Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: Logistics on April 06, 2011, 12:31:46 pm
-
After debating a bit about the strategic situation the GTVA is in, in regards to the Shivans, I started thinking a bit about tactical improvements to even the odds a bit.
One thing that occurs to me is that while Shivan ships possess overwhelming firepower in regards to their beam weaponry, the effective rate of fire that they possess (at least in regards to game mechanics) is relatively slow to engage multiple targets, and they can only engage a single target at a time. From what I can recall in the game, the effective range of the beams is somewhere around 4 k. The effective range of maxim cannon appears to be somewhere between 3 and 3.5 k going from Blue Planet, which is well beyond the effective range of demonstrated point defenses.
Since the Shivan ships are admirably well suited to blowing up ships with overwhelming firepower, cede them that advantage. Just give them too many targets to shoot at. Put a single maxim cannon, with a small fighter-sized reactor into an escape pod, and a basic fire control computer to coordinate with nearby pods. You could seed hundreds of pods from ships outside of beam range, or drop them on top of them similar to an SSM strike. Existing fighters could provide cover against shivan fighters targeting the pods, while not giving the Shivans much to shoot at in return. Capital ships could concentrate on anti-fighter work and staying well outside of beam range, and bug out the moment there is a counter attack they cannot handle. Thoughts?
-
Why puting a maxim in a escape pod, if you can put two of them with24 Trebs in an Ares?
-
Rule One of FS tactics: The most powerful ship is one you haven't deployed yet. Keeping your capships back while engaging the other side in close combat invites sudden, Lilith or Ravana-induced beamrape.
-
This is an interesting idea, and while it would probably invite countermeasures, is one that might well be explored.
-
Rule One of FS tactics: The most powerful ship is one you haven't deployed yet. Keeping your capships back while engaging the other side in close combat invites sudden, Lilith or Ravana-induced beamrape.
Granted. But the capships in this case are little more then deployment platforms for the pods/drones. They aren't necessarily once the pods are deployed, except to provide cover against shivan fighters, which are the only reliable way they have to counter a swarm attack. The maxim cannon outranges their point defenses by a considerable margin. The shivan 'beamrape' is impressive, but only if they get to use it against a suitable target. The drones would be designed to be cheap and expendable. Perhaps slightly more expensive if you throw in a jump drive, but still well within reason, if the SSM strike is any indication on the cost of small jump drives attached to missiles. I'm thinking of something similar to the sphere formation from Homeworld, if that gives a visual.
-
Right, okay. Next topic, 80 Sathanases.
-
It's certainly an interesting idea, but that would be a hell of a lot of drones you would need to dump out, and losses would probably be catastrophic (relatively speaking. They're drones, after all) even on a successful engagement. Eventually all of this would add up, no matter how inexpensive you make said drones, they are still going to be semi-autonomous military assets, and will cost much more than your standard subspace missile. How would you counter production costs, once serious losses were taken? And whats more, what would the drones do in the event the Shivans countered them with a REAL swarm of fighters? IIRC, Maxims don't handle shields very well, and your own guard fighters would have their hands full keeping themselves alive. Even barring successful retaliation, it would take a long time to bring down a Sathanas using said Maxims, even in numbers in the triple digits.
That said, if this was developed as an automated system for disabling and disarming Shivan Warships, and was used more situationally, it could be very effective.
-
It's certainly an interesting idea, but that would be a hell of a lot of drones you would need to dump out, and losses would probably be catastrophic (relatively speaking. They're drones, after all) even on a successful engagement.
how many amazon drones were killed in T-V/Great War era training? program them to stick to standoff range to give them a change, ok you will lose a lot to fighters but i figure the GTVA could produce these as fast as they did hornets
-
how many amazon drones were killed in T-V/Great War era training? program them to stick to standoff range to give them a change, ok you will lose a lot to fighters but i figure the GTVA could produce these as fast as they did hornets
Fair enough. But then they need to be replenished after said losses, and I know that FS kinda glosses over Logistical Concerns but there's only so far I'm willing to go with suspension of disbelief. Drones are big.
Whats more, you haven't even factored in the point behind that sentence, which was the huge production costs associated with those losses. And I guarantee a Combat Drone will be much more expensive than an amazon, of which many, IIRC, were actually digital representations in a simulator environment, according to the FS2 tutorials.
EDIT: I misread the "T-V/Great War era training" part of your post. My apologies.
-
I'm thinking of something similar to the sphere formation from Homeworld, if that gives a visual.
Actually, your swarm idea did remind me immediately of a homeworld ship, the drone frigate:
(http://images.wikia.com/homeworld/images/6/64/Vengeance_Frigate.jpg)
What you are suggesting is something similar but in a bigger scale, so it could swarm a shivan, what, destroyer? Or it could serve as a fast deployer of anti-bombers.
It's an interesting concept. I hardly see how it defeats a sathanas, which is the real shivan threat here. I mean, the GTVA fleet has proven to be quite effective against the other ships.
I also think that crizza's question is relevant. Trebuchets are the best weapons GTVA has against the shivans: they are the best defense against beam rape. It just so happens that the sathanas beam weapons are so enormous, you need a lot more than trebuchets. And you won't destroy them with maxims.
But it seems like a fun novel idea. I guess if someone will take it to a campaign, it will burn once again the FPS rates of FSO... but what the hell :lol:
-
Fair enough. But then they need to be replenished after said losses, and I know that FS kinda glosses over Logistical Concerns but there's only so far I'm willing to go with suspension of disbelief. Drones are big.
Whats more, you haven't even factored in the point behind that sentence, which was the huge production costs associated with those losses. And I guarantee a Combat Drone will be much more expensive than an amazon, of which many, IIRC, were actually digital representations in a simulator environment, according to the FS2 tutorials.
EDIT: I misread the "T-V/Great War era training" part of your post. My apologies.
Well, to be specific in terms of economy, I was thinking of escape pods, stripped of everything except the physical shell, the engine, ammo, a reactor, and a dumb brain to drive it around. If I wanted to get fancy, I'd have all of them talk to each other to coordinate fire - or perhaps talk back to the deploying ship to coordinate it. They have nonexistant armor, pitiful engines, and zero maneuverability. But if deployed properly, they wouldn't need much in the way of any of that to hurt or destroy the enemy. The amazon drone, as far as I can surmise, is considerably more sophisticated then what I'm proposing - it has a bigger brain to actually fly it around reasonably, better engines, more armor, and more guns.
Your suggestion that they be used to disable and disarm is probably a better one then outright destroying them. Standard ships could follow up such an attack with more conventional means to despose of the ships once they had been defanged. Or failing that, a bunch of SSM strikes.
-
I know that killing a Sath's main beams with Trebs and Maxims is a hell of work...but that's the reason, why you deploy Boangers with fighter escorts...
Personally, I would prefer the UEF way: Just use AWACS to prevent beams from firing.
-
Ah. See what you're describing is a lot more situational in use than what I thought you were getting at. For whatever reason I figured you were trying to get anime style attack bits into FS.
Now that we know what kind of Drones we're talking about, while that would probably (I dont think there are hard figures on the cost of the Maxim) be far less expensive than what I was describing, what you're getting at are essentially better armed turrets that can move around in a pinch. Obviously you wouldn't be deploying these in defense of your capital ships if they came under attack, or even offensively, really. They would need to be deployed in areas where you knew the enemy would be coming through in force. In that respect, they would make great node blockers, and potentially excellent ambush weapons, provided you can bait the Shivans. While probably more expensive than your average Sentry, the greater weapons payload and their ability to change position if necessary would go a long way towards justifying that cost.
EDIT: I would also like to point out that killing the beams on a Sath with Maxims is hard when you have, at best, four fighters shooting at it. Try it with 50 of these drones we're talking about. It wont hurt the Sath that much, but it will put a hell of a dent in that beam cannon.
-
Just use AWACS to prevent beams from firing.
