Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 02:29:24 am

Title: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 02:29:24 am
Are they worth keeping?

Why?

What about Leviathans?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Prophet on May 29, 2006, 03:16:44 am
Why wouldn't they? Or would you rather have a Hecate escorting every convoy, quarding every depot and patrolling every remote system? Fenris and Leviathan cruisers are capable ships when Alpha 1 is not around. And the design is pretty, no wings or fins.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 03:35:09 am
The Deimos corvette is supposed to replace Fenathan cruisers of course not a Hecate, obviously your not going to have a destroyer escorting convoys.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fury on May 29, 2006, 03:40:22 am
Aeolus is more capable cruiser design though than Fenris or Leviathan. Leviathans are good for protecting stationary targets, while Aeolus excels in convoy escorts. Fenrises are pretty obsolete as there is Aeolus, but converting Fenrises to Leviathans would be a smart move.

I see corvettes and destroyers in offensive role, while cruisers are in defensive role. I don't think corvettes would be the standard escort for convoys and stationary targets. Besides, multiple cruisers offer superior mobility than a single corvette.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 29, 2006, 03:42:41 am
Note that the Fenris is more cost effective than the Aeolus, and the Fenris can also double as a pretty good quick strike vessel.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fury on May 29, 2006, 03:53:52 am
Note that the Fenris is more cost effective than the Aeolus
Now that is purely speculation. :) Aeolus is of newer design and might cost less to manufacture and don't forget that upkeep of old vessels costs a lot more than new vessels because of their age, at least that's how it is in current navies.

Based on what little information is available about GTVA capital ship manufacturing, considering that even production of Aeolus was restarted multiple times (as stated in the tech room) it is unlikely that Fenris and Leviathan cruisers have been manufactured since Aeolus went into production for the first time. But still, there's very little information about GTVA's manufacturing of space vessels and of their upkeep.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 04:09:44 am
No, they never resumed production of the Aeolus canonically, they only produced 24, most of which were destroyed in the main campagin.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 29, 2006, 04:31:59 am
Note that the Fenris is more cost effective than the Aeolus
Now that is purely speculation. :) Aeolus is of newer design and might cost less to manufacture and don't forget that upkeep of old vessels costs a lot more than new vessels because of their age, at least that's how it is in current navies.

I thought that they stopped manufacturing them because they cost too much.

Anyway, remember that that upkeep thing is for the age of the vessel, not the design. One would assume the GTVA has built more Fenris and Leviathans since the Great War and that more than 24 cruisers (Aeolus) were built in recent years.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 04:38:54 am
Here are all the quotes from the Tech descriptions
Fenris
Quote
FS2 Demo Tech Room Description

The biggest, baddest, and meanest cruiser EVER. The Aeolus will smack you up.

FS2 Tech Room Description

The GTC Aeolus is the first cruiser class ever produced by the RNI shipyards orbiting Laramis II. Only two dozen of these cruisers were put into service in GTVA fleets, with production ending in 2365. Allied Command assigns Aeolus-class ships primarily to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings, as these cruisers are severely out-gunned by most capital ships in service today. Their flak and AAA turrets serve as marvelous deterrents to smaller craft, however.
Fenris
Quote
FS1 Tech Room Description

The mainstay of the Terran Fleet, these vessels have served in both strike and defense purposes. From nose to tail it measures 260 meters. With a full array of weapon systems and a strong enough hull to withstand the strongest enemy warheads, a Fenris Cruiser can be found in almost any system that the GTA is operating in. The Fenris cruiser was originally designed as a strike weapon, hence its fast speed and decent turning rate. It was later decided that a second line of cruisers would be produced, for defensive purposes, once it became apparent that the V-T war wouldn't be over in a few months.

FS2 Tech Room Description

The GTC Fenris class is the aging stalwart among the Alliance's warships. Before the Great War, the Fenris was Terran Command's only class of cruisers. During the war, Terran Command decided to build a second line of cruisers, the Leviathans, to free the Fenris from escort and guard duties. Fenris cruisers have fought in virtually every theatre of operation. These fast, versatile cruisers pack enough punch in their 260-meter-long hulls to go toe-to-toe with any enemy cruiser. The Fenris's speed and maneuverability make it a good choice for strike missions.
Leviathan
Quote
FS1 Tech Room Description

After the Vasudans began making incursions into GTA space, command decided that it needed a new defensive cruiser. Changes to the Fenris led to the GTC Leviathan line of cruisers, produced as mobile defense battleships. Their speed and maneuverability were greatly reduced in tradeoff for more powerful weapons and a stronger hull. Production was discontinued when the GTA thought they would win the Vasudan war after the Battle of Gulnara, and then the production was started up again after the defeat at the Talania system. Because of the on-again off-again nature of this vessel's production, almost all of the Leviathan Cruisers have different armaments, but all have consistent hulls and speeds.

FS2 Tech Room Description

Early in the Great War, Han-Ronald engineers designed and built the Leviathan class of cruisers. The Leviathan is much heavier armed and armored than the Fenris, but also much slower and less maneuverable. Leviathan cruisers are used to guard critical installations, such as permanent jump nodes, deep-space factories, and gas-mining operations, where firepower is king and speed is of little importance. They're also well-suited to escorting slow-moving freighters or transports. The Fenris is good for fast-moving operations, but when you need some muscle, call in a Leviathan.
Deimos
Quote
FS2 Tech Room Description

Deimos-class corvettes, such as the GTCv Actium and the GTCv Lysander, are the newest addition to the Terran fleet. These sleek, ultra-modern warships are the products of a new era of ship design, maximizing maneuverability and firepower. Their hulls are strengthened with collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing for better protection against beam fire, and their Vasudan-designed reactor core provides more energy per ton than any other allied ship class. As the Leviathan and Fenris cruisers of the Great War are gradually phased out, these corvettes will become the foundation of tomorrow's fleet.

Nowhere does it mention price.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 29, 2006, 04:39:56 am
The Fenris has zero strike capablity. An LTerSlash gets beat out by a bank of Tempests.

By FS2, I think the Fenris is on the way out; you only see one in GTVA colors once in the main campaign, IIRC. If nothing else, their sheer fragility in the FS2 era gives them a life expectancy of, on average, a minute once they're seriously attacked. Even the Aten lasts longer then that. (Though not by much...)

Concerning the Aeolus, cost-effectiveness is...beating 8+ wings of bombers vs. 1 wing of bombers for the Fenris, 2 wings at the outside. Unless the Aeolus costs more then four times what the Fenris does (unlikely; the Fenris is actually larger, so at the very least it needs more materials and probably more crew), the Aeolus is coming out ahead. And this isn't even considering their respective anticapital abilities. (Fenris: laughable vs. Aeolus: not great, but serviceable.)

Where cost and the Aeolus are considered, there is almost zero possiblity that it's not cost-effective when compared to the other cruisers. Rather, if it's not cost-effective, it must be in comparison to the Deimos.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 04:42:45 am
I've never thought of that. The only real advantage of the Deimos over the Aeolus is anti-capital power... in which the Deimos is many times more capable than the Aeolus. I think that's why it's replacing the Fenathan cruisers rather than the Aeolus.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: karajorma on May 29, 2006, 04:46:44 am
You're making the assumption that the GTVA is building new fenrises in that analysis ngtm1r. It could very easily cost more than four times as much to build and maintain a new Aeolus compared with the cost to maintain an existing Fenris.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Prophet on May 29, 2006, 06:25:07 am
Okay. Few things I feel that need to be noted. When considering the fragility of cruisers versus fighters. Remember that Alpha 1 cannot be conisdered as an example. Of course A1 owns everything that can be thrown at him. But what if A1 would have full control over a Fenris class cruiser? Again, every incoming target would be pwned. Thus "cannon taken out by a bank of tempest" is not a valid argument because the Ai cannot do it properly. If Ai could do it properly, the cruiser would likely have the intelligence to use the beam cannon. POF! And turn the troublesome bank of tempest in to vapor.
A properly armed wing of heavy fightes can take out a Fenris, even without A1. But so would happen to modern destroyers if a squadron of heavily armed Hornets would attack it.

And when he have seen Fenris or leviathan in the main FS2 campaing, its function has usually been to provide a pretty explosion. But the GTC Lonewolf in Derelict survived multiple major engagements. Volition was a little heartless when it designed the campaign. But I guess explosions are always cool. So examples of cruisers weaknesses are numerous, but their strenghts have been overlooked.

Perhaps in the age of FS1 a cruiser was a valid first line combat ship, but now corvettes have taken it's place. When you put things properly in perspective, you'll find out a Fenris (or a Leviathan) isn't a useless ship. It's a damn old design, but after being upgraded with beam weaponry, it is a good support vessel. One Fenris can decimate a freighter convoy or a cargo depot (if Alpha 1 is not present) and can thus seriously hamper enemy logistics. But it cannot bear the brunt of an offensive, it is not meant to.

So show some respect to the old goat.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fury on May 29, 2006, 06:47:21 am
I think the balance between fighters/bombers and cruisers was good in the beginning of the original FS campaign, but after fighters and bombers got their shields, cruisers and other capital ships remained the same. I have often wondered whether Volition originally planned capital ships to receive shields as well.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 29, 2006, 07:23:26 am
You're making the assumption that the GTVA is building new fenrises in that analysis ngtm1r. It could very easily cost more than four times as much to build and maintain a new Aeolus compared with the cost to maintain an existing Fenris.

And the lives of its crew.

I'm not assuming they're being built: I'm taking the view of full lifetime costs, from construction to decomissioning. That's exactly what most militaries do. (Granted because it sounds better to the politicians that way, but otherwise they'd never give the military new weapons. It will always be cheaper to maintain an older ship instead of building a new one...except for the part about the crew getting killed I mentioned.)

My comments on durablity are based on testing in FRED, and occasionally the main campaign, where I have delibrately removed myself from the equation.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Prophet on May 29, 2006, 07:24:41 am
I agree with Fury. Shields somewhat negate the need for evasion. I somehow feel like a wussy hiding behind shields while freighter crews bravely take the beating trusting only in their flak/subach turrets. Those are the true heroes of the Alliance! :yes:

This is what happens when I'm flying a Herc II. Someone shoots me in the back. "Meh. I'll kill this mara first, then I'll see who's shooting me" With a little shield management, there is no danger... :doubt:

When I'm flying a Starfury. First salvo takes hull integrity down to 50-80 % (depends on the opposition) before I get off with some decent manouvers. Then you actually have to counter your foe because if you let him hang in your tail, he will kill you. That's fighting.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on May 29, 2006, 07:49:45 am
Weapon power needs to be boosted substantially...when a single salvo fro a shivan fighter brings your full shields down to 30% you WILL worry :D
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Shade on May 29, 2006, 08:04:03 am
Fenris cruisers are obsolescent, but not entirely useless. You still need something to park next to that backwater space station to scare off would-be raiders, and it'll still do that.

The Leviathan, though... that's still one mean ship to go up against. 4 AAA beams. Four. So sure, it may not fare well against other warships, but it will eat up fighters and bombers almost as well as an Aeolus, and in fact better when shivans are concerned as they are shield-centric. Plus it can actually take a fair beating. As long as it doesn't have to move, it's awesome.

As for all the shields being too powerful stuff, play on the higher difficulties. Maxed out, you'll often lose half your shields to a single enemy volley.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on May 29, 2006, 08:52:41 am
Given the state of the fleet, it'd be extremely ill-advised to even consider retiring the Fenris, regardless of the quality or cost-effective nature of the design. Hell, even when the fleet has been rebuilt, the Fenris would be useful to keep around, I mean, just gut the weapons and habitation systems, whack in a Meson Bomb, and you've got yourself an Anti-Jug cruise missile.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Prophet on May 29, 2006, 09:14:50 am
As for all the shields being too powerful stuff, play on the higher difficulties. Maxed out, you'll often lose half your shields to a single enemy volley.
That is hard, because you will be all alone by the time the first enemy volley hits you. I rather play on normal and let the shields dry up and  rely on speeeed.

I mean, just gut the weapons and habitation systems, whack in a Meson Bomb, and you've got yourself an Anti-Jug cruise missile.
With the speed of... OMG 20 kmph!!! Or what ever the speed unit in FS was. Not very impressive. I'd leave some blob guns in so it can at least shoot down some bombs... Or you could equip meson bomb with a jump drive and warp it inside the juggernaut. This leaves the Fenrises to be converted in to passenger ships so you can bring tourists to look the big explosion.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: ShivanSpS on May 29, 2006, 09:32:30 am
Nah, in my campaing i put 2 Fenris againts 2 Atens (pre-FS1, so no beams), and the Fenrins owns the Atens... Both Fenris remain at 80%, so I have add two Osiris Bombers (whiout bombs, just Interceptors, MX-50 and Fury), the Osiris have unlimited waves until the Atens are destroyed... What now? about 60% each... The Feris really owns Atens thanx to the missile launcher, but that is in FS1...

But there is no way that a Fenris can beat a Cain...

About T vs V vessels... well, show a me single vasudan vessel that can beat to their Terran equal...

Fenris vs Aten= Fenris
Leviathans vs I dint remember thay name= Leviathan
Orion vs Typhoons= Orion *
Hecate vs Hephasup or whatever = Hecate I think :P
Deimos vs Sobek = Deimos
Colossus vs ?? the entire Vasudan fleet? :P

*hell, in FS1 I put an Orion vs a Typhoon, The orion and easly beat the Typhoon, and remain at 90%!
I need that the Typhoon hold up, so I add them a lot of hitpoints and 2 Bombers to disarm the Orion and even in this way is hard, and the Orion can win anyway.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kie99 on May 29, 2006, 09:58:47 am
If you were playing it on anything less than medium, and the Terran ship was friendly then it had a BIG advantage.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on May 29, 2006, 10:27:42 am
I think the corvette class is setup to replace the cruiser class althogether, myself.  I'd imagine the likes of the Fenris and Levy only exist in FS2 because they've not manufactured enough Deimos' to replace them.

NB:  the Colossus is Vasudan. It's a hybrid.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: ShivanSpS on May 29, 2006, 10:32:46 am
Im always playing in Medium or Hard... easy is just too easy :P

About the Colossus, that has been a joke :P
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: ShivanSpS on May 29, 2006, 10:35:23 am
and the Terran ship was friendly then it had a BIG advantage.

What you mean?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Jonathan_S47 on May 29, 2006, 10:49:01 am
The Fenris seems like a perfectly good cruiser to me.  ;7

(http://www.game-warden.com/starfox/Non_SF_related_stuff/JS47/UFenris_MV.jpg)

http://www.game-warden.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1945 (http://www.game-warden.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1945)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on May 29, 2006, 11:33:42 am
Fenris + 59 turrets = Win. :D

Quote
Hecate vs Hephasup or whatever = Hecate I think

Depends on which direction the destroyers were coming from. If the Hecate was coming down on the Hatshepsut, it wouldn't stand a chance against those three BVas beams that the Hatshepsut can bring on it. From below, that's a different story.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Flipside on May 29, 2006, 01:38:45 pm
I can see the GTVA using Cruiser-sized Hulls to specialise, after all, why risk something like a Destroyer against a Shivan Destroyer when three Fenris-sized hulls mounted with single Large Beams could do almost equivalent damage and force the destroyer to divide its fire.

Special Ops, I think, is the destiny of the cruiser hull. Or as convoy escorts, but they would be heavy on the AA-Weapons, much like the Aeolus.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kie99 on May 29, 2006, 03:34:17 pm
and the Terran ship was friendly then it had a BIG advantage.

