mauls in the second mission of WiH.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 25, 2011, 06:41:06 am
CA 3242 Dea Bricta - Sanctus class
CA 3243 Auxerre - Sanctus class

Actually you can save those two, so long as you remember to take out the Hood's BFGreen.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 07:01:47 am
CA 3242 Dea Bricta - Sanctus class
CA 3243 Auxerre - Sanctus class

Actually you can save those two, so long as you remember to take out the Hood's BFGreen.

Right you are, edited.

Although I'd have to say, the Medea is a lot more of a problem.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 25, 2011, 09:15:19 am
CA 3242 Dea Bricta - Sanctus class
CA 3243 Auxerre - Sanctus class

Actually you can save those two, so long as you remember to take out the Hood's BFGreen.

Right you are, edited.

Although I'd have to say, the Medea is a lot more of a problem.

The checkpoint for that mission is just in the right place that you have time to rearm if you're out of paveways and knock out the Medea's starboard beams. I guess it's a personal thing, but I always found it more difficult to burn to the Hood in time to take out it's main cannon before it one-shots both crusiers. It's such a twisted moment: to see them cut down just after salvation, but so awesomely in a single salvo of juicy green beam.

There's now a permanent fingerprint on my tab key from the amount of replays and desperate afterburning taken to save the cruisers. :)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 25, 2011, 12:28:14 pm
Well actually Buckshee Rounds, I call in a bunch of stuff from the Eris to kill off the Medea while I put engines to full on my Atalanta, then afterburn my way to the Hood and unleash Kayser-Tempest fire on the two beam cannons, then quickly run back to the Indus. The Hood doesn't even shoot at you...those flak cannons have horrible depression. Just...don't fly behind the front beam cannons, you'll...get fried.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 25, 2011, 12:29:14 pm
The Hood should really have a couple more escorts (like some Aeoluses off the bow for instance) the way the Meridian did, but the mission was huge and complex enough as is...

...however it would've been kind of sweet to give the Toutatis a few more things to shoot at...hmmmmm...
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 25, 2011, 12:58:00 pm
The Hood should really have a couple more escorts (like some Aeoluses off the bow for instance) the way the Meridian did, but the mission was huge and complex enough as is...

...however it would've been kind of sweet to give the Toutatis a few more things to shoot at...hmmmmm...
What I'm curious is that the Serkr team was deployed wrongly. If they did their usual shock jump tactics they'd blow up the Wargods...what's going on? Is that command guy head.ani really that desperate for a GTL Anemoi?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 25, 2011, 01:24:38 pm
The Hood should really have a couple more escorts (like some Aeoluses off the bow for instance) the way the Meridian did, but the mission was huge and complex enough as is...

...however it would've been kind of sweet to give the Toutatis a few more things to shoot at...hmmmmm...
What I'm curious is that the Serkr team was deployed wrongly. If they did their usual shock jump tactics they'd blow up the Wargods...what's going on? Is that command guy head.ani really that desperate for a GTL Anemoi?

No they wouldn't have. And having Serkr shock jump in could have been disastrous.

Note how long it took the AWACS in 'Collateral Damage' to plot their entry - several minutes. There was an AWACS with the Hood as well, but by the time Serkr was ready to make its entry, the ECM ship would have already arrived. Even if there hadn't been an ECM ship available, there's another issue: if Serkr jumps in, it can't jump out for at least a minute or two. With UEF assets doubtless ready to assist the Wargods, that could've led to the loss of one (or more) of the corvettes. Putting them in play earlier guarantees they can jump out if threatened. (The intrasystem gate also has a bit of an impact on navigational solutions).

As a general rule, it's easy to look back on a situation, knowing the outcome, and say 'oh, this could have been differently/was done wrong'. But in the actual course of battle, you're down in the fog of war, and whether you're invading Iraq or fighting a space war in the distant future, the only rule is that the retrospectively optimal strategy is rarely apparent in the moment.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Scotty on March 25, 2011, 01:26:11 pm
I expect Hyperions to be quickly superseeded by the Cretheus in its intended gunboat and warship escort role.
How the hell you know about Cretheus?

I want it.  Badly.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 25, 2011, 03:29:57 pm
I have no idea what the hell it is.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 03:32:48 pm
I have no idea what the hell it is.
Cretheus (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTC_Cretheus) by Axem.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 25, 2011, 03:35:26 pm
Oh that Cretheus, must've forgotten about it in VD.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 25, 2011, 04:01:51 pm
No beam cannons or TerPulse weapons?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 25, 2011, 04:02:51 pm
It has pulse weapons in BP. Probably won't have any antifighter beams, as it's smaller than a cruiser.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 25, 2011, 04:03:51 pm
Oh, so it is more like a Terran Satis then.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 25, 2011, 04:20:55 pm
Except in its default setup having eight Standard Flak rips the almighty **** out of Strike Craft.
For the most part you can laugh at a Satis until your shields are whittled away.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 04:53:56 pm
8 STerPulses will be a massacre as well. Hell, the thing would probably be pretty good at taking on Sancti in groups in a pinch.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 25, 2011, 04:56:23 pm
Gattler from long range.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 04:58:46 pm
Gattler from long range.

Yeah, I personally think that everything that's wrong with cruisers is wrong with these things, but who knows, they may surprise us.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 25, 2011, 05:01:02 pm
Actually I think the Cretheus has potential to be quite beast - if they are deployed with other ships. The Aeolus is pretty scary as it is, these seem to take the idea of a compact PD gunboat even further.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 05:04:47 pm
Well, the Hyperion and Aeolus are both fairly good with point defenses,  the difference is, they have enough hitpoints to actually typically make a jump before they're destroyed. The trouble I see with the Creth is that it's so small that a Uhlan armed with Gats and Hellfires is likely to be able to destroy the thing without even disabling it.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 25, 2011, 05:07:54 pm
Gattler from long range.

Which the Shivans don't have, possibly the single reason why cruisers are still flying.

IIRC from VD the Cretheus is specifically an escort gunboat albeit one that needs escorting itself. In fluff language I'd say it's an economical stand-in for two or three fighter wings.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Snail on March 25, 2011, 05:18:03 pm
Well, the Hyperion and Aeolus are both fairly good with point defenses,  the difference is, they have enough hitpoints to actually typically make a jump before they're destroyed. The trouble I see with the Creth is that it's so small that a Uhlan armed with Gats and Hellfires is likely to be able to destroy the thing without even disabling it.
Well that's kind of the point. Time and resources spent killing Cretheuses probably isn't worth it, since it allows other more crucial ships (convoys, corvettes, destroyers) to escape or survive long enough for help to come.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 25, 2011, 05:31:58 pm
Gattler from long range.

Which the Shivans don't have, possibly the single reason why cruisers are still flying.

But they have Basilisks galore and the Shivan Hornet.
And a wing of those letting salvo after salvo loose will put even an Aeolus at half full before they're destroyed.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Mars on March 25, 2011, 05:42:52 pm
Just realized that you can destroy the vessels in Collateral Damage. Bring the GTVA potential losses up to 13 corvettes, 11 cruisers. Lists updated.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 25, 2011, 06:17:12 pm
Gattler from long range.

Which the Shivans don't have, possibly the single reason why cruisers are still flying.

But they have Basilisks galore and the Shivan Hornet.
And a wing of those letting salvo after salvo loose will put even an Aeolus at half full before they're destroyed.

Vey true, but at least the Cretheus would be able to retaliate in that scenario, if only briefly. :)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 25, 2011, 06:18:40 pm
Of course capships would have slightly more of a chance in those scenarios if they had countermeasures  :nervous:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: crizza on March 25, 2011, 06:30:08 pm
Question: I've seen a stiletto being intercepted by flak fire...why isn't this possible with Trebs and other stuff, are they too fast?
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 25, 2011, 06:31:40 pm
Stiletto has the 'bomb' flag and thus can be destroyed, Trebuchets don't and are thus invincible.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: headdie on March 25, 2011, 06:36:06 pm
Question: I've seen a stiletto being intercepted by flak fire...why isn't this possible with Trebs and other stuff, are they too fast?

Stiletto has the bomb flag in the weapons.tbl, meaning you and fighters can also target and intercept them. all non anti-capship/subsystem missiles don't.

edit

bah beaten to it
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 25, 2011, 11:06:50 pm
Yeah, I always facepalmed when my Stilettos were intercepted by the NTD Vindicator's Terran Turrets.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 26, 2011, 04:24:08 am
Cretheus would have most of the same disavantages than standard cruisers, yes. But they would be also overall cheaper, require MUCH less crew, would probably have a better subspace mobility (AFAIK, at least in BP, smaller = better subspace mobility, sprint jump drives aside) and also present a much smaller and faster target for enemy capital ships. Which basically compensates for the lack of anti-capital ship weapons (noone will regret the SGreens) and overall vulnerability to enemy fire.

Like fighters and bombers, and contrary to corvettes, those things are expendable. Better have a small ship (or even a handful of them) with small cost and small crew (probably numbering in a few hundreds at most) to sacrifice than a fully-armed cruiser with several thousands on board.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 26, 2011, 04:43:37 am
The funny thing about beams is that target's size and speed doesn't really matter. As long as game decides that this beam hits its target, it will hit no matter how small and how fast the target is. Which essentially means that Cretheus or any other small(ish) ship targetable by huge beams is going down as easily as any other cruiser. Even easier if they have less hitpoints, which they are bound to have.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 26, 2011, 05:46:58 am
Well...the UEF doesn't deploy beams. Against a projectile moving at 1000m/s, I dodge Lucifer Shivan Super Lasers with a huge freaking Deimos from 8.3k away head-on (can't dodge crap with broadsides), but eventually I blew up when I closed the distance. Shunted all power on my ETS to engines though, I didn't have any guns to shoot with.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 26, 2011, 05:50:19 am
Irrelevant. If they can't hit you with their main guns, that's what the Apocalypse is for. If they can't hit you with the Apocalypse, that's what the Hydra is for.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Commander Zane on March 26, 2011, 05:55:14 am
What if the Hydra doesn't work? :nervous:
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 26, 2011, 06:01:11 am
That's what jump drives are for.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Destiny on March 26, 2011, 06:08:12 am
Hahaha, that was a golden response.

Still, I believe they wouldn't have to resort to jump drives, since all the Flak and PDWs can...batter it to death like how the Aeolus kills warships with flak.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: The E on March 26, 2011, 06:16:54 am
If you are facing a target that you can't hit with your main weapons systems, then it is either time to jump out or start screaming for fighter cover.

Also, evading Hydras is really, really hard.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 26, 2011, 06:45:28 am
The funny thing about beams is that target's size and speed doesn't really matter. As long as game decides that this beam hits its target, it will hit no matter how small and how fast the target is.
Hit ? Yes. But once it's firing, the beam doesn't move anymore. If your target is fast enough, it can get out of the trajectory before receiving all the damage.

Also, that's for direct-fire beams. A small target will receive a ****ton less of damage from a slashing beam than a big target.

Then again, the UEF doesn't use beams, so this is barely relevant.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Fury on March 26, 2011, 06:58:49 am
Ships that are fast enough and small enough to evade beam's trajectory once it is firing during the beam's very short lifetime also have much less hitpoints. The end result is more often than not, smaller ship still dying faster than bigger one with more hitpoints.

Slashers work by getting two random points in ship's bounding box (I think), so regardless of target's size, the slasher will hit just as well. The only thing that matters here is target's speed, but slashers are unpredictable enough to negate this advantage. As a slasher sweeps in random direction, speed and heading of target might save it from brunt of the beam's impact or it might get hit even more than it would have if it had stayed still or gone the other direction.

I've never tested it, but I'd imagine sum of multiple test scenarios would result in averages where nothing but hitpoints would change survivability against beams. If test scenarios prove that wrong, that's fine, I stand corrected.

While UEF doesn't have beams, Shivans do. And I don't think Tevs would design and commission sufficient number of ships to combat UEF only. And don't forget that it was said that UEF has a ship of their own of same class. Last time I checked, Tevs had beams too.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 26, 2011, 07:16:14 am
That's true. Still, the "let's do smaller, cheaper ships with less crew so since cruiser die so easily, we will lose less crew and monee" logic stands.

And speed can be an asset in other situations than beam avoiding. Moving to the attacked flank of a formation to cover it, for example.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 26, 2011, 07:50:29 am
That's true. Still, the "let's do smaller, cheaper ships with less crew so since cruiser die so easily, we will lose less crew and monee" logic stands.