I never get it how does that thing work? Can't the tevs just *look* throughout the windows and, you know, manually fire the thing?
-
Don't worry so much about "big brains" vs "dumb brains". I'm pretty sure that in the 24th century, cpu brains that cost 3 cents and are smarter than the fastest supercomputer running today will be pretty common.
I mean, doh. ;)
-
Just use AWACS to prevent beams from firing.
I never get it how does that thing work? Can't the tevs just *look* throughout the windows and, you know, manually fire the thing?
fluff time
The beam requires a magnetic bottle all the way from the emitter to the target - the amount of sidescatter on the beams indicates it's not velocity-aligned and a blind fire would start going into cavitation. The AWACS interferes with this process at two steps: the initial sensor input to form the bottle, and then directly with the bottle generation via an electromagnetic effector.
-
Don't worry so much about "big brains" vs "dumb brains". I'm pretty sure that in the 24th century, cpu brains that cost 3 cents and are smarter than the fastest supercomputer running today will be pretty common.
I mean, doh.
Well, I was going for economy. Every cent counts, since these would be almost certain to take significant casualties - so that 2 cent brain gives you 50 more drones down the line. It wouldn't need much more then the ability to station keep with their targets, and shoot at what it's pointed at.
As far as not going offensive with them, well, I did propose up a bit earlier about sticking a jump drive on them. A bit more expensive, but it would also take away the risk of taking the time to deploy them via a ship. Swarm the destroyer/Jugg, knock out the weapons that are the real danger to your standard fleet, then proceed as usual against any of the escorts. In a real sense, the weapons are the danger - the physical ship is a navigational hazard.
-
Just use AWACS to prevent beams from firing.
I never get it how does that thing work? Can't the tevs just *look* throughout the windows and, you know, manually fire the thing?
fluff time
The beam requires a magnetic bottle all the way from the emitter to the target - the amount of sidescatter on the beams indicates it's not velocity-aligned and a blind fire would start going into cavitation. The AWACS interferes with this process at two steps: the initial sensor input to form the bottle, and then directly with the bottle generation via an electromagnetic effector.
Oh , of course, what was I thinking? So bloody obvious :lol:
-
As far as not going offensive with them, well, I did propose up a bit earlier about sticking a jump drive on them. A bit more expensive, but it would also take away the risk of taking the time to deploy them via a ship. Swarm the destroyer/Jugg, knock out the weapons that are the real danger to your standard fleet, then proceed as usual against any of the escorts. In a real sense, the weapons are the danger - the physical ship is a navigational hazard.
The problem I foresee with using them in such a manner is that, unless you have some epically precise jump calculations, chances are they're going to come out in a random spot all bunched up. Ideally you would want them in, like you described earlier, a Homeworld Sphere formation or something similar.
Thinking about it, though, if you had a spotter vessel such as an Aurora or a Charybdis in the area to vector them, then they could certainly be jumped into the area in an advantageous position. SSM's come in in spheres, after all.
Also, thanks for the fluff read Battuta. I'm guessing that means AWACS can also screw with Shivan beams, since they work on a similar principle?
-
A more puzzling question is exactly how torpedoes and even Narayana mass drivers can be jammed given how slow (or stationary) the targets are
the answer is that ECM is magic
Also, thanks for the fluff read Battuta. I'm guessing that means AWACS can also screw with Shivan beams, since they work on a similar principle?
No way to know until we try!
-
the answer is that ECM is magic
Oh so it's an apple product?
On a serious (not really) note, why don't they just subspace warp a meson bomb against a sathanas?
Or, alternatively, calculate a subspace jump of an old cruiser or destroyer and subspace it towards the insides of the juggernaut?
One could even generalize it and turn massive asteroids into full blown weapons of subspace destruction if you stickied them with a small subspace engine (and awacs for the calculations, and so on and so on).
-
Yeah, and just as expensive.
-
Ships have a gravity well, although not that big, but still large nonetheless. Perhaps that prevents you from emerging from subspace directly into the hangar of the Temeraire so you don't have to undergo the Control Tower's "Alpha 1 maintain a holding pattern, Epsilon 4, Beta 5, Omega 6, Alpha 7, Rho 8, Upsilon 9, Lambda 10, Tau 11 is still on approach."-stuff.
...not that it'll be safe anyway to warp into a hangar.
Although, before destroyers or any capship for the matter jump in anywhere, fighters are always sent first. Those flying Maxims won't do a thing. If they wanna build flying Maxims, they should change all those Terran Turrets and Huge Terran Turrets on all GTVA ships into Maxims instead of building flying Maxims.
If not, Morningstars.
-
Squadron of (Uhlans with Gattler) or (Herc IIs with Maxim) + Squadron of (Uriels with Paveways) or (Ares with Stillettos)
+
1 (Hunter-Killer team) or a (couple Narayanas) and escorts
=
One very large, very dead ship
-
Ares with Maxims-Trebs + Ares with Maxim-Stilettos would be more efficient than a Herc II squadron actually. As you already know the Ares has insane recharge rate (you can even use it as a pseudo-interceptor with full engines!)...Ares fighters can survive longer than Herc IIs too. (no pun intended)
-
Squadron of (Uhlans with Gattler) or (Herc IIs with Maxim) + Squadron of (Uriels with Paveways) or (Ares with Stillettos)
+
1 (Hunter-Killer team) or a (couple Narayanas) and escorts
=
One very large, very dead ship
Just playing economics here, but I'm wondering just how many drone escape pods equals that Strike team, fighter assets, and associated secondary ordinance. Given the size of the ships involved...I'm just going to guestimate several thousand, considering just how much more effort it would be to create a livable *ship* as opposed to a flying gun. Maxim cannon might not put that much of a dent in capital-class vessels on an individual level, but in aggregate, I do think the death-of-a-thousand cuts would apply. It would never actually be able to be implemented in-game, but I do rather like the idea of hen-pecking ships to death. Course, the tradeoff is you lose flexibility in response if you put all your effort into making drones.
-
It would never actually be able to be implemented in-game, but I do rather like the idea of hen-pecking ships to death.
how do YOU know
-
Sure but I think that the reasonings should not prefer realism, but exactly in-game "awesomeness". I'm all for the implementation of this idea, because it's cool and offers another tactical variable to interest the player.
Consider that subspace missile attacks are also quite undefensible, a much much better strategy, IMHO, than "beam rape tactics", so it wasn't omnipresent in BP, for it would create a boring game, not a cool one.
-
I'm interested enough in this concept that I think my first bits of screwing around in FRED are going to be based around this idea, just to see how well it works in Gameplay. Here's hoping these idiot Doctors clear me soon.
Mars is right about the existing strike capabilities the human factions have, but the way I see it, that would take time to set up, and, if something screwed up, could be some horrendous losses. These Drones could be used as essentially minefields in many situations, very hands off sort of fire and forget weaponry in others, and as potent defenses of nodes and installations period. Assuming Logistics logistics (heh) are right, cutting back in other areas a bit to surround all of you nodes and key installations with swarms of attack drone snipers doesn't seem like a terrible idea at all.
-
It would never actually be able to be implemented in-game, but I do rather like the idea of hen-pecking ships to death.
how do YOU know
Well I'd personally hate the idea of a new Delenda Est PLUS a thousand of small "pods" firing maxims. My laptop is already begging for mercy as it is.
-
it all comes down to how polly intensive+texture the model is and how the drones are deployed in the mission
-
how many amazon drones were killed in T-V/Great War era training?
None. As stated for each Training mission, you were in a Simulator. Which means no actual assets employed, even though you still flew like it was in real-space and against real assets. Therefore, no need to re-build anything.
-
it all comes down to how polly intensive+texture the model is and how the drones are deployed in the mission
... and the number of maxim shots going on screen...
I can easily see models of 300 polys (very very simple models) with a single 512 texture, instanced 1000 times (which gives 300k polys...).
But now imagine a single round of maxim shots by all the 1000 drones, multiplied by 50 shots per round.... 50k maxim "sprites" inside the scene. Not funny.