What you mean?
When your difficulty is set to Easy or Very Easy friendly ships are made stronger than hostile ships.  So if you had the Vasudan ship as hostile and the Terran Ship as friendly the Terran ship would be stronger than the hostile ship.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 03:48:01 pm
Just have one set to hostile and the other to neutral, and have all teams at war.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: pecenipicek on May 29, 2006, 05:24:25 pm
FS2 Tech Room Description

The GTC Aeolus is the first cruiser class ever produced by the RNI shipyards orbiting Laramis II. Only two dozen of these cruisers were put into service in GTVA fleets, with production ending in 2365. Allied Command assigns Aeolus-class ships primarily to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings, as these cruisers are severely out-gunned by most capital ships in service today. Their flak and AAA turrets serve as marvelous deterrents to smaller craft, however.
it says only two dozen were put into GTVA fleets, NTF could have taken the RNI shipyards and built more, or there were more built, but they were never finished or sent to frontline duty.

just a random thought.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on May 29, 2006, 05:30:43 pm
FS2 Tech Room Description

The GTC Aeolus is the first cruiser class ever produced by the RNI shipyards orbiting Laramis II. Only two dozen of these cruisers were put into service in GTVA fleets, with production ending in 2365. Allied Command assigns Aeolus-class ships primarily to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings, as these cruisers are severely out-gunned by most capital ships in service today. Their flak and AAA turrets serve as marvelous deterrents to smaller craft, however.
it says only two dozen were put into GTVA fleets, NTF could have taken the RNI shipyards and built more, or there were more built, but they were never finished or sent to frontline duty.

just a random thought.

Unlikely, though, if FS canon (Regardless of actual in game effectiveness) describes them as more or less useless.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 29, 2006, 05:31:03 pm
Umm not be to presumptios but wasnt the Sobek actualy better then the Deimos as capship warfare?? I mean i believe in the wiki it said that put one against the other the sobek would win! But that is not to say that is a better corvette then the Deimos. Actualy not at all! The deimos has superior AAAf defences then the Sobek.

Also werent the Typhoon the fear of the GTA in FS1?

Also the Hathshepsuit(sp?) is a better design then the Hecate also it has more hp.

The Hathshepsuit has better capship combat capabilities then the Hecate. I mean if you attack the Hecate other then from the front you will win. I mean with another capship.

Also regarding the whole top/bottom attack....as far as i knew ships could go up/down...whaterever..its a lot easier i presupe to go up or own then to turn the entire ship in order to have your best weapon targeted at the enemy as opesed to the weapons of the Hathshepsuit !

Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 29, 2006, 05:32:52 pm
FS2 Tech Room Description

The GTC Aeolus is the first cruiser class ever produced by the RNI shipyards orbiting Laramis II. Only two dozen of these cruisers were put into service in GTVA fleets, with production ending in 2365. Allied Command assigns Aeolus-class ships primarily to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings, as these cruisers are severely out-gunned by most capital ships in service today. Their flak and AAA turrets serve as marvelous deterrents to smaller craft, however.
it says only two dozen were put into GTVA fleets, NTF could have taken the RNI shipyards and built more, or there were more built, but they were never finished or sent to frontline duty.

just a random thought.

Laramis is 6 jumps away from Epsilon Pegasi and 7 jumps from Regulus...

EDIT: Not to mention going through Ross 128, Delta Serpentis, Beta Aquilae (most of these sectors are pretty important GTVA sectors), then a choice of going through a rather long run of Antares/Vasuda/etc... or Vega/Capella or Vega/Deneb which seems to be the safest path...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 29, 2006, 05:45:06 pm
Aeolus could actualy be very usefull as a good antifighter/bommber platform for the bigger ships and convoys and even a better alternative to staion defence and jumpnode defence since it has superior weaponry to the leviathan!

They may be more expensive but then agin i would imagine corvettes ar not staioned at staion defences and jumnode defences everywhere.

I mean no matter what whenever i play fs and i see an Aeolus near by i get well a little more carufull this is something that a fenris or a leviathan have failed to do. Also When i see a Deimos and i know a hve to against it then im really worried.. good thing for the blind spots cuz well the i would be in serios trouble.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: FireCrack on May 29, 2006, 05:53:07 pm
Umm not be to presumptios but wasnt the Sobek actualy better then the Deimos as capship warfare?? I mean i believe in the wiki it said that put one against the other the sobek would win! But that is not to say that is a better corvette then the Deimos. Actualy not at all! The deimos has superior AAAf defences then the Sobek.
The deimos is also better in the anticap department, as would be expected, the Sobek is much older than the Deimos.
Quote
Also werent the Typhoon the fear of the GTA in FS1?
Yeah, but it didnt adapt to beam weapons well, so now it's complete and utter tosh
Quote
Also the Hathshepsuit(sp?) is a better design then the Hecate also it has more hp.

The Hathshepsuit has better capship combat capabilities then the Hecate. I mean if you attack the Hecate other then from the front you will win. I mean with another capship.
Yes, the Hecate is more of a carrier.
Quote
Also regarding the whole top/bottom attack....as far as i knew ships could go up/down...whaterever..its a lot easier i presupe to go up or own then to turn the entire ship in order to have your best weapon targeted at the enemy as opesed to the weapons of the Hathshepsuit !
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 29, 2006, 06:03:47 pm
Then that means that the wiki needs to be updated!(regarding the Sobek vs. Deimos)!

Also since they are rather old designs doesnt necesaraly mean they are worse then theyr more modern counterparts. At least if we look solely at anticapship warfare the Orion is far superior to both the Hecate and its vasudan counterpart!

Regarding the Fenris I would imagine since the GTVA fleets have been battered/hammered/smashed to pieces the Fenris would be a good workhorse for the GTVA getting it fast to whre you need a capship to intimidate any would be agressors.

Also i would imagine it could be a medical cruiser in the end since it is fast and very mobyle. Just strip out its weapons sistem leave an aaaf beam and the missile launcher and 2 blob turrets to be able to defend itself against bombs and stuff like that and the you have it a good medical ship that is fast. sure it mai not compare itself to the Hipocrates medical cruiser but still.

Also when regarding supply depos these things are ideal.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 06:59:27 pm
Nowhere in the wiki does it say the Sobek is superior, check for yourself Alpha, I just did.
Deimos (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GTCv_Deimos)
Sobek (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/GVCv_Sobek)

No, the part that bugs me about the Fenris is that it's only slightly superior tactically to a Hippocrates.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 29, 2006, 07:33:10 pm
Quote
However, in a toe-to-toe duel with a Deimos, the Sobek will win, after much testing around with FRED I've come to the conclusion that the Sobek is superior in capital ship combat, but much, much, much weaker in terms of anti-fighter ability.

this is taken from the wiki veterans comments section.

this is what I have been talking about!

Well yea regarding the Hipacrates you may be right but then again i cant but feel that the fenris would be a much safer choice when gooing into a hot zone to retreve wounded. The hipocrates is just so much larger and therefore easier to hit. Granted it is sleaker. But how fast is it? Is it faster then a Fenris? Or more resiliant to weapons fire?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 07:36:33 pm
Key word, toe-to-toe, meaning aimless circles around each other, which is not the recomended way of conducting cap-ship tests (as explained to me by, who was it... Goober?). See, that's my opinion right there, but Veteren Comments, as was explained to me by Wanderer, are non-canon comments and peoples opinions about ships, to be taken with a grain of salt. I thought you were talking about the tech room data: the Vet Comments should never be taken as pure fact.

In the end yeah, I should probably change that

edit:Nah, I stick to it until somone sends me a mission that proves me wrong.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 29, 2006, 07:42:46 pm
Well i nevre said that it was 100% acurate but it does say that it has been through extensive FRED testing so i thought it must be right!

Also this is also close to what I believed to be true since the Sobel has a distinctive more offensive weapons layout then the Deimos. Also it is smaller and sleaker then the Deiomos making it harder to hit by those very inacurate terslashers.


Also i checked the wiki and it says that the fenris is actualy 5m/s faster then the Hipocrates. But it is also smaller about half the size if im not mistaken.(im somewhat sleepy) And it does tend to have better protection then the Hipocrates. I would sugest get rid of one aaaf beam and some terran turrets and you could make enough room to make it a fast combat filed hospital ship carryng the wounded fast off the battlefield to a more specialized vessel such as the Hipocrates or an instalation or something like that!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 07:45:28 pm
Okay, I'll take off the extensive FRED testing, but I did, I just didn't do it the right way (cause I still don't know what the right way is.)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 29, 2006, 08:19:25 pm
well i dont know what to say about this either but from what i have see in the game itself the Sobek seems to be eating through cap ship faster then the Deimos.

And yeah i'l stick to the Sobek in a toe-to-toe combat.

On the other hand if I were to say ingage an enemy force composed of fighter/bommbers and one other cap ship i'l stick to the Deimos.

I love having an umbrella under to duck in case the gooing gets too ruff for me. Il take care of the capship the

Deimos can take care of the fighter/bommbers screens cuz that what its good at!

Damn i'm good at taking down shivan warships. Other then the jugg. I mean the ravana was how should I put this like a walk through the park in a clear sunny afternoon (deadly one if youre stupid that is) As are most shivan warships i mean the cruisers dont have much more adequate aaaf defences either and the Demon well lets just say tht if u hit it from a good spot not only can it not hit you but the fighters actualy have a tougher time hiting u!

Oki I have corected the post!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 29, 2006, 09:07:58 pm
Uh... the Deimos is the one that's good with fighters and bombers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on May 30, 2006, 08:40:19 am
You may as well say why keep Herc MkII if you've got Erinyes (Actually thats a  moot point) theres an old say ing which springs to mind, "Horses for courses" Does the Fenithan have more armour than an Aeoulian cruoosa?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 30, 2006, 08:58:06 am
The Aeolus has 3,000 more hitpoints, is 20mps faster, has twice the anti-capital firepower, and (I dare say) has a hugely superior anti-fighter screen to the Leviathan. Compared to a Fenris, it has 4.75 times the hitpoints, is 10mps faster, has unmesurabley superior anti-capital power and flak screen
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on May 30, 2006, 08:58:22 am
And yeah i'l stick to the Sobek in a toe-to-toe combat.

And all the Deimos will have to do is dive and get out of the Sobek's chief firing arc and it has it owned. The Deimos's offensive capability lies as much in its coverage as in its heavy forward firepower.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on May 30, 2006, 09:09:49 am
Quote
However, in a toe-to-toe duel with a Deimos, the Sobek will win, after much testing around with FRED I've come to the conclusion that the Sobek is superior in capital ship combat, but much, much, much weaker in terms of anti-fighter ability.

this is taken from the wiki veterans comments section.

this is what I have been talking about!

That doesn't say it's superior, either.  Look;

superior in capital ship combat, but much, much, much weaker in terms of anti-fighter ability
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Goober5000 on May 30, 2006, 11:30:35 am
The NTF rebellion hadn't started in 2365, so the NTF's Aeoluses are included in the two dozen total.

Because the number of Aeoluses you see in the main campaign are far greater than you would expect given two dozen ships evenly spread among all GTVA fleets, and because the Aeolus is much more effective (tactically and cost-effectively, see ngtm1r's post) than either the Fenris or Leviathan, I'm inclined to treat the tech room description as a non-canon anomaly.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Shade on May 30, 2006, 11:39:47 am
The tech description makes sense, if the alliance had decided to stop building cruisers entirely and transition to using corvettes, which is implied in the tech description for the Deimos.

It would also make sense for the NTF rebellion and the following Shivan incursion to force a change to those plans, as there really aren't that many ships left standing and it's better to have 3 cruisers than 1 corvette if you have to cover several systems on a budget. So they may have stopped building them prior to the troubles, when resources (and cruisers already in service) were plenty, but it's likely that they will be building them again now.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 30, 2006, 01:38:16 pm
Too, the Aeolus' actual performances in combat were exemplary; in many cases even a Deimos would only have done marginally better. This was demonstrated in the main campaign in a more backhanded fashion then anything else (hostile Aeolus warps in at under AAAf range, and it's immediately OMFG PANIC!!!11 on high difficulty...), since the game wasn't particularly kind to the GTVA's inventory in a lot of cases.

Plus, the GTVA has to rebuild their military, and though corvettes may provide superior bang for the buck, they also require larger crews; you can get cruisers into service faster because it takes less time to train a full crew.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 30, 2006, 04:58:19 pm
Well that is the case i mean the Aeoulous is a very dangerous cruiser. I mean couple and Aeoulus with lets say 2 wings of hercs or even mirmadons and you most definatly are screwed. I mnea that thing can even take on a Deimos and given the right circumstances can even win. Regardless of this the future of the cruiser classes are well asured into the future! I mean the curent cruiser classes will be used for at least 5 years to come maibe even more but i do not hink the GTVA will give up on the cruiser classes just yet i think they will even poduce more cruiser classes to replace the existing ones. Since a corvette is just too valuable to waste on depot guarding!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on May 30, 2006, 05:08:17 pm
Er, yes.  You really need to take a bit more time typing these things out, it can be quite migraine inducing to read.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Flipside on May 30, 2006, 05:25:35 pm
I don't know, if you could yodel you could probably pronounce Aeoulous ;)

Seriously though, I'm inclined to agree that you won't see cruisers dissapear, I think they'll change, but I posted earlier about that :)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 30, 2006, 07:09:35 pm
I would imagine them actualy creating something similar to the Fenris as a fast attack surgical strike missions and something like the Aeoulous whych has good defensive capabilities and good ofensive ones. Also it has a great aaaf capabilaty. They would eventualy scrap the Leviathan though since multi pourpose is the name of the game at least for cruisers ! The faster tipes for depot protection and area patrol the more powerfull one for node defense etc.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 30, 2006, 08:13:30 pm
You'd think the Aeolus has everything the SOC is looking for, speed, firepower, and the ability to leave no survivers. A wing of Erinyes fighters and an Aeolus cruiser can take out anything short of a destroyer (Iceni not included.)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 30, 2006, 08:22:27 pm
Well add some more wings of Erinyes and I bet the Iceni will fall. Also the Aeoulous is perfect for SOC I wiuld imagine them having a cuple of the beasts modified in order to fit theyr agenda!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: WeatherOp on May 30, 2006, 08:25:10 pm
I've allway figured that we would see the "heavy Cruiser" class in FS3. Very fast, with good anti-capship firepower, but lower then corvette class armor and poor anti-fighter firepower.

Then corvettes would become more of a fighter platform, as most corvettes would have fighterbays, high anti-fighter abilites, but medi-core cap-ship firepower.

So, basicly instead of having one big expensive destroyer, you have two cheaper ships, each focusing on a different effect. But, together with them defending each other's weak spot. You have an effective battlefleet in two ships. Thus phasing out both destroyers and normal cruisers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Flipside on May 30, 2006, 08:45:04 pm
Well, one idea I had, for example, is that the Second Shivan incursion proved that if theres one thing the GTVA are lacking in, it's the ability to empty ships quickly in emergency situations. The GTVA's current arsenal of support and evacuation ships are too thinly armoured and lacking in capacity to do anything more than hopefully effect a repair or remove the command crew. Secondly, the NTF insurgence suggests there may be a future need to deploy troops far faster than previously, and under heavier combat conditions. The solution would be something about 3/4 of the size of a Fenris, with limited weapons but good speed and thick armor. The ship could deliver troops in large numbers during combat, allowing faster and more effective over-running of an objective. Also, because of it's large accomodative ability, in emergency situations such a ship could take the large percentage of the entire crew of a Deimos, in admittedly cramped conditions, thus saving on the GTVA's fastest dwindling asset, personnel.[/non-canon)

It's not precisely 'Special Ops', but it performs a pretty specific role...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 30, 2006, 08:52:13 pm
Well not really since corvettes are hos whall i put this not very well suited as fighter platforms they are too sleek too fast ! You would need a corvette to be able to carry at least 50 fighters and remain at the same dimensions to be somewhat efective. Meaning fast agile powerfull against fighters and against warships.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 30, 2006, 09:55:25 pm
My current thoughts on future GTVA cruiser design are something along the lines of "flying superheavy beam cannon" and "dedicated antifighter point-defense ship".
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on May 31, 2006, 04:06:47 am
I think cruisers have a future as escorts/patrols with good AAF power. Anti-capital abiltiy is not that important for them.