Only to a point. If you misjudge the correct point at which your savings in size/cost/crew are outweighed by the fact that this ship is even less durable than a cruiser (and also smaller, so it probably can't support a cruiser's weapons suite), then you could easily end up with a ship that dies so easily any savings are illusory.

Let us remember that the only threats to craft transport-sized and up are not those of beams, but torpedos, bombs, heavy guns, and assault fighter/gunship attack. Most things smaller than a cruiser fold very rapidly in the face of a serious attack from any one of these.

EDIT: We're basically building the Littoral Combat Ship here. The LCS needs the protection of larger ships against any form of serious attack. I'm not sure there's a reasonable argument to be made that going smaller than a cruiser hullsize is a good idea without introducing some form of new technology to the equation that isn't present on existing cruisers.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Darius on March 26, 2011, 08:00:50 am
Like cruiser shields (except that freighters and transports would most likely be shielded as well).
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 26, 2011, 08:22:08 am
That's true. Still, the "let's do smaller, cheaper ships with less crew so since cruiser die so easily, we will lose less crew and monee" logic stands.

Stinks of PVF Anubis.

And is that a hint Darius?  :)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Darius on March 26, 2011, 08:27:07 am
Nope. Nothing I say is indicative that anything is going to happen to anything.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Qent on March 26, 2011, 08:48:10 am
I am skeptical of light cruisers too.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: General Battuta on March 26, 2011, 09:03:36 am
Light cruisers are quite excellent if employed properly, in situations where they belong. Heavy beams are obviously a big issue for them, but creating tactical dependencies between ship classes is always a good thing.
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: Qent on March 26, 2011, 09:24:13 am
What if they encounter fighters with long-range missiles or Warhammers?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 26, 2011, 09:35:15 am
Depending on what's running them (AI or player), either pray they have a good screen and enough hit points, or pump flares and evade!
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 26, 2011, 09:40:28 am
Depending on what's running them (AI or player), either pray they have a good screen and enough hit points, or pump flares and evade!
Actually it'll be rather cool to see capital ships firing bursts of flares/chaff...(or cluster EMP missiles that targets bombs)
Title: Re: Warship inflation
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 26, 2011, 09:42:47 am
Light cruisers are quite excellent if employed properly, in situations where they belong. Heavy beams are obviously a big issue for them, but creating tactical dependencies between ship classes is always a good thing.

The problem with this is the assumption that killed the Hecate as a useful destroyer: you can engineer the situation to your advantage before contact. FS generally does not allow this because of the nature of subspace travel.

In fact the whole concept of the light cruiser is eerily similar in execution to the way the Hecate turned out in the first place; dismissal of the threat of heavily armed attack and belief in a need for improved capabilities in dealing with fightercraft. (On this it stacks a greater degree of fragility than existing ships that are already judged too fragile.) I really don't think people are going to need to learn this lesson twice in so short a time period, particularly not when their current doctrine goes out of its way to incorporate it.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 26, 2011, 09:54:29 am
Depending on what's running them (AI or player), either pray they have a good screen and enough hit points, or pump flares and evade!
Actually it'll be rather cool to see capital ships firing bursts of flares/chaff...(or cluster EMP missiles that targets bombs)

We can do that.

Light cruisers are quite excellent if employed properly, in situations where they belong. Heavy beams are obviously a big issue for them, but creating tactical dependencies between ship classes is always a good thing.

The problem with this is the assumption that killed the Hecate as a useful destroyer: you can engineer the situation to your advantage before contact. FS generally does not allow this because of the nature of subspace travel.

In fact the whole concept of the light cruiser is eerily similar in execution to the way the Hecate turned out in the first place; dismissal of the threat of heavily armed attack and belief in a need for improved capabilities in dealing with fightercraft. (On this it stacks a greater degree of fragility than existing ships that are already judged too fragile.) I really don't think people are going to need to learn this lesson twice in so short a time period, particularly not when their current doctrine goes out of its way to incorporate it.

The Cretheus and Custos are both used in very specific situations - as fire support and tactical anchors for fighter units in environments where light cruisers are basically the biggest things around. Think of them like river boats in Vietnam.

When it comes down to the heavy hitting, both those units have another role. The Cretheus serves as basically a flak screen generator, a role we know the GTVA could use - think of the Aeoluses in Clash of the Titans II. Park it next to a bigger unit or a convoy, and it'll swat down a good number of incoming bombs and make life difficult for fighters.

The Custos (the UEF counterpart) can, in a pinch, serve as a knife-range torpedo attacker, literally running circles around a target. It'll get ripped up by beams in short order, but it has good ECM which can prolong its survivability.

One of the tenets of BP tactical doctrine, on both sides, is that ships much smaller than a corvette (or Sanctus) have no place in main battle. But the light cruisers here work well in the missions they're deployed on, which are not always so conventional.

Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 26, 2011, 10:04:11 am
The problem with this is the assumption that killed the Hecate as a useful destroyer
Sure, aside from the fact that desties are not expendable. Gunboats are. You can loose a couple of them in bad situations and have all the others perform well in the situations they were designed for. Also, better subspace agility means it's much easier to escape those bad situations unharmed if you're a tiny gunboat than when you're a huge Hecate.

And aside from those specific tactical situations Battuta talked about, gunboats are not gonna be the primary target of the enemy forces, only a minor annoyance that gets the job done without having a large strategic value. They will have a better survivability because they're low priority targets.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 26, 2011, 10:05:54 am
They are lower priority targets, but NGTM1R is right to worry a bit because they can also be killed with lower priority weapons - a bunch of Hornets from an assault wing can already give a cruiser trouble (ironically, probably more so than bombs).

So they've got to be tough enough to do their jobs and able to scoot when in trouble.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 26, 2011, 12:00:19 pm
This Cretheos sounds iffy to me, at least as deployed in the Sol Theater. Like has been stated, its far too easy for an intelligent enemy to engineer the battle to his advantage once you've committed, and a vessel like the Cretheos seems like it would simply be torn apart by the UEF armory.

However, it makes quite a bit of sense to deploy it against the Shivans, who seem to favor wasteful fighter swarms, and who also tend to shoot at the largest thing around, giving a light cruiser a greater chance to survive any engagement. I would even go so far as to deploy it in main engagements alongside Destroyer groups. So its a logical, and sound, assuming the pulses work (which they will) to develop a craft like this to fight the Shivans. But in the Sol theater? This thing doesn't have a chance.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 26, 2011, 01:42:37 pm
I could foresee the AWACSes vectoring them into the midst of enemy fighter and bomber swarms to rip the hell out of them. Like...a wing of Uriels sitting 3km away from a ship, sniping it...and BAM, FLAK KABOOM! Nah, I'm just dreaming. No way it'll work.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 26, 2011, 01:52:08 pm
I could foresee the AWACSes vectoring them into the midst of enemy fighter and bomber swarms to rip the hell out of them. Like...a wing of Uriels sitting 3km away from a ship, sniping it...and BAM, FLAK KABOOM! Nah, I'm just dreaming. No way it'll work.

Chances are it would be detected before it could gain any meaningful element of surprise. It might work the first time the ship is deployed, and therefore kill a few fighters, but after that, anytime the UEF detects a cruiser sized target about to jump in suspiciously close to a fighter formation, they'll know whats up.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 26, 2011, 01:52:37 pm
This Cretheos sounds iffy to me, at least as deployed in the Sol Theater. Like has been stated, its far too easy for an intelligent enemy to engineer the battle to his advantage once you've committed, and a vessel like the Cretheos seems like it would simply be torn apart by the UEF armory.
The problem is, if what you say was that much a tactical concern for the GTVA, then they wouldn't have deployed cruisers at all, since they have the exact same weaknesses. You see, the GTVA needs light anti-fighter and close escort platforms, which is why the Aeolus and Hyperion are still in production at all. They don't have enough corvettes for that tactical niche, and they would be a waste of useful anti-cap power if committed in that role anyway.

The Cretheus is a better filler for that niche, simply because it doesn't try to be a corvette, and doesn't waste a quarter or so of its crew and internal space on useless SGreens or SBlues. They're light, they're cheap, they do the job, and they're not gonna be mourned.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 26, 2011, 02:04:00 pm
Maybe. Truthfully, I disagree with cruisers in general, and If i were the GTVA, I would shift production of advanced fighter craft into overdrive and drown the UEF in said fighters, which I feel would be cheaper and more cost effective in the long run, given the nature of combat in FS, and in WiH especially.

But, I am not the GTVA, I'm just a dude who plays the game. And besides, the Cretheus would have an important role in combat with the Shivans. Every cruiser besides the Aeolus has been a failure in that regard, though I'm still not sure what to think of the Hyperion. It will be interesting the current GTVA fights a total war with the Shivans, assuming that scenario does end up coming to pass.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Dragon on March 26, 2011, 02:06:17 pm
Slammers tend to make mincemeat of large groups of fighters and Karunas are really effective against them, so swarming UEF with strikecraft may not work.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 26, 2011, 02:13:02 pm
Yes, but we've only seen those employed against on older generation strikecraft. I'm curious to see how well the newer ships like the Atalanta and Nyx would perform in large formations.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Snail on March 26, 2011, 02:17:27 pm
Yes, but we've only seen those employed against on older generation strikecraft. I'm curious to see how well the newer ships like the Atalanta and Nyx would perform in large formations.
Probably just as badly, Slammerspawn are basically impossible to evade. I've seen them make virtual 90 degree turns.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on March 26, 2011, 02:28:17 pm
A Slammer strike will always be highly effective against formations, especially with a human firing them, and triggering them for maximum effect.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Scotty on March 26, 2011, 03:10:03 pm
I'd be willing to bet that Slammers are significantly less effective against something like the Cretheus than against an equivalent (tactically) amount of fighters/bombers.  That, and used right, this thing could very well be instant fighter death in any scenario where it acheives surprise.  Even if it doesn't kill fighters, I'd be more than willing to bet that either A) fighters/bombers will gun for it simply to avoid horrendous losses when they DO go for capships, or B) fighters/bombers will get shredded by it if they ignore it.  Either way, it's a win/win for the formation using it.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 26, 2011, 03:16:06 pm
A pair of Chimeras and some Cretheus escort would be a terrifying opponent for fighter formations.  If Serkr Team had some special Cretheus with maybe a AAA beam or two added to the group, taking them down would be far harder than it already is.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Snail on March 26, 2011, 03:19:29 pm
A pair of Chimeras and some Cretheus escort would be a terrifying opponent for fighter formations.  If Serkr Team had some special Cretheus with maybe a AAA beam or two added to the group, taking them down would be far harder than it already is.
Chimeras already have a veritable beam phalanx. Cretheuses would probably be better deployed in support of Deimoses...
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 26, 2011, 05:04:07 pm
And besides, the Cretheus would have an important role in combat with the Shivans. Every cruiser besides the Aeolus has been a failure in that regard, though I'm still not sure what to think of the Hyperion. It will be interesting the current GTVA fights a total war with the Shivans, assuming that scenario does end up coming to pass.
The problem with the Hyperion is that it's a glorified Aeolus. It improves on all of its advantages but barely compensate for most of its weaknesses. The cruiser class is a relic from the Great War and is an awkward attempt to compensate between the anti-warship role, with a more than insufficient anti-capital weaponry, and light escort role with anti-fighter coverage but too vulnerable and requiring too many crew to be worth the unavoidable losses.

The Cretheus is an attempt from the GTVA to go away from this unsatisfactory compromise with a class fully dedicated to light escort duty with minimal crew, in order to optimise the efficiency of this required role while minimizing the unavoidable losses. Whether this attempt is successful or not, and against the Shivans or the UEF, is yet to be determined, and we don't know enough on the stats, armament, crew and cost of the Cretheus to make a faithful estimate.

One of the main issue with the current GTVA doctrine is that they need either a warship of at least Deimos class or waves of bombers to deal with the anti-capital role. Deimoses are good and cheap, but old and still not numerous enough for the GTVA to hold a sufficient pressure on the UEF, and bombers are just dead meat for the UEF. They would need a new, cheap heavy hitter to replace or complete the Deimos in the role cruisers can't handle, and that newer front-line corvettes are too few and expensive to take over.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Snail on March 26, 2011, 06:29:28 pm
Actually the Hyperion is worse in basically every way (that matters) to the Aeolus. Nowadays cruisers aren't even meant to be in the anti-capital role, so the Hyperion being better in that respect is basically irrelevant.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 26, 2011, 09:46:30 pm
The Cretheus is a better filler for that niche, simply because it doesn't try to be a corvette, and doesn't waste a quarter or so of its crew and internal space on useless SGreens or SBlues. They're light, they're cheap, they do the job, and they're not gonna be mourned.