-
The engine will hit the objects limit well before you really have to worry about performance.
ed: well, depending
-
Purely out of a tactical point of view, I wonder why the GTVA didn't make a capital version of the Maxim. I supposed a much larger maxim cannon (medium to huge turret size) would shoot further and hurt more. Smaller than a mass-driver anyway, with a good refire rate.
-
how many amazon drones were killed in T-V/Great War era training?
None. As stated for each Training mission, you were in a Simulator. Which means no actual assets employed, even though you still flew like it was in real-space and against real assets. Therefore, no need to re-build anything.
No, (as far as we know), only the FreeSpace 2 training missions were stated to be simulators. You could fudge it and say that the FS1 ones were too, but there is absolutely zero evidence to support that.
-
The engine will hit the objects limit well before you really have to worry about performance.
ed: well, depending
Well that negates the whole point, right? If you won't be able to have 50k maxim "sprites", then it's true that you *can't* have a thousand-drones swarm firing maxim. I mean what's the point of having that and them not being able to do what they were built for.
OTOH, one could have instead a smaller swarm of drones, like fifty, they would appear to be "lots-f-them" to the player, and with maxim cannons, they would be *very* powerful indeed. If each drone has one canon, they would have a firepower of 170 damage points per second, and with 50 of those we are talking about 8500 per second, continuous, for the whole swarm. That's a Deimos in less than 10 seconds.
Now granted, there would be a degradation of the prowess there, since we would see the Deimos, for instance, blasting off the drones with their AAA beams, and flak, etc.
But this can be, of course, fine tuned. And when drones come back to the swarm frigate, they could be "replenished" for a second attack.
-
Yeah, uh, I was definitely not thinking 1000, and definitely thinking something smaller.
However 50 or even 1000 drones with Maxims will never kill a Deimos iirc. They could disarm and disable it but never blow it up.
-
except damage flags put a spanner in those plans, but if you send in smaller swarms of drones to dissarm/dissable the target so you can then smack it with conventional forces then i think you are onto a better strategy
-
Actually, your swarm idea did remind me immediately of a homeworld ship, the drone frigate:
(http://images.wikia.com/homeworld/images/6/64/Vengeance_Frigate.jpg)
That's an Assault Frigate :p
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070803102460/homeworld/images/4/41/Puppeteer.jpg)
-
Damn, you're absolutely right.
I meant Hive frigate:
(http://images.wikia.com/homeworld/images/c/c5/Hive_frigate.jpg)
-
Actually, I was thinking that it was a shame not to give EMP weapons more significance in BP... However, while gameplay wize it would certainly have to be balanced, it could have interesting effects...
Another idea would also be a comeback of the FS1 disruptor missile: it could do loads in those capship engagements...
-
As was mentioned in this thread or another, EMP weapons were used extensively at one point and entirely cut because they broke missions by rendering messages unreadable.
-
Now granted, there would be a degradation of the prowess there, since we would see the Deimos, for instance, blasting off the drones with their AAA beams, and flak, etc.
I thought the whole point of using maxims was to outrange most of the defensive guns, otherwise you could just strap of some other weapon that also does some shield damage, so they can engage strikecraft, if no capital ship is in range.
Considering the energy drain I doubt such a small drone could make full use of the maxiums re-fire rate, but due to the high range, they blast away at the target with little to no return fire.
-
Why not just make a missile cruiser which fires a large version of hornets with anti-capital warheads? :P It swoops in close, empties it bays and makes range with a big engine. It'd lose on defenses etc but that's what fighters are for.
-
Give those bombs shields, or better armor, and now we're talking.
I mean, if we're able to give bombs subspace drives, I can't see a shield generator being that much more expensive.
-
Bombs can be given hitpoints. At one point UEF torpedoes had armor but it made them too good.
-
Why not just make a missile cruiser which fires a large version of hornets with anti-capital warheads? :P It swoops in close, empties it bays and makes range with a big engine. It'd lose on defenses etc but that's what fighters are for.
Because, unlike the drones, a cruiser can be hit by beams. So unless you attack from a beam-blind spot (for that job Chimeras and Bellerophons are much better) your fast cruiser with paper-thin armor wouldn't last long enough to get in firing range.
-
pity about that! could they not be used in one or 2 missions in circumstances that would not be a problem regarding playability? this would showcase them as still important...
And I also still think that the disruptor missile (or equivalent) might actually help in such conflicts...
-
Someone should figure out how to use subspace to get those bombs to be out of phase. Then no-one can hit them. :lol:
-
Consider that subspace missile attacks are also quite undefensible, a much much better strategy, IMHO, than "beam rape tactics", so it wasn't omnipresent in BP, for it would create a boring game, not a cool one.
I've actually FREDed this out. You can, to a certain degree, defend against a single SSM strike. That is, one or two TAG-Cs. With Balls of Steele AI, that is. The type of ship is actually quite important, as well as it's size and turret placement. Balls of Steele Naras and Karunas usually can shoot down quite a few SSMs upon exiting subspace. Unless you're sending ten or a hundred fighters (like I did for maximum overkill) with TAG-Cs, a tight group of heavy pinpoint point-defense/Gattler-armed turrets is quite good against SSM strikes with low amounts of missiles.
..well, Maxim and TerPulses do the job better...
...all with Balls of Steele AI. Damn you Steele, for being so awesome.
-
Will the AI intercept bombs using missiles? That might give ground for the UEF having more durable torpedoes than the GTVA.
-
Why not just make a missile cruiser which fires a large version of hornets with anti-capital warheads?
Not exactly a cruiser, but Inferno already thought of it. (http://hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/SOCv_Neptune)
-
Will the AI intercept bombs using missiles? That might give ground for the UEF having more durable torpedoes than the GTVA.
They do occasionally...it might be good when they use EMP missiles on bombs, but...you know.
-
Why not just make a missile cruiser which fires a large version of hornets with anti-capital warheads?
Not exactly a cruiser, but Inferno already thought of it. (http://hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/SOCv_Neptune)
So it's a bad idea? :P
-
No, it was a super over the top idea more fitting with a MORE DAKKA campaign than a realist one.
-
It was meant sarcastic. :P
-
Sorry, I've been too jumpy lately.
Amyways, back on topic. Why not load the railguns and gauss with canisters? They could've been really useful in Delenda Est, and in any other engagement where a lot of fighters/bombers are directly in front of the frigate.
-
You mean like shotgun gauss rifles?
...
That would be pretty awesome, if somewhat imba.
-
Like grapeshot? I dunno, that seems kind of uncivilized.
-
Uncivilized, but deadly.
-
That could be a good idea, but would deprive the warship of anti-cap capablity. Not to mention the inherent difficulty of firing grapeshot from a railgun (Gauss guns would work just fine though).
-
I dunno I kind of think it's a silly idea. A simple solution would be "don't approach this thing from the front".
-
Yes, but remember that you'd be dogfighting at the time.
It's not easy to control where dogfight is taking place, not to mention that sometimes, you have to approach from the front or take a rather large detour.
Also, flanks are quite well defended on Karuna, unlike the front.
-
Yes, but remember that you'd be dogfighting at the time.
Err, in that case, if they fired they'd kill their own pilots. Not a very Ubuntu thing to do, really.
-
Depends on spread.
Also, you could force the enemy into the cannons firing arc by making him take evasive action and try to get away from you.
-
That could be a good idea, but would deprive the warship of anti-cap capablity.
In game, yes. Unless you can somehow change the weapon from the canister shot to the sabot (through scripting?) to represent the crew loading different shells as the need arises.
-
You can.
-
I'm reminded of "Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a ***** in space". With grapeshot, you're kind of multiplying the potential damages.
-
I'm foreseeing a last, desperate "**** You" measure against the Tevs should Calder ever be in a tight spot, and should his ships computers be capable of computing the locations of Tev planets multiple millions of years in the future. It would all probably be moot by that point, but it could be a funs story to pass around later.