I don't see corvettes as carrir type ships as it would surely come as a tradeoff. A better solution would be a new ship class - bigger than a corvette, smaller than a destroyer...around 1000m length. Primary a fighter carrier with limited offensive capabilities.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on May 31, 2006, 09:02:23 am
Primary a fighter carrier with limited offensive capabilities.

Yes, and I'm sure that's what the GTVA had in mind with the Hecate. The Hecate probably wasn't intended as an offensive weapon, but instead as a carrier vessel that can defend itself if attacked by cruisers or corvettes. Orions seem to fit the bill for offensive purposes, with much more effective and powerful beams (3 TerSlash, 3 BGreens to the Hecate's 4 TerSlash and one BGreen). It's probably the tradeoff that the Terrans are making with the Vasudans, with the Hatshepsut taking a more offensive role, and the Hecate being the carrier.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on May 31, 2006, 09:17:30 am
I think of my next commen as a parrallel topic, more than an off-topic/askew point.
The diversity in Starlancer and Wing commander fleetwise, compared to GTVA, Kilrathi Corvettes, Coalition Kurgens for instance, What would you say is the nearest allied counterpart?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on May 31, 2006, 09:50:22 am
It's probably the tradeoff that the Terrans are making with the Vasudans, with the Hatshepsut taking a more offensive role, and the Hecate being the carrier.

Or even just using 'packs' of hunter-killer corvettes, with fighter and bomber cover.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 04:11:10 pm
The Deimos is definitely supposed to take the main warship to warship combat role. The Terrans are removing the concept of "Destroyer" from their fleets and replacing them with carriers, whereas the Vasudans maintain the idea of a destroyer.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 31, 2006, 04:44:32 pm
Well we do tend to see something like this happening but then again the Deimos is not that powerfull as to present a serious threat to a destroyer such as the orion let alone a Ravana. Basicly what the terrans were lacking was a new destroyer that wasnt so aweak in terms of aaaf point defence. So the Hecate was born. The vasudan do what thy usulay do they design from scratch a new warship whic incorporates all of the new techonological advances.

With the Hecate they had to trade something in order to maintain its carrer capacity and its powerfull aaaf point defences and this was ofensive firepower(a.k.a. more powerfull beam cannons).

The vasudans managed to balance the Hatshepsuit a lot better the the terrans with their more powerfull beam cannons around the ship and good aaaf point defences as well as more hp's and a similar fighterbay. I would imagine the vasudans actualy providing the muscle in a fight(beam cannon firepower) and the tarrans the C&C and carrier abilities of the fleet.

Oh well vasudans are generaly more advanced in terms of reactors and beam cannons tech. Not more powerfull but just more advanced.

Also the cruisers i believe will be left exclusevely to the terrans since well they had by far the best designs.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: karajorma on May 31, 2006, 04:57:36 pm
Also the Hathshepsuit(sp?)

Never understood why people have such trouble with the name.

(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/bowler_hat.jpg)
+
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/bp12.jpg)
+
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/sutlogo_gross.jpg)

Not that hard is it?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on May 31, 2006, 04:58:23 pm
Well we do tend to see something like this happening but then again the Deimos is not that powerfull as to present a serious threat to a destroyer such as the orion let alone a Ravana. Basicly what the terrans were lacking was a new destroyer that wasnt so aweak in terms of aaaf point defence. So the Hecate was born. The vasudan do what thy usulay do they design from scratch a new warship whic incorporates all of the new techonological advances.

With the Hecate they had to trade something in order to maintain its carrer capacity and its powerfull aaaf point defences and this was ofensive firepower(a.k.a. more powerfull beam cannons).

The vasudans managed to balance the Hatshepsuit a lot better the the terrans with their more powerfull beam cannons around the ship and good aaaf point defences as well as more hp's and a similar fighterbay. I would imagine the vasudans actualy providing the muscle in a fight(beam cannon firepower) and the tarrans the C&C and carrier abilities of the fleet.

Oh well vasudans are generaly more advanced in terms of reactors and beam cannons tech. Not more powerfull but just more advanced.

Also the cruisers i believe will be left exclusevely to the terrans since well they had by far the best designs.

The Deimos wouldn't be operating individually.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Flipside on May 31, 2006, 05:03:01 pm
The Bowlerjohnnoakessut?

//me runs
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 31, 2006, 05:04:58 pm
The Vasudans did watch too much TV...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Flipside on May 31, 2006, 05:08:34 pm
LOL It's actually our language that is the problem, it puts syllables in places we are not used to putting them, Hatshep would be fine, Shepsut would also be fine, but trying to string the three together causes linguistic problems to people not used to it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: karajorma on May 31, 2006, 05:10:31 pm
The Bowlerjohnnoakessut?

//me runs

Only the Valerion could defeat it! :D
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 05:22:43 pm
Two Deimos corvettes could take out a Ravana no problem (if the Ravana couldn't jump out that is)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 31, 2006, 05:24:36 pm
Two Deimos corvettes could take out a Ravana no problem (if the Ravana couldn't jump out that is)

Tell that to the Actium and Lysander.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 31, 2006, 05:44:35 pm
Yep yep those were two nice perfectly good condition corvettes and then...the Ravana came...and they were gone faster then a vasudan could eat a raw fish!

On the other hand no sjip other then the collie could withstand the power of those beamcannons!

What the corvette class really needs is a better beam cannon (more powerfull) !

Well on the other hand couple a corvette with a few Herc wings and you have one very dead Ravana!

Hell even an Aeoulous could take out the blasted thing provided it cant jump and it has at least 3 wings of Erinies along to help it disarm the blasted thing.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 31, 2006, 05:48:17 pm
Yep yep those were two nice perfectly good condition corvettes and then...the Ravana came...and they were gone faster then a vasudan could eat a raw fish!

On the other hand no sjip other then the collie could withstand the power of those beamcannons!

What the corvette class really needs is a better beam cannon (more powerfull) !

Well on the other hand couple a corvette with a few Herc wings and you have one very dead Ravana!

Hell even an Aeoulous could take out the blasted thing provided it cant jump and it has at least 3 wings of Erinies along to help it disarm the blasted thing.

You do know that the Ravana is a destroyer and as such it has a fighterbay and fighter complement and that it took a whole battlegroup to trap the Ravana and destroy it?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 05:48:47 pm
Yeah, the whole battlegroup tried and failed, but then a wing of Boanerges class bombers and a Sobek took it out :rolleyes:

The Lysander was SEXPed to death, I've taken out the Ravana's beam cannons before it fired a shot and the Lysander STILL died :mad:. The Hercs could disable the Ravana, and destroy the (weak) shivan fighters, any that survived could be destroyed by the Deimos's heavy anti-fighter weaponry.

Granted the forward firepower of the Ravana could quickly vaporize a corvette, but their manuverability would allow them to stay out of the Ravana class's narrow FOF while the huge FOF on the Deimos allows them to fire sideways at the Ravana while it avoids the main beams.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 31, 2006, 05:53:37 pm
The Hercs could disable the Ravana, and destroy the (weak) shivan fighters, any that survived could be destroyed by the Deimos's heavy anti-fighter weaponry.

Try that without Alpha 1. Also, by using fighters you are no longer just using the corvettes but using another destroyers fighter complement.

Again, even considering all that, it goes against everything that is shown in the campaign.

Yeah, the whole battlegroup tried and failed, but then a wing of Boanerges class bombers and a Sobek took it out :rolleyes:

Against a damaged Ravana with it's fighter complement almost run out and not to mention disabled (I'm not really sure about this last one).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on May 31, 2006, 05:56:17 pm
Hell even an Aeoulous could take out the blasted thing provided it cant jump and it has at least 3 wings of Erinies along to help it disarm the blasted thing.

Why waste three wings of Eyrines on the Ravana? One wing of Herc II's or even Persei equipped with Stiletto II's or Maxims just does fine, and all it would take is a single Deimos or Sobek to give it the rapid anti-capital damage. An Aeolus's 45-second recharging SGreen simply doesn't do enough damage per shot to be worth it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 05:56:35 pm
The Hercs could disable the Ravana, and destroy the (weak) shivan fighters, any that survived could be destroyed by the Deimos's heavy anti-fighter weaponry.

Try that without Alpha 1. Also, by using fighters you are no longer just using the corvettes but using another destroyers fighter complement.

Again, even considering all that, it goes against everything that is shown in the campaign.

Yeah, the whole battlegroup tried and failed, but then a wing of Boanerges class bombers and a Sobek took it out :rolleyes:

Against a damaged Ravana with it's fighter complement almost run out and not to mention disabled (I'm not really sure about this last one).
I wasn't saying destroyers as a class are being phased out: I was saying they were no longer the primary offensive tool; the Vasudans still use them as attack vessels, but your never going to see a Hecate attacking a Ravana (in offense) rather a squad of bombers will commense attack instead. And the Ravana was still at ~80%, and it wasn't disabled. In that mission the Sobek alone could have killed the Ravana, forget Alpha 1. I'm not trying to say corvettes can do it all, all I'm saying is that the Terrans no longer use destroyers directly for anti-capital work, merly as a base for bombers. 
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 31, 2006, 06:00:36 pm
I wasn't saying destroyers as a class are being phased out: I was saying they were no longer the primary offensive tool; the Vasudans still use them as attack vessels, but your never going to see a Hecate attacking a Ravana (in offense) rather a squad of bombers will commense attack instead. And the Ravana was still at ~80%, and it wasn't disabled. In that mission the Sobek alone could have killed the Ravana, forget Alpha 1.

Really? I remember having to defend that Sobek for long time once (I stupidly got myself at ~10% hull and didn't dare to aproach the ship) against some fighters. That doesn't sound like the Sobek alone.

I wasn't saying destroyers as a class are being phased out: I was saying they were no longer the primary offensive tool; the Vasudans still use them as attack vessels, but your never going to see a Hecate attacking a Ravana (in offense) rather a squad of bombers will commense attack instead.

I never denied that, but saying that a couple of corvettes can single handedly destroy the Ravana is... against everything shown.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 06:30:48 pm
What I said
Quote
Two Deimos corvettes could take out a Ravana no problem (if the Ravana couldn't jump out that is)
And it's true, if it were all down to the corvettes, with no influence from fighters from either side, the corvettes have a fair chance of taking down the Ravana. Maybe not according to the FS2 script, but according to the FS2 specs. I think that's a valid statement, and I don't think it's worth a holy war, because it's pretty clear that neither of us are going to be swayed, isn't it. I don't want to go neo-Trashman, lets just agree that we disagree and go on with out lives, huh?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on May 31, 2006, 06:34:14 pm
Well, I never meant to infer that, if I did, sorry, once again all I meant to say was that the Terrans are replacing large offensive battleship type vessels (the Orion) with smaller more common vessels (the Deimos) (and here's the part I apparently didn't state well enough) supported by fighters and bombers. Are we done?

Perhaps  :)

I feel like I'm fighting a war over technicalities.

Two Deimos corvettes could take out a Ravana no problem (if the Ravana couldn't jump out that is)

This isn't a technicality. :p
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 06:41:29 pm
Not really, I was breaking it down to combat preformance and not the ability to run away and hide.

BTW: I edited, sorry about that.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on May 31, 2006, 06:42:06 pm
Well, I never meant to infer that, if I did, sorry, once again all I meant to say was that the Terrans are replacing large offensive battleship type vessels (the Orion) with smaller more common vessels (the Deimos) (and here's the part I apparently didn't state well enough) supported by fighters and bombers. Are we done? I feel like I'm fighting a war over technicalities.

The GTVA seems to be almost assigning each species to specific fleet philosophies.

Terrans
Command & Control (Hecate, retiring Orions)
More Bang-for-Buck (Deimos)
Anti-fighter roles (Deimos, Aeolus, better AAA coverage on Hecate)

Vasudans
Offensive warships (Sobek, Hatshepsut, retiring carrier-style Typhons)
Anti-capital roles (Sobek, Hatshepsut)
Regulating older cruisers to rear guard (Aten) while keeping modern cruisers capable of ship-to-ship combat (Mentu; read the tech description)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 31, 2006, 06:44:37 pm
Well there will always be a need for big guns ! And the Orion has just that big guns and a lot of them . I mean there is no destroyer in the entire GTVA that can match its firepower(beam cannon) .

An Orion could eat for breakfast a Hatsheepsut and still have room to dig into a a couple of corvettes. Not to say that the Hecate really would be screwed if it were to ever come into a beam cannon fire exchange with the Orion.

If you think about it it is very remarcable how Great War ships can actualy do just as well as the new designs implemented by the GTVA.  I mean one of the most powerfull destroyers available is the Orion while the Leviathan and the Aeoulous can still do one hell of a job at taking out fighters/bommbers and node defence.

Sure the Orion mai be crappy at aaaf point defences but considering its age and the tipe of warfare it was designed it is quite remarcable. Also whyle its fighterbai is smaller then that of the newer designs is by no mean small i mean that think can still carry like what 100+ spacecrafts.

Also the fenris regardless of the fact that is has very limited offensive and defensive capabilities its fast and agile wich makes it ideal for a multitude of pourposes.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 06:54:49 pm
The Orions total sustained beam firepower is 1.25 times that of the GVD Hatshepsut, however, with the Hatshepsut the beams are all aimed at the target, or none of them are, whereas the Orion physically can't fire all its beams at one target.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Polpolion on May 31, 2006, 07:06:53 pm
OR CAN IT????
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Flipside on May 31, 2006, 07:09:34 pm
Well, remember the Lysander also ran the gauntlet of a few Cruisers before facing the Ravanna, and even Shivan cruiser beams are not to be sniffed at...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 07:12:24 pm
Must we dwell???  :sigh:

Yeah, I agree... now lets get back to the Orion vs. the Hatshepsut, pr even (gasp) the relevance of Fenathan cruisers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 31, 2006, 07:20:21 pm
well the best comparison for the Fenris would be the Cail right? Well a Cain cruise is somewhat more powerfull then the Fenris but only because of its beam cannon. The fenris I believe actualy has a better aaaf point defence the the Cain.

Regarding the vasudan destroyer....i didnt get it can a Hatsheepsut take down an Orion or cant it?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 07:23:53 pm
I'd say the Fenris and Aten are closer, but the Aten lacks any serious beam weaponry.

The Orion and Hatshepsut are closely matched, it's the skill of the commander / crew that would ultimately determine the outcome.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 31, 2006, 07:44:47 pm
The Hecate was a misstep, though; it could only have worked properly if it could deploy fighters from a safe place...but there are no safe places. Wherever you are somebody can hop in at short range (particularly if they're Shivans) and scream "EAT BEAMZ AND DIE!!!!11!1"...and then the Hecate's screwed.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 07:56:50 pm
Hecate had, let's see here the Hecate had 1284 maximum sustained damage a second so the Orion and Hatshepsut beat it majorly, however, it has an extra 4.5 squadrons.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 31, 2006, 08:28:02 pm
alot of good those extra squadrons do when the blasted this is under attack from close range by beam weaponry. Hell even a Lilith could take it out ! Jump in fire its large red and the hecate is screwed. It cant dish out any significant amount of damage from its beams and i dont believe it can jump out that fast. Whyle the Orion can bring to bear at least 2 BG ! It that corect?

the point beeing that although C&C are a must as well as a good carrier capabilaty beam cannons are a must as well. Especialy since the is no safe place to deply the Hecates fighters/bommbers.