Which leads up to a point I've been wondering.

Why lighten the hull? Why not simply strip out the heavy weapons from an existing design and replace with more anti-fightercraft? We know that cruiser-sized ships are vulnerable to enemy attack with heavy weapons or assault fighter swarms, but they will generally last long enough to make it through a salvo and flee the field. Smaller hulls might not.

The PBR analogy Batts uses is a good one, but it misses the key point that the guys on the boats were top dog in their environment because it was too inaccessible to anybody who wasn't on a boat to drag heavy weapons. Accessibility is the major shaping factor in subspace-era tactics.

They could have a role as ablative flak shielding while in direct company of a heavily gunned ship like a Raynor or a Deimos, one that has good coverage from its heavy guns. But the war with the UEF is ultimately a sideshow and the GTVA can't afford to play attritional combat with the Shivans. 100-to-1 odds; anything less counts as a win for the Shivans.

So what will they do? Mothball the Cretheus after the war? Maybe the Cretheus is a stopgap design converted from some other use while they retool the Hyperion/Aeolus lines?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 26, 2011, 09:49:58 pm
Cruisers aren't nimble enough. I've never really flown the Cretheus, but the Custos has the agility to dodge bombs while using its countermeasures, and something like an Aeolus doesn't.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 26, 2011, 10:25:01 pm
The trouble is, there's no need for bombs. It sounds like the Terran equivalents of that Vishnan ship . . .
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Scotty on March 26, 2011, 10:59:35 pm
Countermeasures means it can dodge missiles too. :P
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 26, 2011, 11:05:22 pm
It's things like Maxims, Gattlers, Archers, and Redeemers that make cruisers vulnerable. Now if ships start flying with anti-projectile armor (as has been mentioned) I guess it'd make more sense.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Black Wolf on March 26, 2011, 11:11:28 pm
They could have a role as ablative flak shielding while in direct company of a heavily gunned ship like a Raynor or a Deimos, one that has good coverage from its heavy guns. But the war with the UEF is ultimately a sideshow and the GTVA can't afford to play attritional combat with the Shivans. 100-to-1 odds; anything less counts as a win for the Shivans.

So what will they do? Mothball the Cretheus after the war? Maybe the Cretheus is a stopgap design converted from some other use while they retool the Hyperion/Aeolus lines?

Don't forget, the Shivans are unlikely to get rid of their cruisers any time soon. I can't speak for the Cretheus, but we have a similar light ship in TI (The Harpy (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Harpy/HarpyWIP6.jpg)) which is euipped with anti fighter weaponry only (3AAAfs, 2 flak, 2 Prom-S), lightly armoured, quick etc. etc. What they do well is engage cruisers in groups of three or more - they move fast enough that even a locked on beam can't track them for very long before they move out of the line of fire, and the hulls are so small that slashers tend to pass across them too fast to do any devastating damage. Against something like a Lilith, the key role is keeping the thing off balance, so it can't focus that damned LRed on your major capital ship, while your fighters are trying to defang it.

Another area small ships are valuable would be dealing with civvies -  things like customs fleets, policing, etc. - anywhere where you need enough force to stop someone from just ignoring you, but don't need the ability to wipe out Shivan capital ships. In BP, where cruisers are being phased out, and replaced with (presumably) lower numbers of larger ships, something small, light and above all cheap (both to manufacture and run) to fill these non-direct combat roles would be essential. If they then find some very specific uses in major ship to ship combat, so much the better.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 27, 2011, 12:07:24 am
Don't forget, the Shivans are unlikely to get rid of their cruisers any time soon. I can't speak for the Cretheus, but we have a similar light ship in TI (The Harpy (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Harpy/HarpyWIP6.jpg)) which is euipped with anti fighter weaponry only (3AAAfs, 2 flak, 2 Prom-S), lightly armoured, quick etc. etc. What they do well is engage cruisers in groups of three or more - they move fast enough that even a locked on beam can't track them for very long before they move out of the line of fire, and the hulls are so small that slashers tend to pass across them too fast to do any devastating damage. Against something like a Lilith, the key role is keeping the thing off balance, so it can't focus that damned LRed on your major capital ship, while your fighters are trying to defang it.

The discussion of civilian-herding applications is valid, but you're missing my point about the Cretheus against Shivans; the Shivans can afford to straight up lose three cruisers for each individual light cruiser and they'll still come out ahead in terms of attrition.

You have to construct a quality-vs.-quantity paradigm to fight the Shivans, in an environment where you must accept that overwhelming force can be brought to bear on you at any moment. The ability to survive a single salvo of heavy weapons and escape is absolutely critical to the usefulness of any platform that will be committed in wartime.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 12:09:37 am
I can't think of a single ship that meets those standards.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 27, 2011, 12:24:44 am
I can't think of a single ship that meets those standards.

Most corvettes can sustain an LRed or two and run away. :P

More generally, most cruisers can take a Cyclops salvo and run away still fairly intact.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 27, 2011, 12:25:51 am
The GTVA-

...nothing, nothing. What the Shivans have is numbers. If you could churn out enough AWACSes for every ship squadron to use, I could potentially see Shivan beams missing. But on the other hand when that fragile AWACS goes kaboom...they should just rip the rotating domes off and stick them on Hecates or Raynors something already. I'm willing to bet if the rotating dome was placed correctly the Raynor'll get more points in looking cool.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 12:28:50 am
I can't think of a single ship that meets those standards.

Most corvettes can sustain an LRed or two and run away. :P

More generally, most cruisers can take a Cyclops salvo and run away still fairly intact.

And all the ships in contention can survive a few volleys of primary/secondary fire and run away.

If they get to work in the niche they're good in, they'll do well. If a bigger, badder ship turns up, there are things they can do about it. If those things don't work, they'll die. That's true of any design.

These ships would do a good job fighting Shivans in scenarios we've seen in the FreeSpace games. That's what makes them useful.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 27, 2011, 12:30:40 am
I can't think of a single scenario we've seen with the UEF where a light cruiser / warship would do well.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 27, 2011, 12:35:49 am
These ships would do a good job fighting Shivans in scenarios we've seen in the FreeSpace games. That's what makes them useful.

The problem is that you've created a class which will be hunted by the things that hunt cruisers, i.e. Shivan cruisers/corvettes and mobs of assault fighters, but which are less protected against those things, and you already admit that cruisers are not protected enough.

The bald assertion that they will do a good job does not make it true.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 12:44:00 am
Quote
The problem is that you've created a class which will be hunted by the things that hunt cruisers, i.e. Shivan cruisers/corvettes and mobs of assault fighters, but which are less protected against those things, and you already admit that cruisers are not protected enough.

Cruisers can't physically evade assault fighters (and Hornet volleys) using flares and their drives, these little guys can.

The Custos uses rolling ECM for defense against beams when it's doing its torpedo-boat thing. The Custos and Cretheus alike would certainly be good targets for cruisers, but that's a good thing; everything should have interesting vulnerabilities to make for interesting gameplay.

They're not really meant for main combat on their own anyway, at least without traveling in packs. They're intended either for special situations where they're the biggest thing on the field, or to work with larger forces where they're either being ignored (and thus able to do their jobs) or drawing fire (and thus still doing their jobs). They also do well in numbers.

Quote
The bald assertion that they will do a good job does not make it true.

What a strange thing to say. It's as if we'd never any designed any missions with these ships, and thus we have to make bald assertions about how they perform, instead of informed statements based on our experience with them.

I'm going to agree with Axem that this whole discussion feels slightly silly. It's an argument based on nothing - nobody here except the developers have actually played with these ships, seen how they perform in the scenarios they're intended for, or tried to kill them.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 27, 2011, 12:54:11 am
Some speculation is good, still...I believe so, anyway. Until the GTVA starts fielding ships with triple-barreled Long Range Flak turrets...reminds me, why HAVEN'T they?



Also...I kinda forgot the Hecate and Raynor were just simply massive and the domes (http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/TSADestiny/Et%20cetera/Raynor.jpg) are barely visible (http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/TSADestiny/Et%20cetera/Hecate.jpg).
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: NGTM-1R on March 27, 2011, 02:23:31 am
Cruisers can't physically evade assault fighters (and Hornet volleys) using flares and their drives, these little guys can.

So they're more sprightly than Posideons or Elysiums, but roughly the same size and much more heavily armed. (Because I've tried a couple times, and the Posideon struggles pretty hard.) That...sounds a little suspicious.

What a strange thing to say. It's as if we'd never any designed any missions with these ships, and thus we have to make bald assertions about how they perform, instead of informed statements based on our experience with them.

You also are personally invested in being correct on this, and have possibly designed the missions and the specs in such a way that they don't logically progress from existing frames of reference. It's quite possible that intentionally or unintentionally you've provided them plot armor, from where we're sitting.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 27, 2011, 02:23:59 am
Actually, I have a question thats been bugging me for a while. With WiH we've seen a much greater emphasis on e-war, with the greatest expression of this being the ability to jam the firing solutions of GTVA beam weapons (but only those for whatever reason.) Now, the GTVA has been using e-war assets for quite a while, and while it was never really touched on in stock FS, BP has done a good job of fleshing out the little details.

My question is this - do GTVA e-war assets have the capability of interfering with Shivan operations? I would assume no, for a variety of reasons, such as, you know, alien technology we barely understand and all that, but a lot of newer GTVA vessels rely on these capabilities to be able to engage favorably, which seems like a it would be a moot point against the Shivans.  Not that its a bad idea to have advanced electronics on larger ships, obviously, I'm just wondering if this tech will have any practical applications against the enemy the GTVA is devoting it's existence to being afraid of.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 27, 2011, 02:52:19 am
Well, Electronic Warfare as we know it is divided into three subcategories:  Electronic Attack, Electronic Support, and Electronic Protection.

EA is essentially the use of EM energy to cause harm to the enemy's ability to make war or do damage.  In Freespace, this comes in the form of the countermeasures you use against missiles, and in BP, the jamming of GTVA beam weapons and UEF torpedoes.  Terran and Vasudan communication frequencies are fairly easy to detect and exploit, but on the Shivan end, their equipment and technology is on a completely different level.  Maybe after the recovery of ETAK and additional research into Shivan technology, the GTVA will be able to analyze Shivan technology and find a way to attack their electronic systems and affect their weapons like the UEF and GTVA do with each other.

The GTVA has been using Electronic Support against its enemies for a long time; basically, ES involves intercepting communications and other signals emitted by enemy ships.  Tracking ships through subspace and intercepting enemy comms is the way the GTVA mostly uses ES.  They can already track Shivan vessels through subspace, from what we know, and can probably detect Shivan communications, though they probably have no idea what they mean.  Again, more research into ETAK might enhance this.

Electronic Protection is making allied units less vulnerable to enemy electronic warfare or countermeasures--such as improving missiles to make them less susceptible to countermeasures and controlling electronic emissions from allied ships (best manifested in stealth technology).  Improving EP for the GTVA would probably require a greater understanding of Shivan technology, but with stealth ships, they're already making some great strides.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 27, 2011, 03:10:31 am
Yeah, I was referring to exclusively Electronic Attack options, since the other stuff was already present in Stock FS in any mission a Charybdis was around in.

So, question still stands - Electronic Attacks on Shivan Assets, can this be done by the GTVA currently?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on March 27, 2011, 03:18:41 am
They would certainly like to know that, wouldn't they?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 27, 2011, 03:20:14 am
So, question still stands - Electronic Attacks on Shivan Assets, can this be done by the GTVA currently?
I think they're happy not having Shivans to test it on...
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 27, 2011, 03:38:12 am
I'm curious though...since the GTVA knows that their beam turrets can be knocked out so easily, why don't they...cover them? Like missile silos. We've done variable geometry, look at the Kent.

jam the firing solutions of GTVA beam weapons
Wait till they make a LRBGreen version of the Ter/VSlash, hahaha.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on March 27, 2011, 03:46:57 am
Because beam emitters, at least in BP canon, are really easy to replace. Also, note that the GTVA is rather aware of this problem, and is working on solutions for it.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 27, 2011, 05:04:08 am
I'm going to agree with Axem that this whole discussion feels slightly silly. It's an argument based on nothing - nobody here except the developers have actually played with these ships, seen how they perform in the scenarios they're intended for, or tried to kill them.
Don't ! This discussion, while irrelevant in the sense that we lack data to really know what the capabilities of those new ships will be, is still an excellent exercise for us to familiarize with the BP combat environment and tactics. Personally, the more I think on this, the better HWBP can potentially become.