-
how many amazon drones were killed in T-V/Great War era training?
None. As stated for each Training mission, you were in a Simulator. Which means no actual assets employed, even though you still flew like it was in real-space and against real assets. Therefore, no need to re-build anything.
No, (as far as we know), only the FreeSpace 2 training missions were stated to be simulators. You could fudge it and say that the FS1 ones were too, but there is absolutely zero evidence to support that.
you can't even do that (reasonably at least). the orf was brought in to shoot at you and give its gunners practice. a simulator wouldn't need to practice. nor would they need to use cargo containers, drones, etc.
-
Yeah, I think there's very little basis for the FS1 training missions being simulations.
(except it was the Neptune, not the Orff)
-
how many amazon drones were killed in T-V/Great War era training?
None. As stated for each Training mission, you were in a Simulator. Which means no actual assets employed, even though you still flew like it was in real-space and against real assets. Therefore, no need to re-build anything.
No, (as far as we know), only the FreeSpace 2 training missions were stated to be simulators. You could fudge it and say that the FS1 ones were too, but there is absolutely zero evidence to support that.
you can't even do that (reasonably at least). the orf was brought in to shoot at you and give its gunners practice. a simulator wouldn't need to practice. nor would they need to use cargo containers, drones, etc.
It was always a kind of fridge brilliance how the gunners could get practice in when they aren't hitting anything. They then replicate that performance for the whole game.
-
you people are understimating drones.. currently to manufacture an effective "entertaintment drone" costs less than 10 thousand dollars, and they can already do maneuvers no human could on a vehicle, making drone ships is even cheaper than human controlled ones and also more effective.
http://gizmodo.com/#!drones (http://gizmodo.com/#!drones)
fear the drones...
a plant mass building those could make them cost 5$ and output a few thousands per day... just upscale them and add a simple weapon, say trebuchet launcher or morning star and we could easily and cheapily swarm a sathanas with 5 thousand drones that costed a total of lets say, 1 mill dollars? O,o cheaper than firing 2 sidewinders nowadays.... specially if you count BP technology, even smart drones would be total absolute uber cheap rape.
-
uhhh.... applying the cost of tiny, 21st century, aerial drones to large, military-grade, 24th century space drones..... :blah:
I mean granted, yeah, they'd probably be cheaper than manned fighters for sure... but then what's the player going to do?
-
Maintain those drones.
Freespace 3: the Repair Sim, where you can switch up to 50 pieces from up to 30 different drones you'll never get to fly! Ages 3 and up
-
Drones are handled from big warships, EMP weapons + flash strikes = WIN.
-
I'm not sure I like the drone idea. They'd take a lot of resources to build and they all need a powerplant to move around. Unless these drone frigates would come in very limited numbers for surgical strikes or tactical uses, I don't think the GTVA has the means to maintain a fleet of them. If I were the GTVA I'd rather build 10 fightercraft than 50 drones which probably are destroyed the moment they're caught in crossfire or end up inside the targetting reticle of a hostile fighter.
-
as we already discussed though sara the GTVA probably has the industrial capacity, though would need tooling back up to produce vast numbers of drones would probably be required, evidence being apparant training procedures during the T-V great war eras
-
I personally can't entirely agree to that assessment, not going to take it for granted yet. To me it's not even certain if the amazon drone excists beyond the simulator and even if so it's size and sluggy speed make it an easy target. Upgrading it's maneuvring trusters and engines takes the same resources as building more versatile fightercraft. But each to their own I think. :)
-
I'm not sure I like the drone idea. They'd take a lot of resources to build and they all need a powerplant to move around. Unless these drone frigates would come in very limited numbers for surgical strikes or tactical uses, I don't think the GTVA has the means to maintain a fleet of them. If I were the GTVA I'd rather build 10 fightercraft than 50 drones which probably are destroyed the moment they're caught in crossfire or end up inside the targetting reticle of a hostile fighter.
As I'm currently envisoning them, the drones would be essentially modified escape pods, which the GTVA already produces in considerable numbers. As far as the 'drone frigate' idea goes, I originally wasn't thinking of utilizing specialized ships to deploy them. More like a complement assigned to capital ships, deployed as needed or tactically feasible, or in defense of critical infrastructure or nodes. The drones aren't meant to replace fightercraft. What they should be able to do is allow the GTVA to effectively engage high risk targets without committing capital assets directly. The drones nullify the weapons and engines, while staying out of range of their immediate defenses. Once the target is dead in space, conventional forces can mop up the target.
-
Not to mention, due to their being unmanned, situational usage, and, chances are, throwaway nature, any ships carrying drones could probably just have them packed into a bolted-on external compartment and drop them en mass. Assuming said drones ever began production, you wouldn't even need to radically redesign existing vessels to make use of them. It seems to me the drones as we see them now would be fairly easy to integrate if the decision was made to do so.
While I'm still not totally sold on the idea myself, it certainly has merit. Plus, and I've said this before, these things would make incredible Node Defense Supplements.
On a side note, Proper application of these things in an offensive role would probably make the act of capturing a capital ship a thousand times easier. That alone, would be worth the price of equipping some ships with them.
-
If by "capturing," you mean hauling ten thousand angry crewmembers to a friendly system where they get to sit, prepare counter-boarding operations, and make life hell for anyone who tries to get them.
-
Indeed undoable, unless having means of neutralizing the crew yet saving the ship, which I can't think of.
-
If by "capturing," you mean hauling ten thousand angry crewmembers to a friendly system where they get to sit, prepare counter-boarding operations, and make life hell for anyone who tries to get them.
Well, ships are closed systems, with inherant limitations in life support. If you want to take crew alive, pump in a disabling gas. If you don't, make that nerve gas. Enough of it, and it'll saturate any possible scrubber system. The hulls may be tough, but the material used to fashion the ships is also workable, which means with enough creativity and time, you could compromise integrity, and with it the atmosphere.
Edit: It occurs to me that Sam Bei's entry onto a hostile ship may indicate that this process may be easier then I had otherwise thought. There is apparently a way for a ejected pilot to force his way onto a hostile ship - that means some kind of access hatch or airlock system that would be a major weakness, at least if you're talking about GTVA ships.
-
What Logistics said. If, somehow, that doesnt work, drag it to a friendly system and lay siege.
It's not as though they'll be able to effect repairs without being stopped cold, You aren't technically wasting forces doing so (ideally this would be carried out by a garrison) and at the end of the day you have a reasonably intact vessel. Whats wrong with patience?
EDIT: "Day" of course being the weeks or months it would take a ship to run out of supplies necessary for life support. Assuming they dont surrender earlier.
-
You'd still need access to a major systems to get it into all of the ventilation system I imagine. That means getting passed a lot of hostile guards/marines.
-
Lay siege, like annoying the crew of the disabled ship to make them surrender. Like doing things to shake the ship non-stop, blasting horrible music and propaganda, flashing multi-colored strobe lights on every window, stuff like that? Sounds kinda fun.
Eventually they'll starve to death, but they'd surrender by then. But if you knock out the power generation system of the ship, it'll be sure to do something really, really bad. If they try to use a backup power generator-thingy, you could keep on firing Lampreys at it or something. A ship-sized Lamprey.
-
You'd still need access to a major systems to get it into all of the ventilation system I imagine. That means getting passed a lot of hostile guards/marines.
Oh, nothing so dramatic as boarding operations. I'd drill holes throughout the ships structural framework and pump gas directly into the ship - no need to control anything. They could fight back by compartmentalizing the affected regions, assuming they had power and working systems able to do that. But it would ultimately be a losing struggle.
-
And they in their right minds wouldn't self-destruct, since they'd die either way and prevent the ship from falling into hostile hands?
-
Edit: It occurs to me that Sam Bei's entry onto a hostile ship may indicate that this process may be easier then I had otherwise thought. There is apparently a way for a ejected pilot to force his way onto a hostile ship - that means some kind of access hatch or airlock system that would be a major weakness, at least if you're talking about GTVA ships.