This brings back into focus again the age old problem of manouverabity,speed and most of all a balanced mix between the beam cannons aaaf point deefnses and carrir capacity. The Hatsheepsut is the best in these regards i mean it has the best mix available at this point between all of the above.


But then again you could specialized on the matter and simpl create a dedicated carrier. Stack a couple of corvettes say 2 of them at all times for close quarter combat. Or you could have ships like the hecate and a newer version of the Orion I mnea something that has good fipower as well as decent carrier abilaties and decent aaaf point defences. Sure the Hatsheepsuit could fill that role but I dont know why but it feels to me that it falls short of achieving that goal!

I mean superb example would be the Aeoulous, the Fenris and even the Leviathan!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2006, 09:04:58 pm
Again, this is where other ships of the fleet come into play, corvettes and cruisers, not to mention fighters and bombers, are the Hecates primary defense.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on May 31, 2006, 09:16:31 pm
Yes thats fine by me but then agin when you have a ship that chew up corvettes like gum not to mention cruisers which would normali be nothing more then a very minor distraction you tend to be a little more carefull about the defensive abilaties of a ship.

I believe that it is quite foolish to risk a ship so valuable like the Hecate in ample caombat activities since no matter how hard you try it will always come unde direct fire form the enemies beam cannons. We have seen that happening time and time again. But instead you would risk something like an upgraded corvette (upgraded=real beam cannons not those sory excuse of a slasher) or even a frigate like the Iceni along with a few wings of fighters/bommbers. I imagine a ship like the Hecate would actualy be out of the sistem where the battle takes place. Holding position just outside of the jump node in a way so as not to come under direct FOF from a shivan capshi exiting the combat area.

Then the Hecate actualy deplys fighters and boombers from outside of the sistem to assist the ship that actualy engage the enemy. Or crate a strong defensive line around a dedicated carrier say 200 spacecraft's capeable with a t least one Orion and at least 2 corvettes and 4 cruisers. Hell you could even bring in a couple of Hecates there instead of the dedicated carier just acieve the same result.

Constant suply of boombers/fighters to aid the capships in taking out the shivan ships.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 01, 2006, 03:19:50 am
Yes thats fine by me but then agin when you have a ship that chew up corvettes like gum not to mention cruisers which would normali be nothing more then a very minor distraction you tend to be a little more carefull about the defensive abilaties of a ship.

I believe that it is quite foolish to risk a ship so valuable like the Hecate in ample caombat activities since no matter how hard you try it will always come unde direct fire form the enemies beam cannons. We have seen that happening time and time again. But instead you would risk something like an upgraded corvette (upgraded=real beam cannons not those sory excuse of a slasher) or even a frigate like the Iceni along with a few wings of fighters/bommbers. I imagine a ship like the Hecate would actualy be out of the sistem where the battle takes place. Holding position just outside of the jump node in a way so as not to come under direct FOF from a shivan capshi exiting the combat area.

Then the Hecate actualy deplys fighters and boombers from outside of the sistem to assist the ship that actualy engage the enemy. Or crate a strong defensive line around a dedicated carrier say 200 spacecraft's capeable with a t least one Orion and at least 2 corvettes and 4 cruisers. Hell you could even bring in a couple of Hecates there instead of the dedicated carier just acieve the same result.

Constant suply of boombers/fighters to aid the capships in taking out the shivan ships.

The Hecate isn't generally deployed to the front lines; but we are talking about a warzone with instant point-to-point travel, so it's scarcely hard to infiltrate even the best defenses. And slapping a Hecate into another system just adds problems in getting fighter, bombers to targets on time - plus, where do you think support ships come from?  Scarcely much use calling for rearming when it takes a couple of days to arrive (NB: it's unclear as to the exact time of subspace travel, however FS1 puts the Lucifer, once departed, as taking 40 hours to travel through the Sol-DS jumpnode in realspace time terms given both the perspective of the text and the time length of the last mission)

It's this same reason that you don't have - or rather, don't see Hecates heavily supported by cruisers, etc.  Even if the GTVA has enough ships for it, we're talking a truly vast area of space to cover.  If you cluster battlegroups around the lead ship, then you're leaving huge gaps for the enemy to maneuver into, flank you, attack planets, etc.  It's like going to the trenches in WW1, building a gigantic pillbox in No Mans Land, and then watching the enemy walk calmly round the side of it into your side of the battlefield.

In any case, this weakness of the Hecate applies to every ship; even this purported uber-cruiser type thing will have - more than a Hecate due to its smaller size and the rediraction of outputtable power to several larger anti-capship weapons - big defensive weaknesses than can be exploited by exactly such an attack.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 01, 2006, 08:07:04 am
A dedicated carrier has to be defended by other ships.
Even in WW2 - where you couldn't jump in and get close personal - carriers were protected by battelships, cruisers, frigates & destroyers.

While part of hte battlegroup could be split to do a differnt task, the carrier was never left without ample defenses.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 01, 2006, 08:14:35 am
Pound for pound, a carrier is more effective than a battleship of equivalent displpacement,

Quote
Modern carriers
 
HMS HermesMore modern uses of aircraft carriers include the Falklands War, where the United Kingdom was able to win a conflict 8,000 miles (13,000 km) from home in large part due to the use of the full size carrier HMS Hermes and the smaller HMS Invincible. The Falklands showed the value of a VSTOL aircraft—the Hawker-Siddeley Harrier (the RN Sea Harrier and press-ganged RAF Harriers) in defending the fleet and assault force from shore based aircraft and for attacking the enemy. Helicopters from the carriers were used to deploy troops and pick up the wounded.

The US has also made use of carriers in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and to protect its interests in the Pacific. Most recently, the 2003 invasion of Iraq featured US aircraft carriers as the primary base of US air power. Even without the ability to place significant numbers of aircraft in Middle Eastern airbases, the United States was capable of carrying out significant air attacks from carrier-based squadrons.

In the early 21st century, worldwide aircraft carriers were capable of carrying about 1250 aircraft. US carriers accounted for over 1000 of these; the second leading country, the United Kingdom fielded over 50 aircraft. The United Kingdom and France are both undergoing a major expansion in carrier capability (with a common ship class), but the United States will still maintain a very large lead.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fergus on June 01, 2006, 09:57:36 am
A dedicated carrier has to be defended by other ships.
Even in WW2 - where you couldn't jump in and get close personal - carriers were protected by battelships, cruisers, frigates & destroyers.

While part of hte battlegroup could be split to do a differnt task, the carrier was never left without ample defenses.

Perhaps, but how many times has the all-mighty Alpha 1 been sent in with a handful of fighters to protect what is an undefended Destroyer?  It's something of a staple of the series if you ask me, anyway, I think we're getting slightly away from the whole Fenris area.
Personally, I think they do as a stop-gap in the GTVA fleet.  It makes sense that most of the Fenris' we see in the FS2 campaign belong to the NTF as most of thier vessels were ex-mothballs from Polaris (not entirely sure on the location), and so would have needed to use them much more.  I very, very much doubt that the GTVA would rely on the Fenris in any great quantity, especially after seeing the devestating power of the new-improved Shivan bombers in the FS2 campaign.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 01, 2006, 10:01:56 am
All very valid, i reckon :V: gave NTF mostly Gret war era/just post great war (think silent threat) gear, just to give them their own feel. The true terran fleet if you will.

Anyway where were we, "so an Aten can whoop a Fenris" i heard someone say? :hopping: :no:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 01, 2006, 10:07:07 am
A dedicated carrier has to be defended by other ships.
Even in WW2 - where you couldn't jump in and get close personal - carriers were protected by battelships, cruisers, frigates & destroyers.

While part of hte battlegroup could be split to do a differnt task, the carrier was never left without ample defenses.

The carrier - the FS2 carrier - isn't all that short of AAAf, flak, etc defenses to protect and defend it until it can escape, though, and is certainly better armed than a modern aircraft carrier for precisely the reason that enemies can jump in.  It's simply not invincible, of course.

If the GTVA had high resources, undoubtedly there'd be more close support for a destroyer/carrier; equally so, it's evident they don't, or at the very least consider the 'risk' of a destroyer being ambushed and destroyed before it can jump away to be low in comparison to the relative gain of a wider general fleet coverage area.  Of course, the more precise - and dangerous - we assume attackers jumps in to be, the more you have to group vessels together to defend against all sides of attack; and the more you reduce the general battlefield effectiveness of those escortsin doing so.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 01, 2006, 10:10:11 am
We gotta bear in mind, that 2K long ships dont just get buiult overnight, For all we know a deimos even small ships could tak anything up to 2 years to complete. Taking relevant reallife counterparts as examples. (Although zero g might make it slightly easier, It wouldnt scale down cosntruction time to months)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 01, 2006, 11:27:30 am
IIRC the FRED walkthrough (if it can be taken as canon) has the time it took to built the orion class destroyer which takes part in it, and again IIRC I think it's 3 years.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 01, 2006, 02:13:36 pm
Heh, I've deleted my data folder so many times I'd forgotten there was a walkthrough :D
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 02:31:05 pm
I don't know if that could be considered canon.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 04:21:05 pm
That is a big negative on the Construction time! If that was the case then we could asume that the more modern ships in FS2 take evn more to complete then theyr predecesors which have rouled out any bugs and stuff like that making them acustomed to the problems of designs and the solutions. Thus a hecate would take like what 4 years on the minimum?? No that would make it imposible for the GTVA to build both the Hatsheepsut and the Hecate in at least 2 exemplaries by the time the second shivan incurshion takes place. Remember they were introduced into srvice shortly after the start of the war. And you would imagine them having more then 2 of each if they really want to phase out the Orion.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 04:27:43 pm
Well, no, maybe that's an advantage of modern ships. Maybe the Hecate can be constructed faster then the Orion, we don't know, and the only canon value on that is that the Colossus took 20 years to construct, but it's twelve times the size of a Lucifer, so somthing like a Deimos could probably be constructed in 6 months to a year by one Ganymede, so multiple corvettes could be constructed at once.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 01, 2006, 04:32:57 pm
That is a big negative on the Construction time! If that was the case then we could asume that the more modern ships in FS2 take evn more to complete then theyr predecesors which have rouled out any bugs and stuff like that making them acustomed to the problems of designs and the solutions. Thus a hecate would take like what 4 years on the minimum?? No that would make it imposible for the GTVA to build both the Hatsheepsut and the Hecate in at least 2 exemplaries by the time the second shivan incurshion takes place. Remember they were introduced into srvice shortly after the start of the war. And you would imagine them having more then 2 of each if they really want to phase out the Orion.

Exemplaries?  I'm not sure what that means, but there is no date given for either ships inception (although being introduced to service is entirely different from completing the design and beginning construction), and there is also no reason for building time having to increase, particularly in light of likely improvements in such things as mass-manufacture, mining, etc that could be anticiapted over 60 years or so.

Additionally, they can actually build more than one ship at once. 
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 04:35:32 pm
Yeah but that would still be too much construction time! i mean they could build like what 3 or 4 corvettes bi the time they finish one destroyer? Then we weould actualy have to see like what for every destroyer in the game 3 pr 4 time that amount of corvettes. And we dont see that!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 01, 2006, 04:53:41 pm
Yeah but that would still be too much construction time! i mean they could build like what 3 or 4 corvettes bi the time they finish one destroyer? Then we weould actualy have to see like what for every destroyer in the game 3 pr 4 time that amount of corvettes. And we dont see that!

Where are you getting these random times from?  There's no reason for manufacturing times to be linear.

There doesn't have to be one corvette-yard to one destroyer-yard, you know.

A quick glance at http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Freespace_2_Terran_Ship_Database#GTC_Zanthar reveals 15 corvettes and 2 Hecate class destroyers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 05:03:14 pm
Granted half of them were destroyed. Yeah, GTVA has definitely been churning out Deimos corvettes.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 05:10:12 pm
umm and how many Sobeks and Hatsheepsut's???? I imagine them as havin a lot more then that! Since there was an old thread somewhere that said something like 26 destroyers in total in the entire GTVA(terrans=13,vasudans=13 ) !
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 01, 2006, 05:14:03 pm
15 Sobeks, 5 Hatshepsuts.

http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Freespace_2_Vasudan_Ship_Database#GVC_Khevtoth
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 05:22:42 pm
15 Sobeks, 5 Hatshepsuts.

http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Freespace_2_Vasudan_Ship_Database#GVC_Khevtoth
That's just the ones the player saw

umm and how many Sobeks and Hatsheepsut's???? I imagine them as havin a lot more then that! Since there was an old thread somewhere that said something like 26 destroyers in total in the entire GTVA(terrans=13,vasudans=13 ) !

We know that there are 26 Battlegroups in the GTVA from the Hornet tech description, and we know that the 3rd and 11th Battle Groups had multiple destroyers (GTD Delecroix, GVD Memphis) so there are more destroyers than 26, or not every battle group has a destroyer (unlikely, why would a fleet without a destroyer, and therefore, without fighters, need Hornets?)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 05:31:30 pm
Then that would make them having say 2 destroyers per fleet/battlegroup average this is an average number of destroyers per fleet! Then take into consideration something like 2 corvettes per destroyer and at least that many cruisers and we have a huge fleet! Sure its small ompared to what the shivans can mount and considering that you can not send every ship you have to attack the enemy.

But still that is quite an impresive fleet! Also we see the NTF as having 2 Hecate's this would sugest that there are a lot more the just 4 of them as seen in the game.

I would bet they have something like at least 10 Hecates the rest of them beeing the aging Orion class while the Vasudans would have more of the Hatsheepsut class ones since they really don have that many Typhoon left! And we would see the GTVA as building more of the Hatsheepsut cass in order to overcome this shortcoming of the vasudans. However the vasudans i would suspect have a lot more corvettes then the terrans since they came into service before the Deimos!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 05:34:48 pm
Well, there's no canon evidence of the NTF having Hecates.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 01, 2006, 05:39:18 pm
15 Sobeks, 5 Hatshepsuts.

http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Freespace_2_Vasudan_Ship_Database#GVC_Khevtoth
That's just the ones the player saw

Yes, but it is the only representative we have of the composition of a combat-operating GTVA group.

umm and how many Sobeks and Hatsheepsut's???? I imagine them as havin a lot more then that! Since there was an old thread somewhere that said something like 26 destroyers in total in the entire GTVA(terrans=13,vasudans=13 ) !

We know that there are 26 Battlegroups in the GTVA from the Hornet tech description, and we know that the 3rd and 11th Battle Groups had multiple destroyers (GTD Delecroix, GVD Memphis) so there are more destroyers than 26, or not every battle group has a destroyer (unlikely, why would a fleet without a destroyer, and therefore, without fighters, need Hornets?)

We don't know the composition or nature of a battlegroup, though.  For one thing, there could be support and logistics fleets, or fleets in minor sectors could only habe a small composition of small capships and rely on installation fighter support.  Also, we don't know there are 13 battlegroups per-species (there's no reason why there can't be 13 in total across the GTVA), or that battlegroup has the same meaning as 'fleet' (it could be a more fluid concept based on operational assignment; certainly the Actium and Lysander are described as being assigned to the Aquitanes battle group - small caps - which could imply that it exists in an operational timeframe).