So, question still stands - Electronic Attacks on Shivan Assets, can this be done by the GTVA currently?
AFAIK, beam targeting has nothing to do with communications. Given that the GTVA beam tech is reverse-engineered from the Shivan one, I expect the UEF beam jamming to work on Shivan tech. Now we don't know if the GTVA has this tech too, since a Tev AWACS has never been pitted against a beam-equipped opponent in BP.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on March 27, 2011, 05:09:44 am
The problem with the beam jamming is that the only reason the UEF can actually do that is because they had GTVA beam hardware to examine and a very long time to examine targeting emissions during combat. While the same is true of GTVA engineers and Shivan hardware, always keep in mind that the techroom strongly implies that the Shivans, for whatever reason, are fighting with one hand tied behind their back, and that the Shivans have a nasty habit of pulling more advanced tech out of their collective hats at the worst possible moment.
As always, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Until a GTVA task force that has an AWACS platform goes into combat against a Shivan force, there is no way to know for sure.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 27, 2011, 05:26:52 am
AFAIK, beam targeting has nothing to do with communications. Given that the GTVA beam tech is reverse-engineered from the Shivan one, I expect the UEF beam jamming to work on Shivan tech. Now we don't know if the GTVA has this tech too, since a Tev AWACS has never been pitted against a beam-equipped opponent in BP.
Beam targeting certainly doesn't involve external communication from the ship, no.

Doesn't mean the UEF can't launch an electronic attack on the GTVA targeting systems, launching periodic bursts of data to overload the networks. 
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 27, 2011, 05:38:53 am
How does the data overload an 'isolated' network? It's like being hacked by a hacker when your PC doesn't have any internet/network cables jacked in. I suppose the GTVA could just use a telescope or optical means to aim instead, but as it stands I think everyone's using radar which can be jammed, and missing beam shots.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 27, 2011, 06:27:01 am
Don't forget, the Shivans are unlikely to get rid of their cruisers any time soon. I can't speak for the Cretheus, but we have a similar light ship in TI (The Harpy (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Harpy/HarpyWIP6.jpg)) which is euipped with anti fighter weaponry only (3AAAfs, 2 flak, 2 Prom-S), lightly armoured, quick etc. etc. What they do well is engage cruisers in groups of three or more - they move fast enough that even a locked on beam can't track them for very long before they move out of the line of fire, and the hulls are so small that slashers tend to pass across them too fast to do any devastating damage.
I know this isn't the right thread to say this, but I like that design, but I think it would be more fitting as a pre-GTA ship. :)
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Qent on March 27, 2011, 07:02:59 am
What a strange thing to say. It's as if we'd never any designed any missions with these ships, and thus we have to make bald assertions about how they perform, instead of informed statements based on our experience with them.

You also are personally invested in being correct on this, and have possibly designed the missions and the specs in such a way that they don't logically progress from existing frames of reference. It's quite possible that intentionally or unintentionally you've provided them plot armor, from where we're sitting.
But... this cruiser can evade a wing of fighters. :shaking: That sounds like a ship full of win right there.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 27, 2011, 07:13:31 am
I can easily see it being fast and maneuverable-  strike craft style. At 112 meters, it's only about twice the size of an Ursa. . . but an Ursa has shields too.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Qent on March 27, 2011, 07:28:39 am
Yes but an Ursa has to worry about interceptors' primaries. A cruiser should only worry about the initial missile swarms before the Shivan attackers get destroyed.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 27, 2011, 09:02:15 am
Yes but an Ursa has to worry about interceptors' primaries. A cruiser should only worry about the initial missile swarms before the Shivan attackers get destroyed.
I don't know how you figure; a cruiser has to worry about primaries. I don't mean that in a bad way, but I simply don't follow.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 27, 2011, 09:04:22 am
Yeah like the Maxim strikes employed by Artemis wings.
How quick would any cruiser sans the Lilith last against that?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 27, 2011, 09:16:21 am
By itself ? Not long. But neither the UEF nor the GTVA ever send a cruiser without fighter escort. And WiH has shown that Artemises hate to be under enemy fire. Even if it takes some time to kill them, the fighter escort would disperse them long before they can do any meaningful damage.

And, again, you don't deploy a wing of bombers against a gunboat. They're for large and important targets.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 27, 2011, 09:21:23 am
They'll still get shots off, and they send more than just one wing in any mission they're used in.
While instead they're used for stripping the weapons off larger ships from what I remember, since Cruisers weren't used as often as say the original FreeSpace 2 campaign, they always close the distance enough to start striking the hull before going down. And a few seconds is enough for 16 streams of Maxim fire to start withering away that Cruiser's hull.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Qent on March 27, 2011, 09:38:48 am
Yes but an Ursa has to worry about interceptors' primaries. A cruiser should only worry about the initial missile swarms before the Shivan attackers get destroyed.
I don't know how you figure; a cruiser has to worry about primaries. I don't mean that in a bad way, but I simply don't follow.
Any interceptor that gets behind a Cretheus will find itself outranged and outgunned by its pulse cannons. Shivans don't do Maxim strikes and don't display much primary power in BP canon. Against the UEF, if I'm a Cretheus and force them to commit a wing of bombers or gunships, I'd jump out and call it a success.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 27, 2011, 10:09:14 am
They'll still get shots off, and they send more than just one wing in any mission they're used in.
While instead they're used for stripping the weapons off larger ships from what I remember, since Cruisers weren't used as often as say the original FreeSpace 2 campaign, they always close the distance enough to start striking the hull before going down. And a few seconds is enough for 16 streams of Maxim fire to start withering away that Cruiser's hull.
I already answered to that :
you don't deploy a wing of bombers against a gunboat. They're for large and important targets.
Much less 16 of em. And unless they have an AWACS to plot precision jumps, they'll jump far enough for the fighter cover to blow them space high.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Qent on March 27, 2011, 10:12:55 am
Not that it has any bearing on the discussion, but that's four bombers with quad Maxims. :P
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 27, 2011, 10:23:50 am
Meh. I considered a stream of Maxim implied a full bank already :p
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Scotty on March 27, 2011, 10:33:52 am
I can easily see it being fast and maneuverable-  strike craft style. At 112 meters, it's only about twice the size of an Ursa. . . but an Ursa has shields too.

I may be making an unfounded assumption, but doesn't the Cretheus have shields too?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: -Norbert- on March 27, 2011, 10:48:38 am
I also don't think those new light cruisers will be deployed alone either (with or without fighter escort). From their profiles I guess they are more likely to be deployed in groups of three or four or at the very least pairs.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 27, 2011, 10:50:49 am
Four Cretheus (What's the plural?) in a group... :shaking:
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 27, 2011, 10:53:28 am
I've been wondering, the massive turrets on the Hecate reminds me of the battleship guns we have. Is it a possibility to have those turrets fire some kind of anti-ship projectile that does several thousand damage per projectile (higher than TerPulse, lower than beams) and fires at a intermediate rate with a bit of range behind it, instead of those little flak? Would be pretty cool...but then again, the Hecate's still going to be forced to carrier role, even if it had those anti-ship guns.

I can easily see it being fast and maneuverable-  strike craft style. At 112 meters, it's only about twice the size of an Ursa. . . but an Ursa has shields too.

I may be making an unfounded assumption, but doesn't the Cretheus have shields too?
The wiki says HP - 7k
Shields - 0

If the Cretheus can get shields, then all ships should...why only shield fighters and bombers? Really odd stuff.

Cretheuses I guess?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 27, 2011, 10:59:16 am
Some, or most (Or was it all?) Transports and Freighters have a shield mesh, I think power requirements would play into why big ships don't use shields.
I think it would make sense if the Hecate multiparts were actually something that played the part of something being fired from a massive battery.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 27, 2011, 11:07:59 am
You can only shield fighters and bomber because, as far as I understand shielding technology, the energy requirement and size of the device increase exponentially with the size of the ship to shield.

But, like Mars said,
At 112 meters, it's only about twice the size of an Ursa...
Advances in Tev shield tech could enable a ship of this size to be equipped with a shield system. Doesn't mean that's what will happen in WiH2. BP crew are the ones choosing the stats.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 27, 2011, 11:13:23 am
As always, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Until a GTVA task force that has an AWACS platform goes into combat against a Shivan force, there is no way to know for sure.

Goddamn this thread moves fast. Thank you for your answer, E.

And it was directly stated during one of the Lucifer cut scenes that shielding anything Cruiser size and above was simply too difficult for too little gain, hence why the Lucifer's shields were such a big deal.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 27, 2011, 11:32:30 am
Hmm, I see...if a shielded Lucifer was impossible to destroy, I thought they'd learnt and try shielding their own capships and putting lotsa reactors on them...guess not, hah.


You're getting my point there, Commander Zane, heheh. I just FREDed a Hecate vs Hecate, both with all of their multiparts with the Narayana's Mass Drivers. Needless to say, it was...beautiful, although they died pretty quick until I put an extra zero behind their hitpoints to make the battle last longer. I'd use the Orion's turrets which has three guns, but...it's kinda small, whereas the Hecate's are huge and would be perfectly sensible for a anti-ship weapon.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 27, 2011, 11:45:23 am
How does the data overload an 'isolated' network? It's like being hacked by a hacker when your PC doesn't have any internet/network cables jacked in. I suppose the GTVA could just use a telescope or optical means to aim instead, but as it stands I think everyone's using radar which can be jammed, and missing beam shots.

In STR the Hades tries to aim it's beams manually against a little bitty Faustus. It doesn't succeed of course but it suggests it's at least possible. Not sure how canon it is either, no pun intended. :)

Hmm, I see...if a shielded Lucifer was impossible to destroy, I thought they'd learnt and try shielding their own capships and putting lotsa reactors on them...guess not, hah.

Fuel.  :P
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 11:51:03 am
What a strange thing to say. It's as if we'd never any designed any missions with these ships, and thus we have to make bald assertions about how they perform, instead of informed statements based on our experience with them.

You also are personally invested in being correct on this, and have possibly designed the missions and the specs in such a way that they don't logically progress from existing frames of reference. It's quite possible that intentionally or unintentionally you've provided them plot armor, from where we're sitting.

Abso-****ing-lutely. All that matters in the end is telling a good story which is fun to play. Anything and everything will be modified to meet that goal.

I will give you a spoiler:

Spoiler:
almost every ship in BP has some form of plot armor to make it perform better in its fluff role, from guardianed subsystems to changing armor types to custom HP; you could probably construct some kind of technobabbly justification for it, but why bother?

Our view is that a ship's effectiveness in the setting needs to be reflected by the gameplay. It's not Harpoon where the stats of the ship on paper are exact matches to the fluff. The stats, in combination with per-mission modification, exist to support the fluff. If the fluff asks for light cruisers which are meant to fill the gap left by the abandonment of the cruiser design while being deployed more intelligently - and absolutely, there is a space for those roles to be tried out - those cruisers will be made to work in that role.

Even if you want to argue that it's somehow inherently a failed concept from the get-go, well, it's quite possible there are people in the setting saying the same thing. Sometimes dumb ideas happen; Murphy's Law rules all systems, even design bureaus and fleet doctrine. Nothing should be flawless.

I've been wondering, the massive turrets on the Hecate reminds me of the battleship guns we have. Is it a possibility to have those turrets fire some kind of anti-ship projectile that does several thousand damage per projectile (higher than TerPulse, lower than beams) and fires at a intermediate rate with a bit of range behind it, instead of those little flak? Would be pretty cool...but then again, the Hecate's still going to be forced to carrier role, even if it had those anti-ship guns.

Pulse cannons already do more DPS than most light beams.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Axem on March 27, 2011, 11:54:08 am
FYI: The BP Cretheus has 20,000 HP. When I first made the Cretheus, I was looking at other ships to figure out what stats to give it. A Fenris has 10,000, so the Cretheus should have something smaller, right? Thus, 8000!

But stats change for a gameplay sense and since no one looks at a Fenris anymore, so it got rebalanced compared the Aeolus (38,000 HP).
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 12:01:06 pm
Technology marches on. IIRC the Carthage had more effective HP than the Colossus - BP ships in general have enormously more HP than they did in retail.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 27, 2011, 12:07:53 pm
Do you mean it has more HP for it's hull size compared to the Colossus?