He most likely used a normal airlock (not locked in case the crew needed to get out fast), which could be easly locked if the crew wanted to do it.
Duke was dead in space at that time and it's crew didn't did anything to resist.
He most likely would be killed in a normal situation, or couldn't even get past the airlock.
-
Edit: It occurs to me that Sam Bei's entry onto a hostile ship may indicate that this process may be easier then I had otherwise thought. There is apparently a way for a ejected pilot to force his way onto a hostile ship - that means some kind of access hatch or airlock system that would be a major weakness, at least if you're talking about GTVA ships.
He most likely used a normal airlock (not locked in case the crew needed to get out fast), which could be easly locked if the crew wanted to do it.
Duke was dead in space at that time and it's crew didn't did anything to resist.
He most likely would be killed in a normal situation, or couldn't even get past the airlock.
He may even have had proper access codes, either as an officer of his rank or provided by the CO of the ship he served on at that time.
-
Eh, it makes no sense for a mere Commander to have the airlock codes for a cruiser that he is not stationed on and never will be stationed on. Operational security works best when there are as few potential holes as possible.
-
Came to realize that, added "or provided by the CO of the ship he served on at that time." but a bit too late it seems. :)
-
Eh, it makes no sense for a mere Commander to have the airlock codes for a cruiser that he is not stationed on and never will be stationed on. Operational security works best when there are as few potential holes as possible.
Given that he was on a mission to track down a ship that had apparently gone rogue I think it makes plenty of sense.
-
Edit: It occurs to me that Sam Bei's entry onto a hostile ship may indicate that this process may be easier then I had otherwise thought. There is apparently a way for a ejected pilot to force his way onto a hostile ship - that means some kind of access hatch or airlock system that would be a major weakness, at least if you're talking about GTVA ships.
He most likely used a normal airlock (not locked in case the crew needed to get out fast), which could be easly locked if the crew wanted to do it.
Duke was dead in space at that time and it's crew didn't did anything to resist.
He most likely would be killed in a normal situation, or couldn't even get past the airlock.
Perhaps - it certainly make sense to have a lock on the doors. That said, Bei didn't have any way of knowing that the crew was disabled when he pulled the stunt - as far as he knew they just weren't answering the comm. So either he's a profoundly optimistic fool, or the design of the system inherantly allows someone to get in if they need to. Even the idea that there *is* an airlock is a weakness that could be exploited.
-
The airlock must be there, for obvious reasons.
Note that the Duke was scanned and not only it didn't answer the comm, the lifesigns were unusual (though present).
Also, I think that his intuition was a good thing to rely on here, considering what was happening (but he couldn't know that).
-
Eh, it makes no sense for a mere Commander to have the airlock codes for a cruiser that he is not stationed on and never will be stationed on. Operational security works best when there are as few potential holes as possible.
Given that he was on a mission to track down a ship that had apparently gone rogue I think it makes plenty of sense.
I would have to agree, though any one officer not stationed on the ship would probably not know the code I think it would likely be stored on the formation's flagship in case emergency boarding was required through unforeseen cause so a quick data packet would make that along with internal schematics other necessary data available
-
The crew were...like...well, almost zombie-like, weren't they? Or something like that. Can't recall...exactly.
-
Not exactly catatonic, I believe they were in motion, but as if not being aware of their surroundings.
-
I thought the briefing made it pretty clear they were simply static. No movement, no reactions, nothing.
-
I'll have to play it again then.
-
I could very well be wrong, and I'm getting really sick of not having FS2 on hand to back myself up.
-
I think catatonic was even one of the words Bei used in his log. They were sitting at their stations just staring dead ahead, not moving a muscle (beyond the ones of the heart and lung obviously, since they surived.... kinda).
Oh, nothing so dramatic as boarding operations. I'd drill holes throughout the ships structural framework and pump gas directly into the ship - no need to control anything. They could fight back by compartmentalizing the affected regions, assuming they had power and working systems able to do that. But it would ultimately be a losing struggle.
Why pump in anything (unless it's to capture the crew alive)? Just drill the holes and let the air go out. Each compartment opened to the vacuum is one piece of the oxygen reserve gone and thus shortens the time till the crew runs out, or reaches the point were they give up.
Of course sending in drilling teams to get to the compartments furter inside the ship is a bit risky, since the enemy could start a counterattack wearing space suits, but then you could just use a really long drill from all the way outside I guess.
The noice of the drill would also be really jarring and thus doubles as psychological warfare I guess.
-
Just drill the holes and let the air go out.
Explosive decompression will make the cleanup guys stay up longer...
-
not to mention the time taken to drill through military armour for each compartment on a multiple deck 253 meter long ship (fenris/lev)
-
I don't see ship theft happening beyond raiding a shipyard and taking a nearly-finished vessel with a skeleton crew on board.
-
Well, ships are closed systems, with inherant limitations in life support. If you want to take crew alive, pump in a disabling gas. If you don't, make that nerve gas. Enough of it, and it'll saturate any possible scrubber system. The hulls may be tough, but the material used to fashion the ships is also workable, which means with enough creativity and time, you could compromise integrity, and with it the atmosphere.
I would think that a ship would have the ability to safely vent sections of itself that were being pumped full of toxic gases and fumes straight into space.
Most effective way to capture a vessel seems to be either forcing the crew to surrender before boarding, or take them the old-fashioned way: boarding with a team of Marines armed with stun grenades.
-
Or shoot a Helios and wait for the radiation to do its work. You'll have to work in NBC suits all the time, though.
-
Or shoot a Helios and wait for the radiation to do its work. You'll have to work in NBC suits all the time, though.
On the inside or outside?
Helios on the outside the ship, it's likely it would all dissipate.
Helios on the inside...well, you've got bigger problems than radiation.
Besides, radiation sickness takes quite a long time to kick in.
-
Inside, of course. Makes me wonder why none of the warheads in the FS universe (that I recall) are penetrators. Damage outside is annoying, but damage inside is dangerous.
-
They are. It's just hard to penetrate.
-
Inside, of course. Makes me wonder why none of the warheads in the FS universe (that I recall) are penetrators. Damage outside is annoying, but damage inside is dangerous.
If you blow it up inside, something tells you'll be missing a part of the ship you want to "capture".
-
Yeah, even Cyclops torpedoes are basically 21st century nuclear warheads x 100000, and if you want to set one of those off in the middle of a ship, it would probably wipe out most of the interior.
-
I assume some compartmentalization.
-
not to mention the time taken to drill through military armour for each compartment on a multiple deck 253 meter long ship (fenris/lev)
But it wouldn't be any different if you were pumping in gas, to which I answered.
Also you don't need to drill into every single compartment most likely. If you know were in the ship the main and backup lifesupport is located, you can drill directly towards those sections and even if other compartments retain the oxygen already inside, that won't last for long.
And even if you don't know that, just drill towards the biggest concentration of lifesigns, untill the detected signs are few enough that you can go in with a comparetilvely small troop detachement to mop up/round up the last few survivors.
Also you won't need a 250 meter drill for a Fenris. For one thing you can drill from the sides and for another from both sides. Now if the ship is 50 meters in diameter, that would mean a 25 meter drill can reach every point in the entire ship. Opening every single compartment is going to take it's time, but as I explained before it won't be necessary.
-
Inside, of course. Makes me wonder why none of the warheads in the FS universe (that I recall) are penetrators. Damage outside is annoying, but damage inside is dangerous.
If you blow it up inside, something tells you'll be missing a part of the ship you want to "capture".
True. By the time the warheads come out, it's long past capturing time.
Why not fill something like a torpedo with dudes and shoot it? Unless we're going too WH40K there
-
Because of the risk to the poor troopers inside. The torpedo can be shot down, have an engine mulfunction causing anything from them being stranded to exploding outright. It might smash against the armor, failing to penetrate.