Oh, and the Hornet certainly does not prove 26 battlegroups in any case;
After hostilities ceased, the GTVA found itself with an inventory of 2.6 million Hornet missiles. This stockpile has been spread among all GTVA battle groups, with each receiving at least 100,000 Hornets
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 05:40:13 pm
Actualy there is mention of at least 2 Hecates in the wiki! So that amount to a s**t load of fenrisses and leviathans since I dontt believe they stopped production imediately after the great war.  Having that many Fenrises around sure as hell is usefull now that the GTVA battle fleet wah smashed to pieces. I mean even if they are withdrawn from combat duty they can double as refugee homes medical ships cargo ships u name it. Since i don think the GTVA has that many Argos around to cover the need's . I dont think they imagined they would loose so badly and the destruction of one of their jewel sistems so to speak.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 01, 2006, 05:41:51 pm
Actualy there is mention of at least 2 Hecates in the wiki! So that amount to a s**t load of fenrisses and leviathans

Eh?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 05:45:53 pm
Fleet = Battle Group because they're used interchangalbey in the main campagin.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 05:57:36 pm
Well during the debate over on the VBB, i believe it was there that the debate took place, there were the arguemnts and it was established that vasudans use the battlegroup description while the terrans used fleet. Also The arguement regarding the fenrisses and the leviathans was based on the fact that there must be at leas 4 cruisers per fleet even moreif you have lets say 3 corvettes in a flleet and at least 2 cruisers per corvette.

Also the fact that Hecates are present in vasudan battlegroups sugests that the terrans actualy have more destroyers then the vasudans . Remember thy dont have the benefit of the old Typhoon class since most of them were unable to mount beam cannons as oposed to the Orion ! Also I would imagine the GTVA building Orions long after the great war to replace theyr depleted fleets. And sisnce the Hecate and not only the Hecate but also the Deimos are new designs we would tend to see a lot more Orion and Deimos then Hecates. But still the Hecates would be built in a reasonable number as to even sugest the phasing out of the Orion class.


I believe that they must have somewhere like 2orions/hecate something like 10 Hecates. Then most of the Production was shifted with the introduction of the Hatsheepsut class of destroyers. I believe they are newer then the Hecates. not by much but by at least 2 or 3 years.


This would sugest they ae able to produce somehting like one destroyer per year.


sure you would tend to say thet that figure is unrealistic sine it took some 20 years to complete the Colie but then again the colie took over 20 yeasr from the anouncement of the project to the actual manufacturing of its shipyards and logistical supoort testing of various sistems and subsitems etc.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 06:10:26 pm
Except that the collie is 12X bigger than a Lucifer, which is ~twice the size of an Orion (by voleume) so by my guestimation a destroyer is perfectly capable of being built in a year, and remember, you can make more than one at once.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 06:14:03 pm
Thats what i said! I do however believe that mi bad spelling caused yet another miinterpretation! Damn! So can anyone care to guess how many destroyers,corvettes,cruisers the GTVA built in 35 years??
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 06:52:46 pm
No, I agreed with you, but I was saying it's not hard to belive.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 07:35:19 pm
However this would bring in focus yet another question if the GTVA lost only a fraction of its fleet as it is showen in fs2 campaign does this mean it suffered a crusshing defeat of its entire fleets or just the fleets comissioned to fight the shivans.  Since it is obvious that they lost maibe 60-70% of the fleet asigned to fight the shivans i would guess that would amount, acording to what is known to be the losses, to less then 1/3 of its entire fleet. That would mean the GTVA still has a huge flet compared to its actual losses. However I dont believe they are able to organize theyr warships fast enough as to become a serious fleet fast since most of them would be scattered across the entire GTVA controlled space and some of the ships would actuly take week's if not even a month or more to reach the battlefield by which time it would be pointless.

Is that acurate?

Also that would mean that the GTVA is not as badly dammaged as previously believed.

We do know that an amy does not have to be destroyed fo it to lose the war it just has to suffer enough damage as to make the batlle pointless to continue. To be more explicit even if you have a fleet composed of 10 destroyers with wich you go to battle if that army suffers a crushig defeat then the whole war is lost even if you would have another 20 destroyers scattered across a vast distance they would not be able to reinforce the existing battle line fast enough as to mount any decent defensive battle. So the only thing left would actualy be to retreat and hope that the enemy does not reach your home faster then it takes you to gather the reamaining of your forces.

Correct?

A star sistem is quite a big place and you can not expect a sigle distroyer to be able to defend it all by himself. There is simply too much space to cover and patrol/defend then you would need even more ships posibly another 5 or 6 of them to acurately keep the pirates and smuglers at distance and also to control the criminal element posibly put down rebelions and stuff like that. This would actualy make up an entire GTVA fleet. 1 or 2 destroyers with at least 2 corvettes and 3 or 4 cruisers gooing on patrols police duties and other stuff like that.


This sort of raises again the need for fast patrol ships similar to the fenris. Fast versatile capable of fast strike missions and boring supply depot defence.


Wow i alwais believed the Fenris to be something near useless because its so fragile but when i look at other ships in the game and when i think about all of the roles a ship can actualy perform it makes the Fenris look pretty damn good and usefull.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 08:01:57 pm
Fighters and bombers defend a destroyer pretty well, maybe one Deimos, the rest of the fleet can do things elsewhere in the system and jump in to defend the destroyer in an emergency
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 01, 2006, 08:21:41 pm
well you do have a point. Also since i do not believe that th GTVA has any more the abilaty to mount a credible warfleet so to say at least not in the coming weeks or even a month or 2 i would imagine the GTVA fleets beeing streched to the limist in order to cover as much ground as posible so that diferent ships can leave theyr home sistem/s in order to form a new warfleet. At least until the GTVA can replenish some of the losses sutained in the last war which would take acording to my estimates anywhere from 1 year to 5 years depending on theyr dedication to rearm and reequip.


this exact scenarios is where ships like the fenris come in very very usefull. I mnea its fast and agile and i do not believe pirates would be able to sneak past it with ease since they will have to have at least on transport. This coupled with added help from fighters from a sistem instalation or even a destroyer would help a lot in the coming months after the second shivan war. Also how many fighters does each star sistem have? I believe someone said that there were like hundreds of them defending the major sistem alone. I mean in close orbit to each major planet.


Anyone have any ideea?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 09:52:27 pm
I think the GTVA will fix itself pretty quick, the Zods'll have a bit more trouble though.

With the fighters, assuming every system has two destroyers and an Acadia ~318, but I think the number is probably higher than that.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 01, 2006, 10:06:26 pm
I think that the major error that the GTVA does, is that they take up the duty of patrolling and enforcing the law on the systems all by themselves so there wouldnt be a police to at least help them and that's an issue that should be adressed, especially after the second great war. Without this responsibilty, the GTVA would've able to bring a far more powerful fleet to bear against the shivans and would've been able to attack at least the shivan system beyond the 2nd knossos before the arrival of the Sathanas fleet.

The Fenris, for its porpuse (a faster, more agile cruiser), serves really well but its hopessly outgunned/outclassed for a military ship. The GTVA (militarily) should concentrate on building more Aeolus cruisers since they're more armored and armed than a Leviathan and (I guess) almost as fast as the Fenris.

Also the GTVA could definitely built ships quickly, especially in war time, the wiki says that ''production of the Hornet ran full-tilt at factories in eight star systems right up to the end of the war'', and since they would be desperate to replenish their losses after Capella, a destroyer per year is quite possible but I guess the real problem would be finding a crew. :)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2006, 10:48:08 pm
Other than the pirates in Silent Threat, I see no canonical evidence that the GVN and GTN are responsible for police action. I don't think most civvys would have acess to anything bigger than one of those guns the marines carry, any more than a civvy in any MDC would have acess to a Vulcan cannon or a cruise missile.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Goober5000 on June 02, 2006, 12:34:10 am
Suppressing pirates doesn't fall under police action in FreeSpace any more than it did in the 18th century, IMHO.  It's defending political territory.  Think of it as a modern day Border Patrol or Coast Guard.  (When the GTVA is fighting the NTF or the Shivans, of course, it functions as a full-fledged navy.)

Combination of the military and the police inevitably leads to corruption of both.  The GTVA would be wise to keep them separate.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kosh on June 02, 2006, 12:54:57 am
When it comes to ship numbers and the types of ships the GTVA uses, consider two things:

1.) After the Great War, most of the Vasudan shipyards were probably destroyed by the Shivans. Most of the Terran shipyards were located in Sol, which of course was cut off. The Vasudans were able to rebuild much faster than the Terrans, sp when FS2 starts they have more shipyards then the Terrans did, so their fleet was almost completely modern (unlike the Terrans, whose fleets had lots of Great War leftovers)

2.) They also have something called "a budget" to worry about. The Vasudan economy was much better than the Terran economy, so they could afford to wield many of these shiny new warships. Why else do we see so many Sobeks in the main campaign, but not as many Deimos's? Or just looking at the cruiser types that we see, the Vasudans always seem to have brand new Mentu cruisers when the Terrans frequently use refitted Great War era designs.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 02, 2006, 04:39:58 am
I thought the Hierarchy went like this,

Armada
Fleet
Battlegroup
Flotilla
Patrol
escort
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 02, 2006, 07:46:37 am
Yeah, the Vasudans seem to send in a Sobek with every squadron they dispatch, you gotta love it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 02, 2006, 10:17:45 am
The wiki says that design of the Sobek ''began in the dark days after the destruction of Vasuda Prime'' so it would make sense that they have far more of these ships than the Deimos, the wiki also says that the Deimos is the ''newest addition to the Terran fleet'', so does that mean that its even newer than the Hecate? :confused:

And I agree with what Kosh said about budget, especially if you note that after the first great war the GTA splintered into several terran blocs, each with its own economical problems so that would make them put an even greater reliance into building great war era ships than modernizing their fleets so that only after the formation of the GTVA it would be possible to field new terran designs.

Sorry, for patrolling and enforcing the law on the systems I meant that they did that in space not in land, I should've explained it better. :P
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 02, 2006, 02:15:43 pm
Well yeah the whole budget thing is a valid point but when you are facing the posibilaty of yet another shivan invashion you ten d to find wais to increase the budget of the milatary and geenraly speed up ship building and development of new tech. Dont ask me what those means are since i dont know just yet. Also even if the terrans split up into blocks they would still continue the raeserch and exchange of knoledge between them and with the Vasudans. considering that they managed to rebuild they societies from scratch after the Great war i believe that it would be a lot eassier for them to actualy rearm they fleets and evolve into even a greater milatary power then ever before. They only lost one sistem.

sure it was an important sistem but noenthelesss they do not have to start from scratch I mean most of theyr shipyards are intact as is most of theyr sistems.

Relocating the cappelan refugees whyle a big task I believe it is a lot easier then most people would imagine. I mean sure it will be hard but not that hard as to cause very serious problemes.


Whant an example of economical solution ? Tkae for instance the great economical depression that hit europe and america and not only these parts of the world. I mean the US devised a somewhat practical solution:they needed both roades and railways to cross the entier USA and so they put to work most of the unemployed people to do just that build roades and railways thus ensuring both a worker problem and an unemplymkent problem. Sure they orked for food and a few dolars a month but it was better then to starve to death.   Such a solution I believe could be implemented by the GTVA especialy now that they need crewes for they ships as well as pilots.

They can just offer them a chance in the milatary. I think there are a lot of capellan refugees that are just diing for the opurtunity to inflict some damage to the shivans so enlisting should be at all time high.

Sure you have to train them but its better then just letting them unemployed and waiting for the GTVA to provide them with fodd and whatever they need. This is by no mean the solution to the problem but its one of its remedies.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 02, 2006, 03:13:00 pm
That was the philosophy of the US and USSR during the Cold War, one colapsed from economic self abuse and the other is in trillions of dollars of debt.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 02, 2006, 03:16:40 pm
Nazi Germany also had massive public works programmes in the aftermath of the massive depression that helped Hitler get into power; which is quite probably a contributor to why they needed to invade countries and take slave labour, as doing so indefinately without war would have bankrupted the country.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 02, 2006, 03:38:52 pm
Yes that is very much true but then again war is something the GTVA does not lack. Its either a rebel faction or the shivans. Also they would not be dooing this forever just enough time in order to get they act toghether.

Build enough housing fo the refugeez create enough workplaces for the majority of the working population since only 50% of the refugeez actualy can work since we do have children and elderly people and stuff like that.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 02, 2006, 04:05:25 pm
Yes that is very much true but then again war is something the GTVA does not lack. Its either a rebel faction or the shivans. Also they would not be dooing this forever just enough time in order to get they act toghether.

Buh?  The whole point was that the Germans went to war to claim resources and slave labour - who the hell are the GTVA going to go to war with to get that?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 02, 2006, 04:12:50 pm
Umm maybe not slave labour since they already have a masive surpluss of unemplyment on theyr hands but resources they could take from the...umm...can u guess it....the shivans!

I mean they sure as hell are gooing to run into shivans again. And even if they do not defeat them they can at least snatch a nebula and one or 2 sistems from they control seal of the nodes till they are capable of gooing at war with the shivans again. Even if they do not target the shivans they sure as hell are gooing to run into them again since i do not believe we have seen the end of the GTVA expansion into other sistems.


And dont tell this wont happen because they ar too terified of the shivans cuz that is simply not the case.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 02, 2006, 04:15:37 pm
Umm maybe not slave labour since they already have a masive surpluss of unemplyment on theyr hands but resources they could take from the...umm...can u guess it....the shivans!

I mean they sure as hell are gooing to run into shivans again. And even if they do not defeat them they can at least snatch a nebula and one or 2 sistems from they control seal of the nodes till they are capable of gooing at war with the shivans again. Even if they do not target the shivans they sure as hell are gooing to run into them again since i do not believe we have seen the end of the GTVA expansion into other sistems.


And dont tell this wont happen because they ar too terified of the shivans cuz that is simply not the case.

Quote
At this point, the Shivans have control of Beta Cygni, Betelgeuse, Ross 128, Ikeya, and Regulus. Most of the Vasudan forces are gathering in Vega for a counterstrike, while we are gathering our fleet in Antares for an effort to retake Ribos and Beta Cygni. Oddly enough, the Shivans don't seem to be interested in taking control of any planets in the systems, or gathering natural resources. Instead they seem to be focused on controlling individual jump nodes.

Quote
For a long time we did not know why they chased us. They were no ordinary enemy. They did not seek our territory, our technology, our resources. Now we know our crime was sin.

Not really a strong justification for picking the Shivans to attack, is it?

That's aside from the whole problem that the GTVA a) doesn't know where the Shivans are and b) building a portal so your biggest enemy could annihilate you would be massively expensive.

Oh, and c) both times the GTVA faced the Shivans they barely survived.

It's the military equivalent of trying to carjack a tank.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 02, 2006, 04:39:10 pm
carjacking a tank...interesting..

Well, given the fact that shivan weren't interested in controling planets or resources, then those would still be in tact after the shivan invasion (except Vasuda)...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 02, 2006, 04:54:12 pm
well when i said resources i mean control of jumpnodes. Bi controling the jumpnodes to/from a sistem you control the sistem. Also I dont believe they have to go too far before they come face to face with the shivans. And even if the shivans have retreated the GTVA will sooner or later face them again.

Either way the exploration and subsequent colonization of a star sistem would also mean some more capships to that sistem to defend it and keep control over it just in case.

Remeber that the shivans can uses jumpnode not YET available to the GTVA meaning either too unstable or undiscovered jumpnodes. They will most certainly make the economical effort to strenghten they milatary even if they do not go after shivan controled sistems cuz they never know when they might come under attack.

It seems like a wasted chance to have the abylaty eventualy to go an colonize new star sistem open up the way to new economical and material resources and not do it !
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 02, 2006, 05:19:51 pm
well when i said resources i mean control of jumpnodes. Bi controling the jumpnodes to/from a sistem you control the sistem. Also I dont believe they have to go too far before they come face to face with the shivans. And even if the shivans have retreated the GTVA will sooner or later face them again.

Either way the exploration and subsequent colonization of a star sistem would also mean some more capships to that sistem to defend it and keep control over it just in case.

Remeber that the shivans can uses jumpnode not YET available to the GTVA meaning either too unstable or undiscovered jumpnodes. They will most certainly make the economical effort to strenghten they milatary even if they do not go after shivan controled sistems cuz they never know when they might come under attack.