Carthage = 200,000
Colossus = 1,000,000
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 12:09:22 pm
Do you mean it has more HP for it's hull size compared to the Colossus?

Carthage = 200,000
Colossus = 1,000,000

Nope. The Carthage has Armor 20. 5*200,000 = 1,000,000, so actually the same.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 27, 2011, 12:18:31 pm
Damn.

In other words 4 Karunas are a Colossus-killing force. After all that discussion about it tearing through Buntu lines as well.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 27, 2011, 12:20:19 pm
Nah, four Karunas won't be able to do anything to the Colossus. I'd explain why, but we're over it and I'm...happy we are.

How does the data overload an 'isolated' network? It's like being hacked by a hacker when your PC doesn't have any internet/network cables jacked in. I suppose the GTVA could just use a telescope or optical means to aim instead, but as it stands I think everyone's using radar which can be jammed, and missing beam shots.

In STR the Hades tries to aim it's beams manually against a little bitty Faustus. It doesn't succeed of course but it suggests it's at least possible. Not sure how canon it is either, no pun intended. :)

Hmm, I see...if a shielded Lucifer was impossible to destroy, I thought they'd learnt and try shielding their own capships and putting lotsa reactors on them...guess not, hah.

Fuel.  :P
Hahaha, the Hades...

On the topic of fuel...now that the GTVA's lost Capella and the mysterious nebula beyond Gamma Draconis, the lack of Argon gas is going to make stuff like the Prometheus S become R again...although the Balor solves that problem. Maybe if the GTVA goes to raid some ancient GTA scrapyard, they'll find the REAL Prometheus cannon...ha.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 27, 2011, 12:21:22 pm
The first Prometheus is pants compared to the Nu-Prometheus. :P
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 12:21:39 pm
Damn.

In other words 4 Karunas are a Colossus-killing force. After all that discussion about it tearing through Buntu lines as well.

You can bet your ass that if the Colossus turned up in BP its stats would be adjusted as well, though.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 27, 2011, 12:24:36 pm
Oh hai Sathanas, remember me?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Qent on March 27, 2011, 12:29:02 pm
There was an awesome BFBlue or something in Helios. :P

Now I'm curious about another old discussion though: when the Imperieuse jumps in, the Karunas can either go for its beams or throw everything at the Carthage. Many tests were run to see which was the better plan, and it turned out to be going for the beams, which needed an armor boost to ensure the Imperieuse's survival. But was this already with the Carthage's armor boost?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 12:32:51 pm
Yep. Those tests were run pretty late in mission development.

The odds of taking out the Carthage before the Imperieuse and Hydra (iirc) nailed all the frigates were basically zero.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 27, 2011, 12:34:59 pm
Oh hai Sathanas, remember me?
If you blew up the Carthage in the penultimate mission...



Well, didn't the Imperieuse jump in between the Wargods and the Carthage? Both plans would lead to hell.


...right, got ninja'd.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 27, 2011, 02:18:05 pm
Oh hai Sathanas, remember me?
If you blew up the Carthage in the penultimate mission...

Well, didn't the Imperieuse jump in between the Wargods and the Carthage? Both plans would lead to hell.


...right, got ninja'd.

The Imp actually jumps in a good 5,000 meters behind the Carthage, but the Wargods broke off fire at that point.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on March 27, 2011, 02:19:57 pm
When the Imp jumps in, the Carthage rotates "downward", i.e. heading toward Saturns' rings, while the Imp makes a beeline toward the Frigates.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 02:24:42 pm
A good move, too, as it forces the Wargods to either pursue the Carthage (turning their main guns off the Imperieuse) or face the Imperieuse (leaving the Carthage to run) and makes it hard for the frigates to use the Carthage as a physical shield.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 27, 2011, 03:12:50 pm
How come the Hood and Meridian aren't uparmoured? Oh and what are those weird orange boxes in FRED?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 03:20:17 pm
I think they do get some armor. Orange boxes are debris/asteroid fields.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 03:22:03 pm
Yep, Meridian has armor, and all her beam emitters and engines are armored up as well.

In a remarkable fit of consistency the Hood even gets the same armor.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 27, 2011, 03:50:05 pm
Is the Carthage the best protected Tev ship? (Armor + hitpoints?)
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 03:57:42 pm
I'm sure the fully jacked up Imperieuse and Atreus would outdo it.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: MatthTheGeek on March 27, 2011, 04:19:10 pm
Yup. The Carthage might be a Combat Evaluation destroyer and have some of the best crew of the GTVA, it's still a Great War-era design. There is only so much you can do with refits and upgrades against top-of-the-line high-tech fresh-off-factory designs.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: AtomicClucker on March 27, 2011, 05:42:19 pm
That and the Titan's and Raynor's have blue rape beams compared to the Carthage's FS2 green.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 27, 2011, 09:52:53 pm
I'm genuinely afraid of what the Atreus is going to look like once it gets all the Table buffs it will inevitably have when it become a centerpiece in a mission.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 27, 2011, 10:01:10 pm
The Raynor won't change on the table level as it will need to keep the same stats it had in AoA (in order to stay compatible with AoA). The buffs are done in FRED, but they are very extensive. We can control just about anything on the FRED level, from the ship's toughness, to its weapons, to the speed at which it turns and fires.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: PsychoLandlord on March 27, 2011, 10:02:47 pm
Really? Holy crap, FRED is more flexible than I thought. I should learn how to use it when I get back to my good comp.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Ravenholme on March 29, 2011, 06:53:37 pm
The Raynor won't change on the table level as it will need to keep the same stats it had in AoA (in order to stay compatible with AoA). The buffs are done in FRED, but they are very extensive. We can control just about anything on the FRED level, from the ship's toughness, to its weapons, to the speed at which it turns and fires.

Just table a second, identical Raynor and use it in WiH. AoA can use the original one.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 29, 2011, 07:06:21 pm
The Raynor won't change on the table level as it will need to keep the same stats it had in AoA (in order to stay compatible with AoA). The buffs are done in FRED, but they are very extensive. We can control just about anything on the FRED level, from the ship's toughness, to its weapons, to the speed at which it turns and fires.

Just table a second, identical Raynor and use it in WiH. AoA can use the original one.

We could totally do that, but it's not necessary, we can do just about everything we need to in FRED.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 29, 2011, 08:39:28 pm
Hey, I just realized that the E has some images which indicate subspace jump times for several UEF ships (8 minutes for a Sanctus, 12 minutes for the Narayana, and 14 minutes for the Solaris) I was curious how GTVA designs differed?

EDIT:

I know Titans are supposed to jump faster than Raynors, I'm guessing the Imp doesn't have the upgrades the Atreus does?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 29, 2011, 08:55:48 pm
I really don't want those numbers down until we absolutely have to pin them down in a mission.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 29, 2011, 08:58:04 pm
Ah, alright. I actually didn't think there were numbers down until I saw the posters.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on March 30, 2011, 03:56:50 am
Yeah, those numbers are made up on the spot. They're not set in stone.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 30, 2011, 06:21:29 am
I just noticed that several of the Deimos from Delenda Est have Heavy Armor 20 as well. How exactly does the armor system work? Heavy Armor 20 > Heavy Armor 100 - is it 20% damage transmission, and if so, what's the point of armor with 100% damage transmission?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Fury on March 30, 2011, 06:25:12 am
Armor 100 is default armor type, it doesn't only control damage but also weapon piercing effect triggering thresholds. Armor 20 would mean that damage caused would be only 20% for most damage types.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 30, 2011, 07:42:10 am
I just noticed that several of the Deimos from Delenda Est have Heavy Armor 20 as well. How exactly does the armor subsystem work? Heavy Armor 20 > Heavy Armor 100 - is it 20% damage transmission, and if so, what's the point of armor with 100% damage transmission?

I think the Heavy Armor 20 is on their engines, which would give their engines effectively 5x the usual toughness.

ED: there's some other majiggery with Heavy 20 at mission start but I think it gets repealed by the time of the broadside engagement (man, I love that broadside engagement, always seemed so cinematic and cool)
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Insomniac34 on March 30, 2011, 07:14:37 pm
Can the Raynor-class be loaded with Apocalypses instead of the much weaker Eos torpedoes? I tried it out in FRED and it seems to increase the versatility of the Raynor. Still can't touch a Solaris in 1 on 1 combat though.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on March 30, 2011, 07:31:49 pm
Umm, no. The Apocalypse is a UEF weapon, there is no good reason why the GTVa would start using them.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 30, 2011, 07:33:21 pm
Who knows what could be done with the kickass Supernova, though!
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: crizza on March 30, 2011, 07:42:10 pm
Just replace the fusion mortar on the Hatshepsut with Supernova...promises some nice explosions.

Another question...is the VasPulse more powerfull then the TerPulse?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 30, 2011, 10:48:51 pm
If the Raynor started firing anti-ship Trebs or long-range Helioses instead...although Supernovas are probably going to be more practical. The standard GTM Trebuchet, if you mount it on a Raynor, it can spew them out non-stop, and cannot be shot down. But it lacks the flags to let it damage big ships. If the Trebs are properly targeted at enemy fighters and bombers, or TAG-A'd for the Trebs...scary thought, ain't it?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Snail on March 31, 2011, 10:58:44 am
A missile phalanx destroyer would be cool. Maybe using one of the old HTL models, like the Typhon or something when the Vasudans get involved.


:nervous:
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 31, 2011, 11:03:21 am
A missile phalanx destroyer would be cool. Maybe using one of the old HTL models, like the Typhon or something when the Vasudans get involved.


:nervous:

did we discuss this at some point or did you come up with it on your own
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Insomniac34 on March 31, 2011, 11:06:24 am
FFFUUUUUUUU I meant to say Supernova, not Apocalypse! Let me rephrase my question: Can Raynors use Supernova missiles instead of the lame Eos's?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Snail on March 31, 2011, 11:09:01 am
did we discuss this at some point or did you come up with it on your own
May well have made it up, not really sure.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 12:05:39 pm
FFFUUUUUUUU I meant to say Supernova, not Apocalypse! Let me rephrase my question: Can Raynors use Supernova missiles instead of the lame Eos's?
I don't think the BP team wants the Raynor to have too much firepower, actually. Plus...it's not stated if Supernovas are SSM strike-capable, IIRC. I wonder if the Raynor regularly fires Eoses into subspace for storage when it's not shooting?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 31, 2011, 12:14:02 pm
FFFUUUUUUUU I meant to say Supernova, not Apocalypse! Let me rephrase my question: Can Raynors use Supernova missiles instead of the lame Eos's?
I don't think the BP team wants the Raynor to have too much firepower, actually. Plus...it's not stated if Supernovas are SSM strike-capable, IIRC. I wonder if the Raynor regularly fires Eoses into subspace for storage when it's not shooting?

Wah? You mean like using subspace as a cupboard? I don't think it works that way.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 31, 2011, 12:24:01 pm
The mysteries of Hammerspace solved!
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 01:03:33 pm
FFFUUUUUUUU I meant to say Supernova, not Apocalypse! Let me rephrase my question: Can Raynors use Supernova missiles instead of the lame Eos's?
I don't think the BP team wants the Raynor to have too much firepower, actually. Plus...it's not stated if Supernovas are SSM strike-capable, IIRC. I wonder if the Raynor regularly fires Eoses into subspace for storage when it's not shooting?

Wah? You mean like using subspace as a cupboard? I don't think it works that way.
I mean, it would look REALLY weird if you fired TAG-Cs at a ship while the Atreus was sitting 45 klicks away...not firing it's Eoses. And suddenly, wham, a buncha Eos torps hit that enemy ship.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on March 31, 2011, 01:07:36 pm
That would be tactical SSMs. There are two kinds of SSM strikes, tactical and strategic. Tactical strikes are launched from a ship in the same mission space as the target. Strategic SSMs are launched by vessels that are not present in the same mission as the player. The latter kind is the only one the GTVA has used to date.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on March 31, 2011, 01:09:18 pm
FFFUUUUUUUU I meant to say Supernova, not Apocalypse! Let me rephrase my question: Can Raynors use Supernova missiles instead of the lame Eos's?
I don't think the BP team wants the Raynor to have too much firepower, actually. Plus...it's not stated if Supernovas are SSM strike-capable, IIRC. I wonder if the Raynor regularly fires Eoses into subspace for storage when it's not shooting?