Not to mention the problems of inertia for the people inside at the moment of impact, even if the torpedo smashes through. Also such a torpedo would need to be much bigger than even an Eos, which makes it all the easier to shoot down.
So firing such a boarding torpedo during battle is pretty much out of the question in any sensible setting (there are many things WH40K is, sensible isn't one of them though) and if you already got rid of all the enemy guns and escorts, it's far easier to ferry the troopers over via transports or even space suits with attached manouvering thrusters.... or hell even fixing ropes between your and the enemy airlocks or the place were you burned through their hull and letting the troopers grapple over there.
-
Drop pods and human warhead torpedoes are very, very different things. The Adeptus Astartes never fires drop pods into ships when they can simply lance them with holes with lances. Or call on the Imperial Navy's Nova Cannons to simply obliterate the thing. Space Marines are well-equipped, SUPERSOLDIERS, walking tanks...FS2 marines...nah. Look at 'em in the Shivan boarding party from FS. If they were Space Marines, the ship would belong to them.
For human warhead torpedoes...on impact = death.
Oh damn it ninjas.
-
what about long cables attaching to the hull and a massive electrical charge? i'm guessing not much effect on people but might do a number on their life support controls
-
That depends on how conductive the hull material is, and how much isolation they fit below the armor plates I guess.
-
Seeing how the EMP Adv. has the ability to mess up all and any ship's turrets PLUS agonizing everyone flying a fighter/bomber, I'd say it's a bit deeper-than-superficial. The techroom description does say "This advanced version of the standard EM Pulse missile disrupts subsystems at a deeper circuitry level, resulting in a longer-lasting effect.".
Of course, I've never been hit by an EMP while flying a capship in FRED so I've no idea how it might turn out. If the capship also experiences the same thing fighters/bombers do when they're hit (except for the shockwave)...canon?!
-
I highly doubt there is, but have there ever been any hard figures on the Marine complement on, say a Diemos? Unless it makes up one fifth of the crew or some crazily huge number like that, I'm sure a boarding operation by, say, a thousand marines in Power Armor (which, IIRC, is BP canon) would be able to clean house without an inordinate amount of trouble. After all, we've seen larger ships boarded in FS multiple times, once even in BP. Surely they must have some method that works for them.
Not that you wouldn't want to soften up the crew or simply get them to surrender first, of course. That would be ideal. Just a thought really.
-
BP keeps mentioning this one botched up boarding, what is it really?
-
The Kubara boarding? Nothing that complicated. You can sort of tell what happened between the Corsair tech description and some chatter in The Plunder.
-
Well, from BP canon, I think the whole idea of capturing capital ships in order to get an advantage towards the opponent has been thoroughfully debunked. That ship has sailed.
Well at least, if I were the one being commanded to capture a second ship, I'd just give them the finger.
-
Remember that the UEF did successfully capture a Deimos corvette and an Aeolus cruiser in Pawns on a Board of Bone.
-
BP keeps mentioning this one botched up boarding, what is it really?
The Tevs stuck a pocket nuke in the Corsair.
-
Remember that the UEF did successfully capture a Deimos corvette and an Aeolus cruiser in Pawns on a Board of Bone.
We don't know that for sure. We just completely disarm and disable them, for the sake of the trap. For all we know they might have been recovered by a contingency plan of Steele, spirited away by the Gef or could even still be floating out there dead in space.
Though it is likely that they were towed to a UEF station were they could be dealt with, however that's going to be done.
-
Or maybe they blew them up when they were no longer needed.
-
Or maybe they blew them up when they were no longer needed.
The UEF has neither the ethical ability nor desire to blow up potential fleet assets with crew still onboard.
The GTVA wouldn't want to blow up their personnel and warships if they could help it.
Why would anyone blow them up?
-
There is one reason I could think of. "We can't take them over, so we better make sure the enemy can't get them back either". Though I agree that it's rather unlikely.
But maybe the Gef blew them up, to make sure the UEF doesn't get them. Their swarm bombs certainly are capable of quite a lot of damage, especially since those two ships have not a single working gun to defend themselfs.
-
I'm sure with an Aeolus and a Deimos working together, they could pool their resources up and fix their comms. Hell, they're in an asteroid belt (I think...), lots 'o resources. The station usually doesn't die, so...well, I don't know.
But with the Carthage escaping with news that both ships are still alive, I'm sure they'd been rescued.
-
The UEF has neither the ethical ability nor desire to blow up potential fleet assets with crew still onboard.
Can't you read between the lines? The UEF are evil bastards! Calder probably had a Durga or two to spare.
-
The UEF has neither the ethical ability nor desire to blow up potential fleet assets with crew still onboard.
Can't you read between the lines? The UEF are evil bastards! Calder probably had a Durga or two to spare.
You could even call in a Durga wing or two from the Eris or Toutatis in that Agincourt escort mission IIRC.
-
Hell, they're in an asteroid belt (I think...), lots 'o resources. The station usually doesn't die, so...well, I don't know.
Now the station might help, if they can capture them, but forget about the asteroids' ressources. I can't imagine an Aeolus or a Deimos being equiped with refinaries to process whatever you can get out of asteroids. That is, if they could juri-rig mining equipment in the first place, not to mention that mining takes time... time you usually don't get square in the middle of enemy terretory, with the enemy knowing were you are.
-
Well the UEF prioritized getting the Carthage blown up, sending...so many...ships after it...just for the Imperieuse to come. The Deimos and Aeolus would've blown up everything in the belt if the Carthage wasn't the mission...the Wargods wouldn't be at the belt...I suppose the station can be easily captured, having their marines just all float out of the airlocks and use their suit thrusters to...boost them over to the station's airlocks blow it apart with pocket nukes and stuff. No one's really explored into the armories of any GTVA ship...
...once the station is captured...well, that's for that. Making a long-range SOS to Steele or something, perhaps.
-
You forget something. The Bretonia stations are armed. While the five light turrets are too few and weak to defend against even a single cruiser (or a single fighter for that matter), they are more than enough to shoot down marines in space suits, escape pods or shuttles, unless they have a few of those heavily armed suits on board that were used in the original release of AoA or in Vassago's Dirge. Even then it's risky.
-
I would love to see the GEFs deploying cruisers or corvettes^^
-
Well, they did deploy one big-ass Argo at some point. I wouldn't finf it that suprising if they had recieved/captured/else a cruiser or two.
-
The Gefs probably have cruisers, it wouldn't be surprising for them to have salvaged and retrofitted some decommissioned Fenris/Leviathan, or even assembled a whole Sanctus or another early UEF cruiser class from salvaged spare parts. A faction able to disable a fully armed and retrofitted Hatshepsut-class destroyer might even have the resources to build their own cruiser classes from scratch.
-
The GEFs are no more, they where either vanquished or assimilated by the GTVA.
Do you really think all those GEF fighters that you fought where flown by GEF pilots?
-
Is that confirmed?
As for GEF cruisers, I'd more imagine in the fashion of modified transports, a la Millenium Falcon.
-
The GEFs are no more, they where either vanquished or assimilated by the GTVA.
Do you really think all those GEF fighters that you fought where flown by GEF pilots?
Yep. The GTVA isn't in control of the system, and the GEF's managed to survive for 50 years against a clearly superior foe. While the UEF isn't known for playing hardball, the reaction of UEF pilots to GEFs suggests that whatever sympathy they had was long since exhausted. I have a suspicion that a future plot point might hinge on the GEF's fractious nature playing more into UEF hands.
-
Keep in mind that GEFs are prety much partisans, who are known to cause a lot of trouble for superior armed forces (for example, today in Iraq or Afghanistan).
They hide among civilian population, store their equipment in Kuiper belt asteroids and hidden bases. UEF would have crushed GEFs if they only had a target to strike.
Every GEF Fenris or Leviathan has most likely been downed by the time the war with GTVA begun, same goes for anything big enough to be tracked down and bombed.