It seems like a wasted chance to have the abylaty eventualy to go an colonize new star sistem open up the way to new economical and material resources and not do it !

How does any of this stop an economic depression, again?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 02, 2006, 05:44:15 pm
I posted above! also there is no proof of an economical depression! sure there mai be some sort of economical problem/crisis but to go as far as to say an economical depression would grip the GTVA is somewhat exagerated. I dont think that people would start selling theyr stock  all of a sudden now that the GTVA has gotten beaten again. I believe people would start or at least try to buy new stock options and stuff like that especialy in the companies that make weapons and well housing to put it simpli since there would be a lot of major requests for these 2 branches. Not to go around and say the other industryes like food clothing and other stuff like that.

Nothing makes the economy booming at least for a short-medium time duration like a major war.

they may be short on manpower and resources to acomplish this but that wouldnt mean they go into an economical depression.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 02, 2006, 06:07:46 pm
I posted above! also there is no proof of an economical depression! sure there mai be some sort of economical problem/crisis but to go as far as to say an economical depression would grip the GTVA is somewhat exagerated. I dont think that people would start selling theyr stock  all of a sudden now that the GTVA has gotten beaten again. I believe people would start or at least try to buy new stock options and stuff like that especialy in the companies that make weapons and well housing to put it simpli since there would be a lot of major requests for these 2 branches. Not to go around and say the other industryes like food clothing and other stuff like that.

Nothing makes the economy booming at least for a short-medium time duration like a major war.

they may be short on manpower and resources to acomplish this but that wouldnt mean they go into an economical depression.

Right, so the GTVA is going to throw itself into a suicidal war for short term 'economic' benefit (of what?  bodybag sales?  wreckage salvaging?), even though the last 2 resulted in the loss of massive amounts of resources and people?  And somehow they will obtain enough materials to rebuild the decimated fleet, build all these ships, build a Knossos, find Shivan space, capture Shivan space, whilst somehow rehousing millions of refugees?

Hmmm.  Let's think.  The US is currently in an effective state of war.  Is there an economic boom?  And that's a war not posing a threat to their survival.

Ok, so, what about WW2?  How did the UK do?  Still technically paying off war debts to the US, you say?  Erk.

I'd also like to know how refugees, forced to leave their possesions and wealth behind, can be anticipated to suddenly start investing in 'stuff'.  Or how the GTVA is going to pay to magic up all these new factories and money to pay for wages (let alone private enterprise).  I mean, Sudan must be booming in wealth now!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 02, 2006, 06:33:15 pm
During war economies go into overdrive, it's a fact. I'm not saying he's right about everything, but there are short term economic benifits of war.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 02, 2006, 06:41:53 pm
During war economies go into overdrive, it's a fact. I'm not saying he's right about everything, but there are short term economic benifits of war.

But you pay in the long-term.  That's why no sane country recovers from warfare by immediately invading someone else.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 02, 2006, 07:02:06 pm
Yeah, I know, that's the "I don't agree with everything" part.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 02, 2006, 09:54:37 pm
Aldo i mi english mai be bad but you must be blind! Where on earth did you SEE in mi post anithing about the refugees buing stock and investing into the industry??? For crying out loud stop putting words into other peoples posts. The GTVA is more then a few milion refugees. Also since when did the GTVA got its entire fleet decimated?? It got its war fleet or whatever you wan to call it decimated. for all we know its fleets cound be 3 times lasrger then that but scattered all across the GTVA space. NO MILATARY puts its entire assets into a war !

Or you are gooing to come up with some cannon evidence that the entire GTVA fleet was composed of nothin more then 7 or so destroyers and a dozen corvettes because that is insane.


Also the GTVA did not loose its entire industry base or its core sistems this time like it happened during the Great War oh and guess what not only did they survive the last war with even more battered fleets then during the second shivan war but yeah you know it without a very larga part of its industry and the loss of its 2 major economical jubs the homesistems.

And now you are willing to tell me that just because the GTVA lost some of its fleet and one sistem which was not even a capital sistem they would go into an economical depression and chaos and stuff like that?? Please....! Where is Trashman when you need him!???


As I said before a milatary entiti does not have to suffer masive damage in order to be defeated it just needs to suffer enough damage in a short enough period as to make it unwilling and/or unable to continue fighting its current battle. As is the case of the GTVA.

Suer they mai have had more ships but they were nowhere near the conflict area.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 02, 2006, 10:16:33 pm
I didnt know the Fenris was such an important vessel to the economic stablilty of GTVA. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Second Great War had mainly two impacts on the GTVA economy:

First the Capellan refugees, there are about millions of them, finding them a new home would be relative easy (a good place would be the systems beyond Altair or Laramis) but the logistics and costs of such operation (tranporting them to the site, settling them there and building an entire infrastructure (economical and social) to support them, plus medical treatment and feeding them all the way) would be an nightmare to any nation, that just by itself would an incredible severe blow to the economic.

Second the military losses, several destroyers, corvettes, cruisers and fighters, you're going to have build all of them again AND get the crew to operate (but I sorta agree with AlphaOne when he said to recruit the refugees, a really good part of them would be begging for a chance for revenge, this is a good possiblity) and train the crew (something that would take years).

Each of these two by themselves would already have a deep impact on the economy but I think the GTVA could handle them, the big problem is they're ocurred at the same time and because of that the impact they had on the economy would be enough to sunk the GTVA in to a serious depression. Now going to war against the shivans is just stupid.

Even if they fleet was spread across the whole territory, the problem was that the shivan had a fleet of 80+ Sathanas threating to invade, with this kind of firepower even if the entire military power of the GTVA was avaliable it would have still lost the war.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 02, 2006, 10:39:04 pm
Never said it wouldnt lose the war when faced with 80+juggs. Again I believe you are overestimating the impact the loss of Capella had on the economy of the GTVA. However i do admit that the GTVA would be facing a serious economical probelem/crisis. But like I said before they managed to raise themselfs from the ashes of the Great War I have no problem what so ever in sayng that this problem now would be nothig more the just that shot lived economical crissis. That is untill they have a chance to reorganize and start putting the GTVA back on track. This would take 1-3 years . This is the time period it would take the GTVA to actualy relocate the majority of the refugees  and provide some sort of infrastructure on theyr new sistem.

Also the refugees could actualy work for the rebuilding o theyr lives since i do believe there must be some engineers or pilots or architects or scientists among them. Also dont tell me that the GTVA can build 2+ km destroyers in a relative shor amount of time yet they can not set up the infrastructure for several milion refugees on a nwe planet. (by this i understand building houses,sanitation facilaties and other stuff like that) As for actual jobbs for the long term I do believe that 10.000 people per destroyer is a big enough figure. Also they will need soldiers (ground forces) for the Deneb/Sirius and Polaris sistems. I do believe they actualy fought the NTF over there and there was a masive landing of troops. And if they did that through every sistem the NTF managed to control then you would have casualties ranging from several hundreds of thousand to more then a milion. I do bileve there is rather pressing need for soldiers.

Also the GTVA can recruit pilots for freighters,asteroid miners, gas miners and just plain old janitors.


The problem is not as big as aldo would make you to believe it is! Sure is it serous but is by no means "life threatening"  .


Oh and the Fenris actualy does play a rather important economical role in the GTVA especyali  now that they have a constant demand for fast ships to patrol the shiping lanes, supply depots, and even conver them  into transports of goods and personell/civilians. These are all tasks that a Fenris can actualy perform because of its good speed and relative generous interiour. 
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 03, 2006, 12:26:13 am
NO MILATARY puts its entire assets into a war !

Except when it just happens to be a war that, if lost, could spell the death of billions and the destruction of two species.

Quote
Or you are gooing to come up with some cannon evidence that the entire GTVA fleet was composed of nothin more then 7 or so destroyers and a dozen corvettes because that is insane.

You seem to be forgetting the sheer scale of the conflict. To start, the NTF rebellion likely took the majority of the fleets stationed in Sirius, Regulus, and Polaris through defection and surprise attacks, leading to the GTVA's loss of three fleets alone. The heavy casualties sustained in Deneb and Epsilon Pegasi are canon evidence of the losses sustained by the GTVA. For the NTF, the Colossus and the gauntlet of blockades en route to Gamma Draconis were both factors in destroying significant portions of the fleet.

So, let's add this all up. The NTF lost approximately 9 destroyers and about 6 or so corvettes. The GTVA lost 75% of the 6th Fleet, sustained heavy casualties in Deneb, and met fierce resistance from a two-pronged offensive in Sirius. With the canonical NTF casualties, the total is at about 108,000 dead, and those are just the destroyers and corvettes mentioned in briefings or seen ingame, and does not include the countless cruisers, convoys, pilots, and marines.

The GTVA is already known to have lost 85,000 in EP, and, when added with the casualties in other theaters of the civil war, likely lost well over 100,000 as well.

By the end of the civil war, the GTVA was fighting without the strength of the Regulus, Polaris, Sirius, and Epsilon Pegasi fleets. Because many of these fleets were short jumps away from Capella and the Shivan front (namely Polaris and Epsilon Pegasi), the GTVA likely had to call up help from both the Vasudans and other GTVA fleets throughout the galaxy.

The Shivan incursion was very likely even more costly for the GTVA. Multiple warships fighting the Ravana alone were lost, as well as two destroyers and the Colossus to the Sathanes alone. Add to this that the GTVA had sustained over 100,000 casualties in Capella when the plan to collapse the jump nodes was finally launched. The fierce Shivan attacks at the Vega and Epsilon Pegasi nodes likely cost thousands of casualties as well, not to mention the sizeable fleet left behind in Capella at the time of the supernova.

So there you have it. 100,000+ in Capella, 100,000+ in the civil war (not counting the genocide of the Vasudans), and 100,000+ for the NTF leads to well over 300,000 combat deaths, at least 13 mentioned destroyers lost, and four fleets essentially lost.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 03, 2006, 10:50:43 am
Quote
Aldo i mi english mai be bad but you must be blind! Where on earth did you SEE in mi post anithing about the refugees buing stock and investing into the industry??? For crying out loud stop putting words into other peoples posts. The GTVA is more then a few milion refugees. Also since when did the GTVA got its entire fleet decimated?? It got its war fleet or whatever you wan to call it decimated. for all we know its fleets cound be 3 times lasrger then that but scattered all across the GTVA space. NO MILATARY puts its entire assets into a war !

Read the end mission.

The Allied fleet has been pulverized, so for the sake of all Terrans and Vasudans, the war must end here.

and, er, ever heard of a war for survival?

"Oh, sorry captain - we lost earth, but at least the 3rd fleet is hidden in Wolf 359"

Quote
Or you are gooing to come up with some cannon evidence that the entire GTVA fleet was composed of nothin more then 7 or so destroyers and a dozen corvettes because that is insane.

Read the end mission.

And if you want to invent numbers, go ahead, but the only canonical numbers for the GTVA ships as seen in the campaign, and for the losses, indicates that fleet was not the 50-or-60 destroyer sized monster you seem to be expecting here.

Quote
Also the GTVA did not loose its entire industry base or its core sistems this time like it happened during the Great War oh and guess what not only did they survive the last war with even more battered fleets then during the second shivan war but yeah you know it without a very larga part of its industry and the loss of its 2 major economical jubs the homesistems.

sorry, this part hurts my head.  Jubs?

The GTVA lost Capella.  It lost a massive amount of ships.  It has to house, feed, and protect millions of civillians.  It has also undergone a huge civil war over the last 18 months prior, in case you forgot the NTF.

Quote
And now you are willing to tell me that just because the GTVA lost some of its fleet and one sistem which was not even a capital sistem they would go into an economical depression and chaos and stuff like that?? Please....! Where is Trashman when you need him!???

Um, they would go into depression if they launched a job-and-ship manufacturing programme as you suggested, yes.  Because they can't pay for it.  Money does not grow on trees, even in the GTVA, as far as I know.

Quote

As I said before a milatary entiti does not have to suffer masive damage in order to be defeated it just needs to suffer enough damage in a short enough period as to make it unwilling and/or unable to continue fighting its current battle. As is the case of the GTVA.

Um, technically, the GTVA was unwilling to fight from the point the first Sathanas emerged, barring their little excursion back until they found the 2nd.  Everything after that was effectively a combination of disaster control and retreating.

Sometimes, you see, the enemy doesn't let you retreat.  Shocking principle, I know, that the enemy might want to pursue and destroy you even after running away.

Quote
Suer they mai have had more ships but they were nowhere near the conflict area.

Read the end mission.

NB:
@nuclear; not to mention the civillian casaulties (probably well into the millions), or the military ground casualties - 600,000 ground troops were landed on Cygnus Prime, and that's scarcely likely to be the only planet with ground combat between the NTF and GTVA.

Also, it's worth noting Capella had 250,000,000 civillians.  That's not exactly a trivial or cheap amount to feed, clothe, house, etc.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 11:41:17 am
Actually the reported number was 250,000, but that was after many of them were evaced.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 03, 2006, 12:51:20 pm
Actually the reported number was 250,000, but that was after many of them were evaced.

Quote
COMMAND BRIEFING 3

Allied Strategy

A small task force will oversee the demolition of the Knossos while the bulk of the allied fleet blockades the jump node leading to the densely-populated Capella system. Command has begun the process of evacuating the two hundred fifty million civilians inhabiting Capella, the largest exodus since the Great War. The Colossus will remain in that system to engage the Sathanas should we fail.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 01:21:50 pm
Oops, anyhow, I would have expected at least 1 billion
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 03, 2006, 01:53:40 pm
Oops, anyhow, I would have expected at least 1 billion

Well, bear in mind that you've only had, what, less than a hundred years of space travel?  And then tag on the TV War, and the loss of the Sol / Vasuda prime systems in the Great War, of course.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 03, 2006, 01:54:41 pm
Ummm and how many of theme actualy survived..?? I seem to remember the shivans actualy taking down any transport atempting to exit the sistem.

Also I do not expect that the GTVA fleet was composed of 50-60 destroyers but rather something like 40 or them. 

Also I should really start detailing more mi arguements. And improve mi spelling. Sorry about the head hurts guis. I can only imagine the horror on the faces of some of people around here when the see me posting something and i must thank you for repliing to them . So...thanx! :D

Since the GTVA milatary had these great losses why not incorporate at least a part of the capellan refugees into the milatary?? they will be more then willing to join since I believe they craving for blood, shivan blood that is. I believe this weill somehow speedup the rebuilding procces of the GTVA milatary forces. They dont have to go around looking for volunteers :P

Also I never said they would actualy rebuild all of their lost warships within a 3- year period. I believe that the complete replacement of the GTVA lost warships would take from 6-10 years. The actual relocation of the capellan survivors would take some 3 years.

Also could it be possible to relocate some of the industry from the star sistems which have shortages in the workforce to the sistems where you have unemployment?? Sure there would be actual training of the people involved in various aspects of those industries but I dont believe all the capellan survicors are highschool dropouts. many of them would actualy be skilled in some area. Could this increase the procces of putting back on track the GTVA which was more or less derailed by the war???

Its just an idea and a question.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 03, 2006, 02:15:53 pm
Since the GTVA milatary had these great losses why not incorporate at least a part of the capellan refugees into the milatary?? they will be more then willing to join since I believe they craving for blood, shivan blood that is. I believe this weill somehow speedup the rebuilding procces of the GTVA milatary forces. They dont have to go around looking for volunteers :P

You do know that the whole point of collapsing the Capella nodes and the GTVA abandoning the system was to make sure that there weren't any Shivans to fight, right?

Of course the Shivans inflicted heavy casualties on both the civilans and the military, but even if the Shivans had slaughtered half of Capella's population, that's still 125,000,000 civilians needing homes, jobs, and medical treatment after the war.