Wah? You mean like using subspace as a cupboard? I don't think it works that way.
I mean, it would look REALLY weird if you fired TAG-Cs at a ship while the Atreus was sitting 45 klicks away...not firing it's Eoses. And suddenly, wham, a buncha Eos torps hit that enemy ship.

Well from what we've seen it has to be set up in advance. Some form of AWACS needs to be on hand, presumably to get the subspace jump as accurate as it is then the TAG-C paints the target. I assume once it's painted then the Eos' are fired, enter subspace, then exit around the target. Presumably the firing ship has to be close for the missiles to show up as quickly as they do, going by the time delay from TAG hitting target and missiles showing up.

Is it possible to make said delay larger? To simulate the firing ship is a wee bit further away?

Ninja'ed.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: crizza on March 31, 2011, 01:23:37 pm
Second attempt: Is the VasPulse more powerfull then the TerPulse? Because it was stated, that vasudan technology is more advanced then that of the terrans...it should, shouldn't it?^^
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 31, 2011, 01:26:07 pm
Second attempt: Is the VasPulse more powerfull then the TerPulse? Because it was stated, that vasudan technology is more advanced then that of the terrans...it should, shouldn't it?^^

Actually the relative power won't necessarily mean much, since Vasudan ships usually mount different numbers. I'm looking it up now though

Quote from:  TerPulse
$Fire Wait:                  0.5
$Damage:                     175
$Damage Type:                NormalWeapon
$Armor Factor:                  1.3
$Shield Factor:                  1.0
$Subsystem Factor:               0.3
$Lifetime:                     2.4
$Velocity:                     1200.0
$FOF:                     0.75

Quote from:  VasPulse
$Fire Wait:                  0.35
$Damage:                     100
$Damage Type:                NormalWeapon
$Armor Factor:                  1.3
$Shield Factor:                  1.0
$Subsystem Factor:               0.3
$Lifetime:                     2.64
$Velocity:                     1200.0
$FOF:                         0.75
[/font]
TerPulse is more powerful in damage / second terms, so far.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 31, 2011, 01:42:17 pm
All Vasudan stuff will probably get tweaked when the next-gen Vasudan weapons suite gets worked up.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: crizza on March 31, 2011, 02:22:10 pm
Oh...when I freded my little missions, I thought the VasPulse was better...but in my opinion, it most certainly lokks better...crimson tears of destruction^^
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 04:45:04 pm
Looks are deceiving, you know. Even TerSlashes are better than SGreens.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Jellyfish on March 31, 2011, 05:09:23 pm
Unrelated questions:
The GTVA figured out torpedoes are the main weaponry of most large UEF capships.
Why haven't they deployed more AWACS in support of their capships, like they did with the Hood, to prevent those torpedoes from launching?
Why haven't they, in all those months of war, developed better PDS or APS?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 31, 2011, 05:16:10 pm
Unrelated questions:
The GTVA figured out torpedoes are the main weaponry of most large UEF capships.
Why haven't they deployed more AWACS in support of their capships, like they did with the Hood, to prevent those torpedoes from launching?
Why haven't they, in all those months of war, developed better PDS or APS?

They have, you'll see some.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 05:17:38 pm
Threat Exigency Initiative was developed after Capella blew up. Shivans do not use torpedoes. We've been fighting beam-armed ships for ages, and projectiles do not defend against beams.

The AWACS is probably FREDder.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on March 31, 2011, 06:11:27 pm
FRED is canon!
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 06:30:07 pm
So...if FRED makes a typo, it's canon too!






...but really, I hope FRED does not make a Raynor's missile launchers all fully armed with Rockeyes because I just experienced something really scary about heat-seeking missiles mounted on a capital ship.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 31, 2011, 06:32:50 pm
I find heat-seeking missiles to be outrageously useless.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: headdie on March 31, 2011, 06:33:31 pm
FRED is canon!

that is now in my sig
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 06:41:59 pm
I find heat-seeking missiles to be outrageously useless.
On a fighter, yes. You...should try FREDding it out yourself, point a Raynor with Rockeyes, Balls of Steele AI at something.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 31, 2011, 06:43:03 pm
I find heat-seeking missiles to be outrageously useless.

The Dart is a heat seeking missile.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 31, 2011, 06:44:27 pm
And I still prefer Dirks over them.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 31, 2011, 06:50:33 pm
I honestly don't know how.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 06:52:04 pm
I think it's a subconscious thing. The...reticle moving over to the target, hearing the beeps, and hearing the confirmation beep. Stuff like that. You get used to it. When there isn't any of them, something feels wrong; empty.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Liberator on March 31, 2011, 06:52:56 pm
There's a heat seeker in BP?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 06:54:10 pm
Yeah...they're a rare commodity in FS2 though. (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Dart)
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 31, 2011, 06:55:36 pm
I honestly don't know how.
Considering that from observing my own gametime I seem to miss nearly every missile in a salvo with Darts as opposed to Dirks, maybe that's why.
Not that it really matters since I've phased away from using any tracked missiles sans long-range missiles at any given time to use Tempests / Hellfires and just get my kills even quicker.
Getting 150+ kills higher over my usual total in the original FS2 campaign with Tempests seems to have sent me a message.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 31, 2011, 07:00:41 pm
In FS2 Tempests were usually best, but I think WiH did a good job of giving you missiles actually worth it to take. . .

Except for the Dirk, which is almost exactly like the Hornet.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Commander Zane on March 31, 2011, 07:04:18 pm
Except for the tighter trajectories and their tendacy to acutally hit the target, unlike Hornets.
And I'm usually holding Hellfires and Slammers when possible, or Grimlers if needed.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 31, 2011, 07:06:11 pm
Except for the tighter trajectories and their tendacy to acutally hit the target, unlike Hornets.
And I'm usually holding Hellfires and Slammers when possible, or Grimlers if needed.

It's actually less nimble than the Hornet IIRC, does more shield damage though.

And yeah, those are all crazy good. Hellfires aren't my thing, but they're good.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on March 31, 2011, 07:11:25 pm
Sadly there's no Vulcan-Hellfire combo like the GTVA does with the Subach-Tempest. Man, the Vulcan flies at 1000ms!

In FS2 Tempests were usually best
Speaking of the Tempest, I notice dumbfire missiles don't work with capital ships. Why is that so? If multipart turrets work and get to shoot lasers, dumbfire missiles shouldn't be that far, unless it's an engine limitation. Dang, was looking forward to seeing a massive Infyrno watching the Raynor spew out Infyrno missiles.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on March 31, 2011, 07:50:19 pm
They do - look at the Fusion mortar on Fenris and Leviathan cruisers.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Qent on March 31, 2011, 09:11:23 pm
I find heat-seeking missiles to be outrageously useless.

The Dart is a heat seeking missile.
But it also flies a lead pursuit.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: TacOne on April 01, 2011, 12:06:34 am
I think the Rockeye has jaded me against heat-seekers in general, but I did use the Dart a bit (not that I ever could tell it and the Dirk apart, names are so similar)
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on April 01, 2011, 12:25:11 am
They do - look at the Fusion mortar on Fenris and Leviathan cruisers.
Oh, so the Fusion Mortar is a special exception with the Fenris/Leviathan for multipart dumbfire missiles? I see.

What kind of assets do the GTVA guard the node with?




...damn it, a rainbow spawned in the textbox
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Qent on April 01, 2011, 12:29:36 am
They do - look at the Fusion mortar on Fenris and Leviathan cruisers.
Oh, so the Fusion Mortar is a special exception with the Fenris/Leviathan for multipart dumbfire missiles? I see.
As far as having it work, the Infyrno is the exception, actually. The turret AI uses spawning missiles differently unless you add the "smart spawn" flag.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on April 01, 2011, 08:28:21 am
They do - look at the Fusion mortar on Fenris and Leviathan cruisers.
Oh, so the Fusion Mortar is a special exception with the Fenris/Leviathan for multipart dumbfire missiles? I see.
As far as having it work, the Infyrno is the exception, actually. The turret AI uses spawning missiles differently unless you add the "smart spawn" flag.
Hmm I see. I tested it out, anything that got near the missile launchers were promptly blown up by a tempest of...Tempests. It was a pretty lightshow for bombers that tried to dodge via afterburners.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on April 01, 2011, 08:44:01 am
I find heat-seeking missiles to be outrageously useless.

Everywhere except multiplayer, a lot's to be said for a rain of rockeyes hurtling towards your opponent. Only works once as a shock tactic though, great fun all the same. :P I'm sure QD could talk at length about much smarter tactics with the same weapon.

Ugh, one of the ponies has it's backend to a unicorn and it's horn, looks really really wrong.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Qent on April 01, 2011, 09:34:59 am
Swarm Trebuchets are awesome. Not enough to protect a Hecate from bombers, though. :P
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Destiny on April 01, 2011, 11:18:41 am
Do missile launchers actually try to intercept bombs and torpedoes? Occasionally I find the missile launchers I arm with TAGs and EMP Adv.s fire at incoming Apocalypses, but they never hit and fly...somewhere else. Would be pretty cool to see a Raynor bringing up a screen of Tempests trying to down incoming torps, anti-missile missile systems.

But wow, putting Stiletto IIs on all the missile launchers of a Raynor is...damn.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on February 02, 2014, 02:49:51 pm
Solaris v. Erebus, 1v1, full air wings, no escorts, onboard active armor and ECM assets, no strategic context, no retreat, meeting engagement from 5 km. Who's got the most interesting scenario for how this plays out?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Lepanto on February 02, 2014, 03:50:43 pm
The Erebus would probably have the edge if it could get off multiple volleys from its forward beams at a distance, but the Solaris should still have the close-range edge with its turret-popping Gattlers and Apoc missile massacres.

The Solaris would be able to come out on top, I think, if it exploited the UEF's superior strikecraft and strikecraft-mounted weaponry. If the Erebus doesn't have the newfangled beam shutters, a wing of Uris from the Solaris should be able to easily knock out both of the Erebus's forward beam cannons with Archers and Paveways, from outside of the Tev fighter screen's instant-kill range, taking out a lot of the Tev destroyer's firepower in a few seconds of shooting. They'd get Trebbed or killed by interceptors, of course, but taking out the Erebus's strongest weapons should give the Solaris the edge it needs to win in a close-up brawl. If the Erebus does have beam shutters, it would make the UEF's task a lot harder, and maybe require heavier weapons, but UEF bombers or gunships should still be able to do it, especially because the Erebus would have to open its shutters to fire the beams. (I don't know exactly how beam shutters will work, so this is an educated guess.)

The Tevs, by contrast, would have a much harder time defanging the Solaris. The Solaris's firepower is more evenly-distributed among a lot of turrets and missile launchers, rather than being more centered around a few vulnerable beam cannons, so Ares pop-up Treb snipers would need a lot more long-range shots to cripple the Solaris's anti-capital battery than the UEF Uris and Durgas would need to take out the Erebus's beams.

The UEF has other important strikecraft advantages, too. Uris with Slammers would be able to slaughter Tev fighter and bomber formations, unless the Tevs used wider formations. Tev bombers, as we know, are unimpressive, especially when attacked by UEF interceptors. Their Maxims would give them a little extra hull damage, and might take out some turrets, but they wouldn't live long enough to get a lot of Maxim rounds off, if the UEF interceptor pilots are competent. Though I don't have a lot of experience with them, I think that a well-positioned attack group of UEF bombers would probably do more hull and subsystem damage to an Erebus than a similarly-sized Tev bomber raid would do to a Solaris. The Tevs do, admittedly, have Trebs; a mass pop-up Treb strike, timed to coincide with with a heavy fighter/bomber push, could really do some damage to UEF strikecraft. Still, the UEF's strikecraft edge should hold true, and that, if anything, should hand the UEF the victory.

From what I know, I'd think that the UEF's superior electronics should give them an ECM edge, though I don't know enough about BP electronic warfare to tell you exactly how that would affect the battle.

So, all in all, unless I'm really missing something, the Solaris looks like it has the better chance of winning.  :nervous:
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: rubixcube on February 02, 2014, 09:20:27 pm
There are a few things about the Erebus that we don't know yet, such as how the ship's combat capabilities have changed with the new hi poly model, as well as how tough the ship actually is compared to the Solaris.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on February 03, 2014, 01:44:49 am
I think a lot of it would have to do with the an Erebus alpha strike - if it could get it in, the Solaris would be in deep trouble. In the ensuing slug match, I suspect the Solaris would have some advantage.

Another aspect is fighter load - if the Erebus had TEI fighters only, it would have a much better chance. If it was packing Myrmidons. . . perhaps not so much. Either way, the Solaris holds more fighters, and a more bomber geared arsenal.