-
Yeah, I cant see they Gefs operating anything larger than an armed transport, maybe one or two cruisers. They've lasted this long by being difficult to hit, not by being a large military force.
-
The GEFs are no more, they where either vanquished or assimilated by the GTVA.
Do you really think all those GEF fighters that you fought where flown by GEF pilots?
As far as I followed the discussions, there was only one group of Gefs present in the WiH1 campaign. And only this one cooperated with the GTVA, while the other Gef clans (for lack of better term) are hitting both UEF and GTVA in their raids.
And I suppose there are also some that just try to stay under the radar, untill the war is resolved, but this last point is just speculation on my part.
-
The GEFs are no more, they where either vanquished or assimilated by the GTVA.
Do you really think all those GEF fighters that you fought where flown by GEF pilots?
You could hardly be wronger. The Gefs have been supplied for 18 months by both the UEF and the Tevs, both trying to use them against the others. Some Gefs cells are working with the Tevs, some are working with the Feds, some are working for neither, either keeping a low profile or striking targets of opportunity on both sides, and some are probably just giving themselves as guns to hire. None of them are directly under the Tev or Fed orders, they're just a wild card they try to influence the best they can. We're talking about a vast, fractioned faction of which a single cell nearly managed to capture a top-of-the-line Hatshepsut by itself.
EDIT : Also, I might add that given the sensible nature of the previously mentioned operation (if what happenned there was to be known, Steele could loose his rank or even be sentenced to death for high treason, conspiracy against Vasudans, for hiding critical intel and organizing a direct assault against critical Allied assets, this could even start a second T-V war if the Zods decided to take it bad), Steele couldn't afford to crew the Scimitars you see in that mission with SOC pilots, and I don't think he even has enough SOC at his disposal on the whole Sol theater for this. We're talking about dozens of fighters here. It's much easier, cheaper and safer to silence a few Gefs than your highly skilled fellow SOC pilots.
Every GEF Fenris or Leviathan has most likely been downed by the time the war with GTVA begun, same goes for anything big enough to be tracked down and bombed.
The Tevs managed to hide a Titan-class carrier for a good half of WiH. This is a much bigger target to hide, especially for people who don't know the battlefield that well. I don't see why would the Gefs have any problem to hide a flotilla of cruisers or larger, since they know the terrain, and most of the UEF sensor infrastructure has been down for a while anyway.
-
But that was during the war, with - as you said yourself- the UEFs sensor net being only partially functional. Before the GTVA arrived in Sol, it would have been far harder to hide a cruiser, though not entirely impossible I guess.
But if they aquired/build a cruiser during the war, their chances of keeping it under the radar are probably quite good, since the UEF would divert the resources usually in place to detect and take out the Gef, towards the war with the GTVA.
-
If it was that easy to detect a cruiser out of the blue, the Gefs wouldn't be able to hide any of their bases at all. As long as they don't attack with the cruisers, there is nothing for the UEF to track.
-
Gef bases and colonies are build inside hollowed out asteroids as far as I know. Those are naturally hard to find within an asteroid field, because they don't look out of place. Even the port entrance can be camouflaged by sticking rocks on the outside of the gate.
A starship on the other hand, stands out quite a bit more, unless it stays inside such hidden bases all the time.
-
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.
(It can't be that hard to hide a cruiser)
-
A cruiser that isn't doing anything flashy like jumping around a lot is really easy to hide.
-
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.
Some people's perspective is small, sadly. You can stash a Colossus, a bunch of Raynors or even a few million Ursa in one spot in Sol, and they'll never find them if they don't do anything. "Just happened to stumble on them" doesn't occur like a miracle. Maybe god's luck, but you'll never be lucky enough to just exit subspace to somewhere you don't intend to go (without plot devices) and find that bunch of idle ships.
-
Gef bases and colonies are build inside hollowed out asteroids as far as I know.
Tangent, but it's comets IIRC.
-
Remember how hard it was for the UEF to find the Agincourt without the help of an inside agent. Fair enough, it was after most of the UEF sensor infrastructure was nuked, and it doesn't stay in place very long, but it's still a ship around which a fair amount of subspace traffic happens.
This is much harder to hide than a few cruisers hidden in asteroid belts, near their bases, where they don't need to jump at all. Given the efficiency of the Gefs with bare fighters (did they needed any cruiser to disable the Hattie ? of course not), I expect the Gefs to use cruisers only as main defence for their hidden bases and last-resort firepower for emergency situations.
EDIT: Also, remember how hard for the GTVA it was to find the Wargods between the capture of the Agincourt and Aristeia. You don't need much effort to hide something in space, as long as subspace traffic is low or unexistant.
-
Gef bases and colonies are build inside hollowed out asteroids as far as I know.
Tangent, but it's comets IIRC.
Wether you live in an asteriod or comet won't make any impact on nature, which is the reason for the Gefs to not live on planets.
And to live on something that regularly crosses the asteroid belt at high speed sounds like a rather bad idea. Much better to settle inside an asteroids, hidden among other asteroids and in a far more stable orbit.
And I know that space is incredibly massive, but we are talking about a system that has a massive amount of traffic going on, and had a very well developed and deployed sensor net. They were mining in the belt, patroling it, had sensors in place, ect.
Now I know it's not impossible to slip a few cruisers through all that, but the Gefs surely won't turn up with a fleet of cruisers all of a sudden.
-
There are Oort and Kuiper objects that never enter the inner solar system.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an object only called a comet, if it get's close enough to the sun to get a "tail" at some point of it's orbit?
While there are objects beyond the asteroid belt, they wouldn't be called comets.
-
There are Oort and Kuiper objects that never enter the inner solar system.
I agree. and a lot of empty-ish space out after that so quite easy to have something hidden, although I am sure it would still be nothing to large, modded transports/carriers, maybe a few real fighting machines.
To large and sophisticated a fleet would of draw some serious attention at some point.
-
The GEF's work in cells. If even each owns a large gunship or cruiser, a combined fleet would already house a threat to anyone who runs into those.
-
A cruiser that isn't doing anything flashy like jumping around a lot is really easy to hide.
Just for the sake of argument, what good would a couple of said cruisers do for the Gefs? Even if they managed to keep a couple of cruisers hidden, they would be almost impossible to actually use. They would most likely be one-use weapons, because once they commit them to an attack, the UEF would drop the proverbial hammer on them either before they were able to jump away, or track their jump and vector other forces on them. Either way, I don't see a Gef cruiser lasting long if they actually try to use it.
-
A cruiser that isn't doing anything flashy like jumping around a lot is really easy to hide.
Just for the sake of argument, what good would a couple of said cruisers do for the Gefs? Even if they managed to keep a couple of cruisers hidden, they would be almost impossible to actually use. They would most likely be one-use weapons, because once they commit them to an attack, the UEF would drop the proverbial hammer on them either before they were able to jump away, or track their jump and vector other forces on them. Either way, I don't see a Gef cruiser lasting long if they actually try to use it.
I would see them in a more defensive role.
IE. fighters attack something somewhere (objective done) then go to escape with enemy fighters following instead of having to engage on even terms they flee towards a civilian transport (some distance away) the fighters clear the "transport" and continue on. the following fighters go to do the same.
the "transport" powers up and lays down a massive flak attack and Com's suppression, taking many enemy fighters by suprise. the other fighters turn round to help mop up. after which the fighters & "transport" can move out to safer space.
It has the bonus of never having to flee towards a base or other fixed secret location (therefore keeping it operational and hidden) and also you would have a better chance of retaining a larger number of fighters/pilots.
so not an attacking option but a great way to protect your limited assets.
It is not the only option for a few larger units, but it is a way in which you can have larger units in small numbers make an operational difference.
-
I think it rather obvious that it is better to have a couple of cruisers than not having them.
-
The question isn't wether to have them or not. The question is wether to build/steal/otherwise aquire a cruiser or something else and wether the cruiser is worth the effort to obtain it.