Quote
Also could it be possible to relocate some of the industry from the star sistems which have shortages in the workforce to the sistems where you have unemployment?? Sure there would be actual training of the people involved in various aspects of those industries but I dont believe all the capellan survicors are highschool dropouts. many of them would actualy be skilled in some area. Could this increase the procces of putting back on track the GTVA which was more or less derailed by the war???

The Capellan civilians aren't all exactly going to rush back into work right after the end of the war. Sure, a lot of them are equipped and trained for certain tasks, but what is there to say that a lot fo them are physically or mentally ready to start working? Think of the hundreds or thousands of civilians that are likely physically crippled as a result of the damage sustained to their transports, or the ones that were already in poor physical condition before the evacuation. It's not to be expected that civilians that have just survived one of the most vicious onslaughts in the history of the human race are going to get out without loss of limb or other harm.

Even more damning is the mental anguish suffered by thousands of the refugees. It doesn't take much for hundreds of millions of people to realize that their home is gone forever, and that millions of their friends, families, and comrades are also gone. The ones that don't turn suicidal will likely be mentally scarred for a very long time, and may not even be able to return to the workforce for a long time afterwards.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 03, 2006, 04:13:29 pm
Quote
Where is Trashman when you need him!???

Here I come to save the daaaaaaay! :lol:

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

Strange how there are somewhat conflicting in-game texts..

"The Allied fleet  has been pulverized" from the briefing, and the end game debrief said "We lost half the fleet"
I assume the word "fleet" here has a double meaning - as a total fleet (all of the GTVA warships) and a local fleet (the one in Capella)

the rebellion caused casualties and the weakening of the fleet, and the loss of a system really isn't that big of a blow. I can forsee no problems in relocating hte refugees, since tehy are all in transports anyway, you just have to point them towards a suitable destinations.. the GTVA is big, so there are more then enough planets among which to distribute them.
Building housing and other necessities for them, as well as fixing whatever damage there was in the 3 rebel systems means lots of jobs. The shipyards of hte GTVA have remained in tact, and it has again aquired those in Polaris and Regulus so rebuilding the fleet shouldn't be the problem either.

A Economical collapse is not realyl that likely. As long as money circles around nicely and the GTVA gets their share from taxs, all is well. Well..allmost
Pay companies to build stuff and then tax the companies to get that money circling back to your pocket and out again.

Let's be real, the GTVA is in for a rough ride but hte worst part is over.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 03, 2006, 04:20:51 pm
Quote
Ummm and how many of theme actualy survived..?? I seem to remember the shivans actualy taking down any transport atempting to exit the sistem.

Considering they started evacuating before the first Sathanas arrived?

Not forgetting the hundreds of thousands - if not millions - displaced by the NTF rebellion, of course.  As mentioned, I think, in the first couple of missions when you are escorting Vasudan refugee transports.

Quote
Also I do not expect that the GTVA fleet was composed of 50-60 destroyers but rather something like 40 or them. 

And yet, despite facing an onslaught by the greatest enemy in their history, these were withheld from the front lines?

Bear in mind, of course, the NTF both had taken and had destroyed some of these prior to the Shivans arrival.

Quote
Since the GTVA milatary had these great losses why not incorporate at least a part of the capellan refugees into the milatary?? they will be more then willing to join since I believe they craving for blood, shivan blood that is. I believe this weill somehow speedup the rebuilding procces of the GTVA milatary forces. They dont have to go around looking for volunteers Tongue

1/ Conscription?  Of refugees?  That's scarcely going to go down well - 'oh look, we've lost and your homes were destroyed, now get out and fighter for us!'.
2/No Shivans to fight.  that, and the whole 'it'd be suicide' type bit.  Y'know, like Austria declaring war on Russia immediately after the end of WW2 to keep the civvies busy.
3/Those refugees which are capable to serve in the military would need to have ships to serve on, and would need training.  And training needs facilities, supplies, etc; a whole supply chain that has to be built to service the military and *shock* funded.
4/ And how many refugees would accept conscription without first ensuring their family are housed, clothed and fed?

Quote
Also I never said they would actualy rebuild all of their lost warships within a 3- year period. I believe that the complete replacement of the GTVA lost warships would take from 6-10 years. The actual relocation of the capellan survivors would take some 3 years.

Any reason for these dates?  Y'know, given that the best value for an Orions' construction is 3 years......and the likely lack of facilities and supply chains for such a rapid build.

Quote
Also could it be possible to relocate some of the industry from the star sistems which have shortages in the workforce to the sistems where you have unemployment?? Sure there would be actual training of the people involved in various aspects of those industries but I dont believe all the capellan survicors are highschool dropouts. many of them would actualy be skilled in some area. Could this increase the procces of putting back on track the GTVA which was more or less derailed by the war???

Relocation, rather expensive.  Not to mention the rather obvious problem that you'd just be moving unemployment and economic problems somewhere else.  IT's a bit like spending a few million pounds to move 1 million people of the dole in London, by sacking another million in Bristol and moving all their factories, etc down there.

And that's assuming these aren't private industries, which they are.  I doubt RNI will take very kindly to being made to shift their industry to take in unskilled or inexperienced (in at the least their manner of operations) workers.

@TM; you do realise, you can't just plonk someone down even in the middle of, say, the Amazon (a biodiverse and perfectly inhabitable placE) and expect them to survive and prosper unaided.  That's excluding the likelihood that earth-style planets are quite rare, of course.  And even if we turn to existing colonies, you still need housing and whatnot; and depending on the existing resources and self-containment of that planet, it may be very difficult to take in all those people (imagine a multi-million strong refugee camp).  Oh, and earth-like (habitable) planets are quite rare, the transports being used may be required for other vital purposes (having been conscripted for an emergency), so you'll be under pressure to shift them very quickly, and then there's the politics of putting that many people on any planet due to the local governments concerns.......
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 04:23:37 pm
Quote from: TrashMan
I assume the word "fleet" here has a double meaning - as a total fleet (all of the GTVA warships) and a local fleet (the one in Capella)
Isn't that a kind of big assumption?
Quote from: TrashMan
A Economical collapse is not realyl that likely. As long as money circles around nicely and the GTVA gets their share from taxs, all is well. Well..allmost
Pay companies to build stuff and then tax the companies to get that money circling back to your pocket and out again.

Let's be real, the GTVA is in for a rough ride but hte worst part is over.

The money doesn't flow in an economic depression, we know that. Why won't there be an economic depression? All indications are that the money is drying up for the GTVA, they have 250 million new mouths to feed, three or four fleets to rebuild, a Knossos gate to build... there's a lot they need to do, and I don't know they have the money to do it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 03, 2006, 04:37:39 pm
the second shivan invasion takes place rather quickly. Everything happens rather fast. From the apperance of the first Sath to the destruction of the Capella - was it a week?
And let's not forget the intensity of hte evacuation. It's safe to assume that it dropped after the Sath destruction and picked up massivly after the Saths started coming. Lets not forget the difference between the time you start the evacuation (give orders) and the time it actualyl starts full force.
You have lot's to prepare - to gather ships and supplies from across the GTVA, and ready camps.

Now Argos and Heraphiliuses are not that big so you can't realyl transport that many people at a time. Let's not forget other cargo that was allso transfered.  And that Shivans were hitting every convoy going for the node with great sucess  (remember the 70th blue lions first briefing?)

I don't think many Capellans survived...few millions maby.

But even if it was more you don't just plonk them all at one place - you distribute them among all the other planets ... 100000 people for a technologicly advanced planet is no big deal....
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 03, 2006, 04:41:19 pm
Even assuming only, say, 10% survived, that requires 250 habitable planets.   Not likely by any estimation I've ever heard.

Again, the evacuation started when the first Sathanas arrived.  That was well before the Shivans were in control of Capella - otherwise the GTVA wouldn't have been confident enough to go back into the nebula.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 06:20:25 pm
Ok, I think were underestimating the capability of the GTVA to cope with this problems. First, the building of an terran Knossos wouldnt be a priority for many years to come both because of resources and much research in that technology would have to be made before an prototype. Second, the GTVA has enough territory to settle this refugees (systems like Wolf 359, Barnard's Star, Luyten, etc, would be good places) and would undoubtly aid them enough so that they would prosper (unlike the brazilian government does to the people living in the Amazon or anywhere, trust me, I know). Third, it doesnt have a earth type planet, it would simply have to be able to sustain human life. Fourth, since the evacuation started when the first Sathanas arrived, the number of refugees who survived would be considerable (at least, almost half of the 250 million).Fifth,  I agree with the idea that AlphaOne said into converting the Fenris into transports for civilians and materials, doing so would speed up the process of relocation for the refugees. Even saying all that, I still think that it would take another 20-30 years (this is based on my personal opinion and estimative) for the GTVA to fully or achieve near full recover. Anyway, they would be entering a second recostruction age.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 06:23:06 pm
I still want to see a Fenris with the Charybdis's AWACs dome on it instead of the Radar Dish, there's a good use for it... except that the Charybdis already has 2000 more hitpoints.


And I am pleased to announce that this is my 700th post (and 100,000,000,000th edit)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 06:28:09 pm
Congratulations on your 700th post then. :lol:

Actually, a good idea would be to do that on a Leviathan and upgrade its engines so ti would be faster. Or you could simply add more armor to the Fenris.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Shade on June 03, 2006, 06:48:13 pm
That would be hard, given that a Leviathan is in fact just a Fenris with some of the engine capacity and weight considerations dropped for heavier armour and weapons. Give it more engines and reduce weight again to improve speed, and you just end up with a Fenris.

Anyways, left alone and secure the GTVA would certainly recover in a reasonable time frame. The problem though is that they're not likely to feel secure (why would they? The Shivans are persistant bastards) and as such will probably concentrate more on getting some form of viable military up and running again instead of focusing exclusively on effective reconstruction and resettlement. Building up a military effectively from scratch takes a lot of time, effort and resources, and that has to come from somewhere.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 06:56:35 pm
I started a campagin (that sucked) that involved a Leviathan that had been stolen by pirates in (some remote system) and outfitted with a top of the line Vasudan reactor core, and a Vasudan beam cannon.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 06:59:21 pm
Then the best choice is the Aeolus, since it excels both cruisers, altought an AWACS dome on it wouldnt really look well.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 03, 2006, 07:33:31 pm
Now Argos and Heraphiliuses are not that big so you can't realyl transport that many people at a time. Let's not forget other cargo that was allso transfered.  And that Shivans were hitting every convoy going for the node with great sucess  (remember the 70th blue lions first briefing?)

The Hippocrates is actually quite big according to the Tech Description:
Quote
Terrans developed the GTM Hippocrates early in the post-war Reconstruction period. With the outbreak of the NTF insurgency, the GTVA has once again called the Hippocrates into active military service. Its on-board facilities provide state-of-the-art medical care to thousands of patients. Hippocrates also help transport refugees out of contested systems into the safety of Allied-controlled regions. The unusual design of the Hippocrates enables its crew to isolate sections of the ship quickly in the event of quarantine or hull breach.

It's also safe to say that if an Argo can carry replacement parts for the engines of a Hecate, they can also carry a fair number of passengers ("hundreds" according to Lambda 1 in "Exodus"). Even in the first Blue Lions mission, with two Argos and a Hippocrates, it's fair to say that a couple of thousand of civilians were being evacuated in that one convoy, and if the GTVA had been evacuating continuously for nearly a week with convoys of that size, several hundreds of thousands of civilians will likely have been cleared out by the time the Shivans begin their big push.

Quote
And let's not forget the intensity of hte evacuation. It's safe to assume that it dropped after the Sath destruction and picked up massivly after the Saths started coming.

I highly doubt this. According to Admiral Ahmose, the evacuation proceeded "as planned" after the destruction of the Sathanas, and with the nebula not fully secure, I'm sure the GTVA was making sure that systems within close range of the nebula were clear of any civilians should something go terribly wrong again. Of course, the evacuation would have escalated once news of the second Sathanas had reached Command, but in a week's time and with steady evacuation, it's likely that many millions of Capellans had already been evacuated by this time.

Aldo also brings up a good point about the hundreds of thousands of refugees from the NTF regime, particularly the Vasudans attempting to flee the genocide in the NTF systems. Even if the Capellan refugees aren't that numerous, the GTVA still has to find a way to rebuild the homes on Cygnus Prime and the habitable planets in the former NTF systems. The ground battles alone launched to retake the planets likely did a fair amount of collateral damage to warrant massive reconstruction projects.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 07:34:40 pm
Well, the thing was, it was a Leviathan with green glow maps, and I didn't want to try and reskin the Aeolus.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 07:53:17 pm
About the NTF refugees, the GTVA would already be handling their situation during the rebellion and the start and middle of the second great war so that their situation would on a far more stable level, altought their impact cant be underestimated it definitely wouldnt as great as of the capellan refugees.

What exactly do you want to do with a cruiser, Mars?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 08:50:31 pm
Make it an AWACs cruiser from the Fenris, nevermind, it was way off topic...

a cookie to anyone who sees the irony of that statement.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 03, 2006, 09:10:26 pm
People seem to forget about one very important thing:-the GTVA rebuilt they civilization from almost nothing. They had very little industry to help them, they had very few shiopyards, very few research instalations, very few resources to begin with. And yet they not only managed to get theyr acto toghether bu also modernise they fleets increase its size...colonize new planets hell they even had the money and the time to build the freaking Collie.

All this happened in just 35 years time. And you are gooing to tell me that they can not relocate several milion people and actualy start replenishing they fleets?? Hell no i dont buy that one bit.

Oh and lets not forget that there was an acual evacuation of Vasuda if I do remember corectly and while most of the population could not be evacuated in time there were at least several hundreds of milions of vasudans that managed to escape the destruction of theyr homeworld. While the other bilions died.

Oh and dont go around telling me that the vasudans actualy could relocate several hundreds of milions of refugeez on other planets cuz well they had the housing and jobs and stuff.

Also since you asked me where do i get mi figures about actual contruction time and relocation and other stuff like that Aldo, can u tell me where you got the 3 yea build time period for the Orion?

Also who said anything about conscripting the refugeez into the army??? Hell i'm willing to bet you will find several hundreds of thousand of volunteers right there simpli by placing a few recruiting offices aroun ther handing out flyers. Sure not all of them would be accepted but then agin they dont have to be all accepted. Also Aldo you were saing something about the actual training of the crews...:
-while the ship is built could it be imaginable to think that you would actualy be training the crews?? oh my God what an absurd idea right??? Hell they dont even have to have a ship by the time they are finished training they can just keep on taining and stuff like that inceasing thery skills until the ship is actualy ready.

-I dont believe that someone handling the amunition would actualy be taking several years to train on how to loead and unload missiles/bombs etc. Crew training would ake time but not that long.

Also i believe trained crews and trained pilots is something the GTVA will need and the capellans would be more then happy to volunteer. Also I dont believe that every single refugee is married or has a child or family even if 100.000 people are all single without any other obligation that is still enough to actualy replace some of the crews in time.

I believe that trained crews would acualy be a more serious problem then the lack of ships cuz well i dont believe that a crew actualy has a pemanent position on a ship with the ship docking while they have a 3 moth shoreleave form several years of patroling or something like that. I beleive crews are actualy rotated every 6 or 8 months.

As for fighter pilots those are the real problem. I believe that the GTVA would actualy be building fighters/bommbers etc faster then they can put a pilot in the cockpit train them and send them off to they duties.

Also this would be a great idea to actualy reactivate some of those retired Orions everyone has heard about. And no they wont actualy be stripped for parts. They will most liekli go into a state of preservation just in case. I know for sure that at least the navy does that at least with some of its ships and the airforce as well with some of its airplanes. You never know when you could use a few extra planes or ships.