Also, if the Solaris crew remembered to bring Paveways, it's all over for the Erebus XD
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: EuclidianGeometry on February 03, 2014, 02:20:54 am
I think we can safely assume Paveways and such UEF special missiles will be standard issue aboard Solaris...

In which case i think it would be difficult, but not impossible for Erebus to win.
It would be in the Erebus' best interest to try to deplete the Solaris' strikecraft assets first and maximizing its non-beam arsenal.




Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Rheyah on February 03, 2014, 07:08:56 am
First main beam shot slams and disables the fighter bay.  Beam targetting switches to the engines, cripples the Solaris ability to withdraw.

Following this, Erebus withdraws to six kilometres and just bombards with pulse cannons set to point defense mode.

It's unfortunate that we've been playing on the UEF side, making the GTVA by necessity hold back a lot of their dirty tricks.  A great deal of the UEF's tactical advantage is in their fighters and their ability to overwhelm fighter screens.  In the absence of any supporting craft, the Solaris is one fire-beam on its fighter beams away from being completely gutted.  The Solaris doesn't have the sheer alpha strike firepower of even the old Raynor, nevermind the Erebus.

If we're talking about Steele, he'd massively leverage his alpha strike firepower to cripple the Solaris' support capacity and then go defensive, peeling away layers of armour until he can land a critical finishing strike.

The Solaris, for all its long engagement brilliance (and it is very good at that) takes around 30-45s to get its offense going.  With the Erebus able to deploy its fighter screen entirely defensively and the Solaris unable to do so at all, I'd give this to the Erebus pretty quickly.

If both are deployed in advance (unrealistic, lets face it) then I'd give it to the Solaris solely because the torpedo barrages are going to overwhelm the deployed point defense of the Erebus without the support of its fighter wings.

IF we are talking about Calder vs Steele, then Calder is known for depleting his air wing and overcoming a lack of flank support with overwhelming aggression in support of other operations.  Steele is known for precision strikes.  A battle between these two would come about as a result of Calder overplaying his hand and Steele would proceed to cripple any reserve strike capability he has, followed by his mobility.  He would then withdraw and strike elsewhere.

Neither would risk their destroyer in a direct engagement with another destroyer as anything other than a tactic or for a significant strategic victory.  Steele wouldn't take the risk of Calder pulling his forces back to engage the Atreus.  He'd turn up, unleash a horribly damaging alpha strike on Calder's main support structures, remain to inflict enough damage to force Calder to withdraw the destroyer for repairs and then push off elsewhere.

Under real combat conditions, a stalemate.  Under both jump in combat conditions with proper combat tactics, the Erebus takes it pretty quickly.  Under FRED combat conditions, the Solaris has the damage per second advantage so wins.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Phantom Hoover on February 03, 2014, 07:37:26 am
I'm sceptical of the "Erebus slags the fighterbay" line of reasoning, for the same reason as all the clever tricks Salty used to come up with: it's just too effective for it to work, go unremarked upon, and not affect the verisimilitude of the setting. Also it's reaaaally dependent on positioning.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: The E on February 03, 2014, 08:08:35 am
It should also be noted that the Solaris has multiple fighter bays. Destroying all of them with a single shot is doubtful, and assumes that the Solaris CO is basically pointing his ship directly at the Erebus; something the Solaris (as more of a broadside fighter) is not built to do.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on February 03, 2014, 08:29:34 am
Also, if the Solaris crew remembered to bring Paveways, it's all over for the Erebus XD

Warship-launched countermeasures hugely degrade the effectiveness of Paveways.

It's unfortunate that we've been playing on the UEF side, making the GTVA by necessity hold back a lot of their dirty tricks.

Not sure where you're getting this from. If anything the opposite is true - BP2 so far is skewed by the nature of the strategic situation towards mitigating the UEF's tricks and enhancing the GTVA's.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Rheyah on February 03, 2014, 09:07:27 am
Also, if the Solaris crew remembered to bring Paveways, it's all over for the Erebus XD

Warship-launched countermeasures hugely degrade the effectiveness of Paveways.

It's unfortunate that we've been playing on the UEF side, making the GTVA by necessity hold back a lot of their dirty tricks.

Not sure where you're getting this from. If anything the opposite is true - BP2 so far is skewed by the nature of the strategic situation towards mitigating the UEF's tricks and enhancing the GTVA's.

Well it's kind of obvious given that you're playing the UEF as a protagonist and thus, you can't give the GTVA complete tactical confidence in every situation otherwise you would never win.  The omnipresent beam jamming, for example.  It's a great storytelling element but in a direct fight, if you throw in the GTVA's dirty tricks department (Titan/Chimera alpha strikes, saturation SSM, destroyer advantage, point defense cruiser formations and Maxim bombardment) it all becomes seriously one sided.  Those few tricks employed by the GTVA (Trebuchet strikes, mainly) are quite easily nullified by the enormous advantage of blocking beam cannon fire.

However, some of this critique (and to be fair it is very limited compared to other campaigns) is mollified by the methods employed by the GTVA in Act 3 and the fact that they are starting to shut down Paveway strikes in Act 4. 

As you say, the balance of the war is in propaganda as well as industrial and military might which is good storytelling.  It's not just a spacebattles "Who Would Win, Goku or Superman" style thing.  There are just a number of times where the GTVA could have done better and didn't, for the sake of good storytelling.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Rheyah on February 03, 2014, 09:14:55 am
It should also be noted that the Solaris has multiple fighter bays. Destroying all of them with a single shot is doubtful, and assumes that the Solaris CO is basically pointing his ship directly at the Erebus; something the Solaris (as more of a broadside fighter) is not built to do.

That's the point of an alpha strike though.  If we're putting a Raynor or an Erebus up against a Solaris and you get to decide exactly how the Solaris engages without any input from the GTVA captain then you get an easy win for the Solaris because its numbers are bigger after about 30s.

If a Tev captain is actually playing this right, then he does take on the Solaris head on, he fires his first beam shot straight into its fighter bays, peels off, fires the second into its engines and jumps out before he has to deal with the torpedoes unless he already has space superiority, at which point all he needs to do is keep his distance and keep firing.

If the two are battling against each other, it's a war of positioning which the Solaris will eventually win due to its good fire on all octants approach, but I don't think either destroyer is actually going down in this engagement either way.  The Tev is going to keep his fighter screen close to knock out torpedoes due to his far superior stand off capability.

It'd be a good fight if done properly.

By the way, I'm not wading into this as a kind of "THE TEVS MUST WIN" kind of thing, like some weird Vs thread on a sci-fi forum.  There are significant weaknesses in the designs of UEF ships which a clever Tev could take advantage of and could make an engagement like this much more dramatic.  After all I assume Battuta isn't just asking a question for the idleness of making everyone argue about whose numbers are bigger :p
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on February 03, 2014, 09:19:56 am
You've fallen into that awful, awful trap of trying to divorce storytelling devices from the way the setting actually works. They are one and the same. Ugh, this is going to take one of those Line By Line Takedown posts I hate so much.

Quote
Well it's kind of obvious given that you're playing the UEF as a protagonist and thus, you can't give the GTVA complete tactical confidence in every situation otherwise you would never win.

I'll flat out call this wrong. The UEF and GTVA's strategic confidence play by the same rules, and the UEF has more tricks held back in the name of allowing the player to stay near the center of the gameplay space.

Quote
The omnipresent beam jamming, for example.

The 'omnipresent beam jamming' is a special-use tactic with a pretty dire strategic half-life and even in ideal conditions it works onscreen...twice? And not even in the same way on the same weapons.

Quote
It's a great storytelling element but in a direct fight, if you throw in the GTVA's dirty tricks department (Titan/Chimera alpha strikes, saturation SSM, destroyer advantage, point defense cruiser formations and Maxim bombardment) it all becomes seriously one sided.  Those few tricks employed by the GTVA (Trebuchet strikes, mainly) are quite easily nullified by the enormous advantage of blocking beam cannon fire.

Those 'few tricks' employed by the GTVA? You see every one of the tricks you just listed employed in Act 1+2 alone, whether on the strategic or tactical level. When the UEF tries to convert its beam jamming technology into a second strategic victory it gets hammered into the floor because the GTVA figured it out and beat it.

Quote
However, some of this critique (and to be fair it is very limited compared to other campaigns) is mollified by the methods employed by the GTVA in Act 3 and the fact that they are starting to shut down Paveway strikes in Act 4. 

The critique is myopic and ignorant and doesn't hold up even in Act 1-2. The UEF is the only party guilty of holding back: solutions that could be solved by the UEF's existing arsenal are derogated in favor of giving the player something to do (with narrative and logical support, of course, we're not idiots, but -). The strategic realities of the war had to be carefully constructed so that the UEF's overwhelming bomber and gunship corps did not become a juggernaut which would roll over every mission concept and resolve most tensions with 'I kills it with a Durga'.

Quote
There are just a number of times where the GTVA could have done better and didn't, for the sake of good storytelling.

Find me one. If you can manage it, try to avoid finding just as many UEF situations.

Responding to this post was like an awful flashback to the worst days of this forum. It made me actively angry. I thought we'd moved past 'well these things only happen due to story convenience, ~realistically~ my power-gamed tactic would allow GTVA/UEF victory in 2.6 days'.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Luis Dias on February 03, 2014, 09:21:02 am
The way I see it there's a very assymetrical tactical schematic to the playing field. To the Erebus viewpoint, there is a kind of a goldilocks zone that spans between an enough far away zone, a zone where the Erebus's fighter escort can sucessfully shield it from direct missile spamming and gattlers are still not working efficiently against it, and a zone where its giant blue cannon cannot hit the Solaris. To the Solaris viewpoint, it's the exact reverse: there is a deadly zone where its weapons cannot penetrate the defenses of its adversary and is basically a "sitting duck" to Erebus' long range artillery.

There is both a tactical point to be made regarding possible electromagnetic countermeasures by the Solaris (deflecting Erebus' beams) and Erebus ability to conceal and heal its beam turrets. I will mostly regard those as nuances or annoyances to the general tactics, leaving them somewhat unchanged.

So the first thing the Erebus' CO wants to do is to get its fighter escort out as fast as they can in order to stop spam bombing by Solaris itself or its bomber wings. They will escort the destroyer very closely to it in order to benefit from its defensive turrets. The next thing is to get the Solaris in beam range. I don't recall if in 5 clicks it is already so. Nevertheless, whenever it is, the engines should focus on getting the Erebus always facing the Solaris and as far away as possible, so unless it can thrust itself backwards, it must stop. It should extend as far as possible the amount of time the Solaris is in beam range and out of Solaris' artillery range.

The Solaris must close this negative goldilock's zone as fast as possible, if it wants to engage and destroy the Erebus. Thus it must face the Erebus head on with a slight tilt (so it can shadow one lateral side from Erebus' beams as much as possible), giving the Erebus a very narrow sillouette to shoot to (and hopefully with the help of its EM shenanigans, not suffer too much from the beams). They will overheat their engines and try to get to close range fast. Their fighter and bomber wings are probably superior to the Erebus' ones, so they will try to shut down Erebus' primary weapon as fast as possible.

It's a matter of maths now. If the Solaris' wings can shut down the beam turrets (or at least force them to close down for repairs) without suffering too many losses, they will do so as fast as possible from the get go. If not, it should be more optimal to only do so when the Erebus is in range of the Solaris itself, so they can also be assisted by it against the Erebus' wings and turrets.

Nevertheless when the Solaris is close enough to the Erebus, the Erebus should start its own engines and try to minimize the amount of time it is very near to the Solaris. The Solaris will however be able to not let the Erebus escape.  This tactical evaluation makes it clear that the lack of backward thrusters by the Erebus is a severe tactical disadvantage. They could, however, take hold of its own super subspace engines and when the ships are close it just jumps away 5, 8 clicks away again. This could prove a problem for the Solaris, that can jump once after the Erebus does to a very close range, but then in a minute or so the Erebus will be able to jump away again and it will be hell for the Solaris.

That latter tactic however is one that sacrifices its wings, who will become easy targets once they lack the Erebus' flaks, etc.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Rheyah on February 03, 2014, 09:34:43 am
You've fallen into that awful, awful trap of trying to divorce storytelling devices from the way the setting actually works. They are one and the same. Ugh, this is going to take one of those Line By Line Takedown posts I hate so much.