From the material needed to build a single cruiser, you can build quite a few fighters I guess. And restoring a derelict cruiser (if you happen to get your hands on one in the first place) isn't exactly effortless either, especially if you want it equiped with better stuff than pre-great war era weapons and armor.
Stealing a cruiser isn't exactly easy either and runs the risk of exposing your hidden agents or it getting tracked all the way to your secret space dock.
-
I've been told in another thread that diversity is a good thing to have in our gene pool.
The same may apply to a fleet. If you only have fighters you have only one kind of strategy. If you have frigates, you can make more surprising moves. Is it worth it? I think the question is more like, can they even afford or conquer one?
-
Just as only very few terrorist groups in RL operate MBTs, groups like the militant Gef are better off with a bunch of assets that can disperse quickly, instead of bundling everything up in one big flashy ship.
-
Cruisers are probably used by pirate groups more as command posts and headquarters, not specifically for combat roles.
Once the pirates start trying to play on the same level as regular military forces, they're going to have their asses handed to them.
-
Just as only very few terrorist groups in RL operate MBTs, groups like the militant Gef are better off with a bunch of assets that can disperse quickly, instead of bundling everything up in one big flashy ship.
I don't think MBT is a good comparison here. Those things are slow. Given the subspace manoeuvrability, I'd more compare cruisers to helis or even fighter jets. Some militias definitely use helis as heavy hitters.
-
Why not use the Iceni as a point of reference then?
...oh...right. Never mind.
-
Just as only very few terrorist groups in RL operate MBTs, groups like the militant Gef are better off with a bunch of assets that can disperse quickly, instead of bundling everything up in one big flashy ship.
I don't think MBT is a good comparison here. Those things are slow. Given the subspace manoeuvrability, I'd more compare cruisers to helis or even fighter jets. Some militias definitely use helis as heavy hitters.
So is a cruiser which has minutes left on it's subspace recharge timer. :P Even if they can jury-rig a solution in say 3 minutes that's a lot of time to take out a sub-par cruiser engine.
-
Just as only very few terrorist groups in RL operate MBTs, groups like the militant Gef are better off with a bunch of assets that can disperse quickly, instead of bundling everything up in one big flashy ship.
I don't think MBT is a good comparison here. Those things are slow. Given the subspace manoeuvrability, I'd more compare cruisers to helis or even fighter jets. Some militias definitely use helis as heavy hitters.
So is a cruiser which has minutes left on it's subspace recharge timer. :P Even if they can jury-rig a solution in say 3 minutes that's a lot of time to take out a sub-par cruiser engine. I don't think cruisers can be too much compared to a helicopter or fighter jet. Those relatively compared to the cruiserhave mostly forward facing weaponry. A cruiser has turrets/weapons mobility in the first place because it turns like a brick and needs all over coverage, a tank turret does the same, even though modern battle tanks can more and more turn on a dime (and fast too!).
The question isn't wether to have them or not. The question is wether to build/steal/otherwise aquire a cruiser or something else and wether the cruiser is worth the effort to obtain it.
From the material needed to build a single cruiser, you can build quite a few fighters I guess. And restoring a derelict cruiser (if you happen to get your hands on one in the first place) isn't exactly effortless either, especially if you want it equiped with better stuff than pre-great war era weapons and armor.
Stealing a cruiser isn't exactly easy either and runs the risk of exposing your hidden agents or it getting tracked all the way to your secret space dock.
I don't think the UEF, with it's burned ground tactics allows a cruiser to be stolen from a dock and taking an actively manned cruiser is tedious business. But I think I read it either on the BP forums here, or ingame, that the GEF have various ways of producing some pretty useful things on their own. Maybe larger ships also.
-
Remember, that Steele destroyed several uncrewed Izrael in his blitz...so maybe the Gef can steal a uncrewed cruiser or something, a Sanctus has a small freight compartment...perhaps it is big enough for one or two Scimitars...
-
Once the war started, I could see the GEF getting away w/ something like that, and once the UEF is busy fighting the Tevs, the GEFs would have more freedom in using something like a cruiser. But before the war, even if the GEFs could basically acquire a cruiser for free, I don't think it would be worth the resources and manpower to keep it operational. The GEF were litterally the only ones around for the UEF to fight, so you can bet that once the UEF realized the GEFs had deployed a cruiser in an engagement, they would send everything they had after it. Considering the size of the UEF fleet, and the fact that before the war it had nothing to do but training exercises and hunting GEFs, there would be no way a couple of cruisers would survive once the UEF had their location.
-
The Gefs have each other to fight too. The cells no longer share a common agenda, common social structures, or - arguably, in some more extreme cases - a common species.
-
Woah, are the Gefs getting into Trans-humanism now? If they are, that, combined with the fact that they live in Comet-Colonies, is giving me some serious Hyperion vibes.
-
The Ousters wouldn't be a bad analogy - but the Gefs are much more grungy and much less powerful. They're on the edge out there, both of humanity and of their own survival. It's a rough life.
-
This made me MUCH more interested in the Gefs as a whole. I hope they get more screen time to show these facets of their society off.
-
So they developed like... claws or something?
-
Probably better night vision, so they have to waste less precious energy to light up the corridors of their home rock. Or better adaption to low gravity.
And I agree, a Gef campaign sounds rather interesting. Against the UEF and GTVA you'd have sneaky missions and against other Gefs the pure battle missions.
It could be something like a faction believing in genetic purity, against another cell that commonly employs genetic manipulation.
-
I wonder though, is there any common 'messiah' the Gefs look up to? Someone that could reunite the fractured Gef, and
topple the UEF and GTVA save the Gefs from self-destruction? I'm certain that person isn't named Kane, but...what the hell.
-
The Reverend Ian MacDuff is no longer the unifying force he once was.
-
At the risk of being predictable: Alpha 1.
-
Why?
The Gefs are extremist eco activists. They want nature the be allowed to run it's course completely unimpeded by Humans (and probably Vasudans) up to the point were they sequest themself to living on, or rather in lifeless rocks.
How does that have anything to do with Alpha 1?
-
At the risk of being predictable: Alpha 1.
You are not thinking outside the box, stop thinking inside the box! it's ruining the thread :P
-
I wonder though, is there any common 'messiah' the Gefs look up to?
It's Captain Planet, dude.
-
And the Planet Ears. Don't forget them. :P
-
New concept, thought of it when going to bed yesterday and almost forgot about it. Secondary jumpdrives. What about a second jumpdrive being on a ship for emergencies? A quick get-away jump, so that the first drive can recharge, maybe even only usable 1 time, possibly not even a stock component but a makeshift device. It is probably smaller than the main jump drive to fit in so may drain massive power from the ships capacitators or reserves.
-
What exactly do you think sprint drives are?
-
Replay Pawns and re-read the Carthage's lines. That's exactly what it does to escape.
-
What exactly do you think sprint drives are?
I assumed a single jumpdrive, but with less recharge time or which in emergency can jump right away again (but probably at sacrifice of drive stability). I imagined always there's only one aboard, like a Trek warpcore. I thought a seperate smaller drive detached from a main jumpdrive could potentially spare and keep the main drive from becoming stressed or overloaded. But maybe that's no huge advantage over the sprint drive, my bad if it is not.
-
So if the sprint drive is just a couple of drives, instead of a single one, what are the risks and disadvantages?
Because if there are non, they would have build several jumpdrives (or at least two) into every ship, with enough room for it, long before the BP era.
-
Disadvantage is that a second drive core takes up space, and that once you have exhausted the second core, you have to recharge both, which means increased energy usage. The GTVA was only able to pull this off due to advances in subspace tech that led them to more efficient, smaller drive cores.
-
So no problem with electric currents or fields interfering with each other, or over-excessive heat buildup? "Only" space and energy.
-
I'm sure there are all sorts of engineering challenges. Remember, nothing is canon unless it comes in a campaign or 'official' information.
-
Man, Battuta, you rob me of all my canon-making-up fun :(