Quote
Well it's kind of obvious given that you're playing the UEF as a protagonist and thus, you can't give the GTVA complete tactical confidence in every situation otherwise you would never win.

I'll flat out call this wrong. The UEF and GTVA's strategic confidence play by the same rules, and the UEF has more tricks held back in the name of allowing the player to stay near the center of the gameplay space.

Quote
The omnipresent beam jamming, for example.

The 'omnipresent beam jamming' is a special-use tactic with a pretty dire strategic half-life and even in ideal conditions it works onscreen...twice? And not even in the same way on the same weapons.

Quote
It's a great storytelling element but in a direct fight, if you throw in the GTVA's dirty tricks department (Titan/Chimera alpha strikes, saturation SSM, destroyer advantage, point defense cruiser formations and Maxim bombardment) it all becomes seriously one sided.  Those few tricks employed by the GTVA (Trebuchet strikes, mainly) are quite easily nullified by the enormous advantage of blocking beam cannon fire.

Those 'few tricks' employed by the GTVA? You see every one of the tricks you just listed employed in Act 1+2 alone, whether on the strategic or tactical level. When the UEF tries to convert its beam jamming technology into a second strategic victory it gets hammered into the floor because the GTVA figured it out and beat it.

Quote
However, some of this critique (and to be fair it is very limited compared to other campaigns) is mollified by the methods employed by the GTVA in Act 3 and the fact that they are starting to shut down Paveway strikes in Act 4. 

The critique is myopic and ignorant and doesn't hold up even in Act 1-2. The UEF is the only party guilty of holding back: solutions that could be solved by the UEF's existing arsenal are derogated in favor of giving the player something to do (with narrative and logical support, of course, we're not idiots, but -). The strategic realities of the war had to be carefully constructed so that the UEF's overwhelming bomber and gunship corps did not become a juggernaut which would roll over every mission concept and resolve most tensions with 'I kills it with a Durga'.

Quote
There are just a number of times where the GTVA could have done better and didn't, for the sake of good storytelling.

Find me one. If you can manage it, try to avoid finding just as many UEF situations.

Responding to this post was like an awful flashback to the worst days of this forum. It made me actively angry. I thought we'd moved past 'well these things only happen due to story convenience, ~realistically~ my power-gamed tactic would allow GTVA/UEF victory in 2.6 days'.

Do I really have to reply to this?  Why are you being so angry that someone has a different view of your story than you do?  There are just situations that I identified where the Tevs could have done better.  That's not an issue, man.  It's not even an issue with your story.  Things happen in stories.  That's the point of them.  Ned Stark could have brought down the Lannisters had he agreed to side with Renly, but he didn't.

I'm gonna assume I said something you took the wrong way and apologize for it, but I don't really get why you're angry with me.  I've played with BP ships in FRED to see how they work, to figure out their weapon design, see where they were weak and how to develop good gameplay.  I think there were times when the Tevs could have done better.  That's all.  I'm not saying they could instantly win the war or anything or calling your style of writing bad or anything.  I'm just commenting on a ship battle and giving my opinion.  In my mind I'm only here for the story, the FREDing and the gameplay.  That's it.  It's just an opinion I formed based off the playing with the Solaris and the Raynor I did in my own time.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on February 03, 2014, 09:45:18 am
You've got to understand we've spent 4 years trying to get people to stop trying to game and beat the story, and to accept that if something happens (or doesn't) happen onscreen it's because there are coherent rules which govern when and how force can be deployed.

It started with 'why doesn't the GTVA just blitz Earth on day 1', probably hit its absolute nadir with 'the Wargods should've rammed the Carthage', and proceeded through a lot of SaltyWaffles threads (ILU Salty, you're great) and mostly died off thanks to a contingent of quality posters who'd read the background fluff. I'm less angry at you than at the prospect of returning to 'I would've shock-jumped them RIGHT THEN and fired a Trebuchet strike and an SSM meson bomb'.

The rules of subspace speed chess govern everything in Sol. When there's an apparent tactical lapse, it's often due to the broader strategic realities. This is why our briefings often get so long: we want to provide contextual information so interested players can understand why, say, the Tevs don't have SSMs available right now, or can't jump in another squadron of Maxim bombers to pop a frigate, or fire a beam cannon directly into that Narayana's mass drivers from 5k. Conversely, the fluff pieces in The Reunion and The Rift help provide rules that prevent the UEF from blitzing the Tevs with their bomber corps and pushing them back out of the node.

What's rage-inducingly important to us is our devotion to harmonizing the setting's internal logic with the needs of our story and gameplay so that they all work together. I'd go so far as to call this one of the core missions of BP: to make FreeSpace war make sense with a minimum of unsupported extracanonical contrivance. Trying to peel those three layers apart and identify discrepancies triggers my posting PTSD.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: General Battuta on February 03, 2014, 10:25:07 am
The way I see it there's a very assymetrical tactical schematic to the playing field. To the Erebus viewpoint, there is a kind of a goldilocks zone that spans between an enough far away zone, a zone where the Erebus's fighter escort can sucessfully shield it from direct missile spamming and gattlers are still not working efficiently against it, and a zone where its giant blue cannon cannot hit the Solaris. To the Solaris viewpoint, it's the exact reverse: there is a deadly zone where its weapons cannot penetrate the defenses of its adversary and is basically a "sitting duck" to Erebus' long range artillery.

There is both a tactical point to be made regarding possible electromagnetic countermeasures by the Solaris (deflecting Erebus' beams) and Erebus ability to conceal and heal its beam turrets. I will mostly regard those as nuances or annoyances to the general tactics, leaving them somewhat unchanged.

So the first thing the Erebus' CO wants to do is to get its fighter escort out as fast as they can in order to stop spam bombing by Solaris itself or its bomber wings. They will escort the destroyer very closely to it in order to benefit from its defensive turrets. The next thing is to get the Solaris in beam range. I don't recall if in 5 clicks it is already so. Nevertheless, whenever it is, the engines should focus on getting the Erebus always facing the Solaris and as far away as possible, so unless it can thrust itself backwards, it must stop. It should extend as far as possible the amount of time the Solaris is in beam range and out of Solaris' artillery range.

The Solaris must close this negative goldilock's zone as fast as possible, if it wants to engage and destroy the Erebus. Thus it must face the Erebus head on with a slight tilt (so it can shadow one lateral side from Erebus' beams as much as possible), giving the Erebus a very narrow sillouette to shoot to (and hopefully with the help of its EM shenanigans, not suffer too much from the beams). They will overheat their engines and try to get to close range fast. Their fighter and bomber wings are probably superior to the Erebus' ones, so they will try to shut down Erebus' primary weapon as fast as possible.

It's a matter of maths now. If the Solaris' wings can shut down the beam turrets (or at least force them to close down for repairs) without suffering too many losses, they will do so as fast as possible from the get go. If not, it should be more optimal to only do so when the Erebus is in range of the Solaris itself, so they can also be assisted by it against the Erebus' wings and turrets.

Nevertheless when the Solaris is close enough to the Erebus, the Erebus should start its own engines and try to minimize the amount of time it is very near to the Solaris. The Solaris will however be able to not let the Erebus escape.  This tactical evaluation makes it clear that the lack of backward thrusters by the Erebus is a severe tactical disadvantage. They could, however, take hold of its own super subspace engines and when the ships are close it just jumps away 5, 8 clicks away again. This could prove a problem for the Solaris, that can jump once after the Erebus does to a very close range, but then in a minute or so the Erebus will be able to jump away again and it will be hell for the Solaris.

That latter tactic however is one that sacrifices its wings, who will become easy targets once they lack the Erebus' flaks, etc.

This magnum opus deserves a reply since it's so comprehensive: how does your estimation of the Erebus' zoning (this is like a really elaborate space fighting) change if she has local SSMs? 

Also, I'm gonna give an optional variant: each side can tag team in 1 ship below destroyer size. Has to be a realistically available member of their order of battle. It comes with its air wing if it has one. What do they pick?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: InsaneBaron on February 03, 2014, 11:17:42 am
Putting myself in the position of the Erebus captain:

First thing I try and do is use my main cannon to hit the Solaris's engines. This got discussed already by Luis Dias, but the range at which these ships engage eachother is a deciding factor. If the Solaris is disabled, I can dictate the range: Therefore, I can hold position out of Gattler-Apoc range but within beam range. The ability to kill a specific subsystem from long range is one of the Tev's advantages.

Meanwhile I scramble interceptors as fast as possible (Dracos, Atalantas, Auroras... plus Nyx wings for anti-gunship). If the disabling strike works, I hold my interceptors back near my ship, where my point defenses improve their odds against incoming UEF fighters and bombers. In short, my strikecraft focus on Defense, since, I'm out of range of the Solaris's turrets.

The question then becomes whether or not my beams can destroy the Solaris before hostile bombers strip them off. To make it harder on the bombers I'd try to keep moving... maybe even do barrel rolls? Five shots from a HBlue is enough to kill a Solaris. If worst comes to worst and I loose my longer ranged beams, hopefully I'll already have inflicted enough damage to go it closer (dictating the angle) and finish the Solaris off with my lighter beams.

The big issue here is whether or not I can hit the engine... I'd need to take a closer look at the geometry of the Solaris's engine subsystem.

I need to think a bit about what I'd do as the Solaris captain.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: FIZ on February 03, 2014, 11:36:30 am
Are you looking for Toutatis vs. Atreus/ Steele vs. Calder scenarios?  I know the Toutatis has some BFMassDrivers which really changes the nature of attacking a Solaris class head on, I would reckon a couple sabot salvos would cut through even a shuttered beam.  This was the expense of reduced hangar size which changes the equation of Solaris vs. Erebus even more. 

I kind of like how each Solaris is tailor rigged to the captains command style, but it does complicate the scenario.  Honestly, I think Byrne would be the only Admiral to lose to an Erebus 1 vs. 1 just because he has the least experienced crew.  I think his mind is too much on the bigger picture that he would not keep his girl well oiled.

Edit:  Wiki link on Toutatis - http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/UED_Toutatis
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: crizza on February 03, 2014, 11:45:05 am
Considering ships below destroyer class as backup.
For the Tevs a Diomedes, which can blast the Solaris from 6750 metres away.
For the UEF I'll go for a Narayana to nullify the main beams of the Erebus, then starting to circle away while spitting Apocalypse at them.

Louis posted that the Erebus could miccrojump away, engage the Solaris anew, but would have to sacrifice it's strikecraft. How often can a TEI strikecraft jump?
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on February 04, 2014, 12:26:06 pm
Tevs should take a Chimera on a anti-missile role.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Scotty on February 04, 2014, 05:46:37 pm
Also, I'm gonna give an optional variant: each side can tag team in 1 ship below destroyer size. Has to be a realistically available member of their order of battle. It comes with its air wing if it has one. What do they pick?

Mother****ing Diomedes.  Air wing, covers a good portion of Erebus's broadside difficulties by having a fantastic broadside, decent point defense, and ludicrous anti-destroyer utility of having four SlashBlues to carve up subsystems like Thanksgiving turkey.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on February 05, 2014, 01:40:24 am
Mother****ing Diomedes.  Air wing, covers a good portion of Erebus's broadside difficulties by having a fantastic broadside, decent point defense, and ludicrous anti-destroyer utility of having four SlashBlues to carve up subsystems like Thanksgiving turkey.

Point defenses are not so good with that one, which would suck if the buntu brought a Nara.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Scotty on February 05, 2014, 02:52:50 am
That's what a fighter wing is for.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Mars on February 05, 2014, 06:04:08 am
Would be wiped out by Uriels if they were concentrating on bombs, the fighter wing would need to be trebbing the numerically superior wing of the Solaris.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: qwadtep on February 05, 2014, 07:05:46 am
Does "no retreat" preclude tactical jumps? I could totally see Steele jumping the Atreus out, flashing the sprint drives and immediately jumping back in to renew the attack from a different angle alongside a SSM barrage.
Title: Re: BP Tactical Discussion (formerly Warship Inflation)
Post by: Scotty on February 06, 2014, 01:27:22 am
Would be wiped out by Uriels if they were concentrating on bombs, the fighter wing would need to be trebbing the numerically superior wing of the Solaris.

I wasn't talking about the entire destroyer air group being used to protect the Diomedes from a Narayana's artillery.  I was talking about the Diomedes's integral air wing taking up the point defense slack in the form of a wing or so at a time.  You don't need a whole lot of fighters on point defense duty if all the warheads are coming from one direction that doesn't rapidly shift.