Oh can i have a cookie?? I see it its ontopic by a thin tread of silk
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 09:16:43 pm
No cookie for you  :wtf:
 :p
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 09:30:03 pm
I saw the irony, so:


I demand unfetered acess to the Sirius jump ... ahem, i mean to this cookie.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 03, 2006, 09:39:32 pm
You are mean why cant i have a cookie i saw the ironi there...i want a cookie....oh and Hatsheepsut please come on santa...i want Hatsheepsut...or at least a Deimos and 2 cookies pls!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 09:46:40 pm
(http://www.bakeco.com/choc%20chip%20cookie.jpg)

Anyhow. I think the Terrans and Vasudans are in a kind of wierd situation. There are no other civilizations, therefore, the only debt is debt within the civilization.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 09:49:35 pm
Anyhow. I think the Terrans and Vasudans are in a kind of wierd situation. There are no other civilizations, therefore, the only debt is debt within the civilization.


I dont understand, what do you mean?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 09:59:40 pm
Okay, the US is in debt other countries, and all the other countries who are in debt are in debt to either the EU or US. In Freespace 2 there's only one country.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 10:05:34 pm
Oh, ok, but doesnt the fact that this is an internal matter and that it doesnt suffer any kind of outside interference (I highly that another shivan invasion would happen soon) actually makes it easier to handle all this?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 10:16:55 pm
Yeah, it does, that's my thought. I don't think the GTVA crumbled, I just don't think they'll be starting any new projects any time soon.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 10:38:10 pm
Well, but wouldnt it simply be another reconstruction era all over again then?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 10:55:29 pm
Maybe even a shorter one, after all, they don't need to recover from the loss of an economic hub this time.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 03, 2006, 11:32:41 pm
Wait, Capella is an economic hub.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 03, 2006, 11:40:27 pm
Not like Sol was.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 04, 2006, 07:47:01 am
Quote
People seem to forget about one very important thing:-the GTVA rebuilt they civilization from almost nothing. They had very little industry to help them, they had very few shiopyards, very few research instalations, very few resources to begin with. And yet they not only managed to get theyr acto toghether bu also modernise they fleets increase its size...colonize new planets hell they even had the money and the time to build the freaking Collie.

All this happened in just 35 years time. And you are gooing to tell me that they can not relocate several milion people and actualy start replenishing they fleets?? Hell no i dont buy that one bit.

If the GTVA did rebuild from scratch, then 250 million people either dead or needing relocated, including the infrastructure destroyed in Capella, would represent a massive amount of their population.

Every action, requires money and resources.  Those resources need to be sourced interally - there's no exterior support - and that sourcing requires further infrastructure to be built before you can even begin to build for the refugees themselves.  The GTVA does not have unlimited resources - if anything they're even more limited - and housing millions of people will represent an enormous drain on resources and priority.  Whilst the GTVA can rebuild, it will take time, and you can't just whip up a new fleet in a few years.

Quote
Oh and lets not forget that there was an acual evacuation of Vasuda if I do remember corectly and while most of the population could not be evacuated in time there were at least several hundreds of milions of vasudans that managed to escape the destruction of theyr homeworld. While the other bilions died.

Oh and dont go around telling me that the vasudans actualy could relocate several hundreds of milions of refugeez on other planets cuz well they had the housing and jobs and stuff.

I'm afraid you've lost me here.

The Vasudans have had 36 years to rebuild.  That's a lot different from 3.  Moreso, I would wager that the Vasudans were perhaps well prepared for this type of scenario, given the inhospitability of Vasuda Prime and the general value of colonisations to the Vasudans themselves.

Although it is stated that both 4 billion died in Vasuda and most of the escaping transports were shot down, which does raise questions as to how many escaped (V.Prime not seeming the sort of planet to support many, many billions ala Earth).  There's an additional implication that the GTA was close to threatening Vasuda Prime during the TV war, too, which raises the question as to whether preparations for relocating key industries, etc, had already been made.

It's also unclear as to if or when the Vasudans evacuated Vasuda Prime.  As no-one had seen the Shivans actually attack a planet at that point in time, it's quite possible there was at most a limited evacuation effort, with the bulk of the population bunkering down and preparing for ground fighting.

Quote


Also who said anything about conscripting the refugeez into the army??? Hell i'm willing to bet you will find several hundreds of thousand of volunteers right there simpli by placing a few recruiting offices aroun ther handing out flyers. Sure not all of them would be accepted but then agin they dont have to be all accepted.

Er, you suggested conscription by 'They dont have to go around looking for volunteers', I felt.  I mean, you can't really think refugees are all 'craving for blood'? :wtf:

Also, why would they join the army (etc) before they had their families, etc, safe?  Why put themselves back into harms way?  How could the decimated fleet afford to pay thousands (technically, you'd need millions for this to make a major impact) of new people, when there wasn't even a war?  Where would they be housed?

Quote
Also Aldo you were saing something about the actual training of the crews...:
-while the ship is built could it be imaginable to think that you would actualy be training the crews?? oh my God what an absurd idea right??? Hell they dont even have to have a ship by the time they are finished training they can just keep on taining and stuff like that inceasing thery skills until the ship is actualy ready.

That is quite absurd, actually, even though you've sailed (*whoosh*) right past my point. 

Training costs money, and it needs facilities for it.  Even 250,000 people - 0.1% of the population of Capella, and probably a similarly small percentage of the refugees - requires a huge amount of pay, food, lodgings, etc.  And even if you can do that, you can be sure the volunteers with families will want their families housed and fed before doing anything.

Quote
Also since you asked me where do i get mi figures about actual contruction time and relocation and other stuff like that Aldo, can u tell me where you got the 3 yea build time period for the Orion?

I believe it is referenced in the FRED2 walkthrough.  Which makes it the closest to official source we have on this, and I'd say consistent with the Colossus build time.

Quote
-I dont believe that someone handling the amunition would actualy be taking several years to train on how to loead and unload missiles/bombs etc. Crew training would ake time but not that long.

I would imagine you'd be very patient teaching someone how to load and handle a 50kt missile...... not to mention actual maintenance of the weapons, fixing them, preflight checking them, etc.  And that'd be a single function - what about maintenance, engineering, pilots, gunners, tacticians, fighter/flight controllers, navigators..etc.

Although I addressed this before; facilities, money, etc.

Quote

Also i believe trained crews and trained pilots is something the GTVA will need and the capellans would be more then happy to volunteer. Also I dont believe that every single refugee is married or has a child or family even if 100.000 people are all single without any other obligation that is still enough to actualy replace some of the crews in time.

And 100,000 is a miniscule percentage of actual refugees by even the rather conservative estimates of 10% survival.  And, again, you need facilities to handle that on top of the existing recruitment rates... although I have to wonder exactly how barely surviving a war with a near invincible enemy would encourage people to join up.

Quote

I believe that trained crews would acualy be a more serious problem then the lack of ships cuz well i dont believe that a crew actualy has a pemanent position on a ship with the ship docking while they have a 3 moth shoreleave form several years of patroling or something like that. I beleive crews are actualy rotated every 6 or 8 months.

Well, there is canon that Orion crews serve for 2 years, and that the cost of this in wages is an enormous expense.

Quote

Also this would be a great idea to actualy reactivate some of those retired Orions everyone has heard about. And no they wont actualy be stripped for parts. They will most liekli go into a state of preservation just in case. I know for sure that at least the navy does that at least with some of its ships and the airforce as well with some of its airplanes. You never know when you could use a few extra planes or ships.

what, the retired Orions with laser turrets and bugger all else?

There's scarcely likely to be a shadow fleet of mothballed destroyers, after all.

Oh, ok, but doesnt the fact that this is an internal matter and that it doesnt suffer any kind of outside interference (I highly that another shivan invasion would happen soon) actually makes it easier to handle all this?

Mmm.. think, say, the Kashmir earthquake.  Now think of it without aid or government help.  Not nice.

Yeah, it does, that's my thought. I don't think the GTVA crumbled, I just don't think they'll be starting any new projects any time soon.

That was my thought.  They'll spend a good few years recoering, rehousing, and rebuilding relations following the NTF.  Only after that would it be economically feasible to launch any sort of concerted rearming campaign, IMO.  Certainly I find the concept of sending 20 odd destroyers crewed by Capellan refugees thirsty for Shivan blood, through a newly constructed Knossos that lead conviently to both Shivan space and useful resources, and which promptly defeats the Shivans on their own ground......rather unlikely.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 04, 2006, 11:10:34 am
Oh, just wait 32 years and we'll be seeing the GTVA up and runing again like nothing ever happened. ::)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 04, 2006, 11:24:37 am
Well, nebulas do seem to be huge economic prospects and a nice place for Shivans.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 04, 2006, 01:41:14 pm
Quote
Also since you asked me where do i get mi figures about actual contruction time and relocation and other stuff like that Aldo, can u tell me where you got the 3 yea build time period for the Orion?

I believe it is referenced in the FRED2 walkthrough.  Which makes it the closest to official source we have on this, and I'd say consistent with the Colossus build time.

The only place I've ever seen three years in connection with the Orion was that the construction costs equaled about the amount that pays its crew for three years. Nothing about construction time, though.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 04, 2006, 01:42:35 pm
The only place I've ever seen three years in connection with the Orion was that the construction costs equaled about the amount that pays its crew for three years. Nothing about construction time, though.

Um, someone mentioned it a few weeks back on one of these topics.  Can't check it myself, natch.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 04, 2006, 01:55:26 pm
The only place I've ever seen three years in connection with the Orion was that the construction costs equaled about the amount that pays its crew for three years. Nothing about construction time, though.

Um, someone mentioned it a few weeks back on one of these topics.  Can't check it myself, natch.

I mentioned, but I'd apreciate if someone would check out the FRED walkthrough in the debrief part just to make sure.

IIRC it was something like "You bloody idiot, you made us waste *insert time* building the Relentless so the NTF would capture/destroy it!".

Again, I'd apreciate if someone would check it out as I don't have access to FS2 at the moment. :nervous:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Black Wolf on June 04, 2006, 02:23:14 pm
I can;t find any mention of it in the brief, debrief or messages. In fact, years doesn't appear anywhere in the mission file at all...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 04, 2006, 02:24:47 pm
I can;t find any mention of it in the brief, debrief or messages. In fact, years doesn't appear anywhere in the mission file at all...

Mission file?

What does Command says in the debrief when you lose the destroyer (either way)?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 04, 2006, 02:35:11 pm
Umm Aldo again I never said they will start rebuilding they fleets imediatle after the war was over. But i do believe that 3 years of concentrated effort on the part of the GTVA to relocate the refugeez would be more then enough for them to actualy achieve something that is at least adequate.

Also facilities for the training of new crews already exist. They were not lost during the war like it happened during the Great War . Also wo the hell said that the GTVA started from scratch in population terms???

Remember there were more then one desly populaed colonies even during the TV war.

I believe that the population of the GTVA is actualy in the realm of at least 10 bilion citizens.

Oh and regarding the Vasudans:-so it is posible to actualy relocate a large amount of people. Or you are gooing to tell me that the vasudans anticipated the destruction of they homeworld most of theyr  industry and the most important economical hub they had. Regarding the survivors of Vasuda even if 5% of its population was actualy evacuated in time that wound still mean like what 200 milion people??? And dont go aroun telling me that the vasudan actualy happened to have 200 milion jobs houses etc.

The rebuilding of theyr fleets and a knossos device is the most important thing for the GTVA far more important then actualy providing food,jobs,houses etc for 250 milion refugeez. By opening the node to Sol They will have acces to the resources available there.

The Orions-I do believe that most if not all of the Orions that have been preserved would have beam cannons mounted on them since I dont believe they will go around retiring ships without something to replace them. And even if a fleet was composed of nothing more the Leviathans,Fenris and Orions that would still make it a good fleet capable of taking on any modern fleet of the GTVA!

In the end to keep it short the relocating of the refugeez,the rebuilding of theyr depleted fleets and the beginig of the construction of a terran knossos shouldnt take more then 13 years.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 04, 2006, 02:47:18 pm

The rebuilding of theyr fleets and a knossos device is the most important thing for the GTVA far more important then actualy providing food,jobs,houses etc for 250 milion refugeez. By opening the node to Sol They will have acces to the resources available there.


Far from it, if the GTVA did that right away (meaning a couple of years) they would simply have another big problem in their hands since nobody knows what is the situation in Sol.

A nebula would have very interesting economical prospects for the GTVA, due to its sheer size (many lights years in all directions) it would hold many resources (only gas tought) and it would make fueling any ships relatively easy.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fragrag on June 04, 2006, 03:09:10 pm
A rather offtopic note, but AlphaOne, your spelling has drastically improved lately  :yes:  :P

And, isn't it rather suicide, opening a gate to species that's already nearly destroyed their civilization twice?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 04, 2006, 03:46:42 pm

And, isn't it rather suicide, opening a gate to species that's already nearly destroyed their civilization twice?

Actually, the GTVA should look for another nebula, the one in Capella and beyond Gamma Drac shouldnt be the only ones, I forgot to write that.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Black Wolf on June 04, 2006, 03:47:01 pm
Mission file?

What does Command says in the debrief when you lose the destroyer (either way)?

[V] include a completed mission file with all the stuff from the walkthrough. I searched it with notepad. If you lose the destroyer, the debrief either says
"The loss of the GTD Relentless will cost the alliance a great deal.  We can take some solace in the fact that the NTF did not get ahold of the destroyer."

Or

"Not only do we have one less destroyer today, the NTF has one more.  This is a crushing blow to the alliance."

Depending on whether it's destroyed or captured. And in the messages, all you get is "I can't believe we lost a destroyer.  Damn!  Okay, return to base."
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 04, 2006, 03:52:14 pm
well if you look closely at mi post i said starting to build a knossos device not building one! I believe that they will not finish building the knossos to sol utill they are at full strenght.

Also I never said they have to actualy go looking for the shivans but rather that sooner or later they will run into the shivans again or viceversa.  Either way a nebula would provide a very big economical boost to the GTVA. why?

Because they offer plenti of gas resources to fuel the ship reactors and much much more. I mean it provides the GTVA with rare gasses to fuel just about everithing that uses gas as its fuel.

I imagine it is a lot cheaper then gooing around looking for rare gas deposits or looking for gas gants that have the right combination of gasses. This reminds me if sol has no less then  3 gas giants does this mean fueling or rather gathering fuel for the ships is rather cheap then opesed to what the GTVA curently has??
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 04, 2006, 04:27:38 pm
The majority of planets in the universe are gas giants.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 04, 2006, 04:31:04 pm
umm and all of the planets in the sitems mentioned on FS are uninhabitable. Regardless that does not answer mi question about the economical values of gas giants and nebulas. If it was that available then the GTVA would not sent almost imediately gas miners to collect gas from the nebula.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 04, 2006, 04:37:37 pm
Nearly all of the planets and systems mentioned in FS were habitable.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 04, 2006, 04:44:15 pm
Quote
well if you look closely at mi post i said starting to build a knossos device not building one! I believe that they will not finish building the knossos to sol utill they are at full strenght.

Er, eh?  That's the most meaningless semantic I've seen.  They still have to pay for the bloody thing.

Quote
Also I never said they have to actualy go looking for the shivans but rather that sooner or later they will run into the shivans again or viceversa.  Either way a nebula would provide a very big economical boost to the GTVA. why?

Because they offer plenti of gas resources to fuel the ship reactors and much much more. I mean it provides the GTVA with rare gasses to fuel just about everithing that uses gas as its fuel.

Albiet you have to consider a massive expenditure for that knossos in the first place, aside from the cost of gas miners, etc, and none of that is providing short term relief.

If you're lucky enough to find a nebula, of course.  Which is the real problem.

Quote
Because they offer plenti of gas resources to fuel the ship reactors and much much more. I mean it provides the GTVA with rare gasses to fuel just about everithing that uses gas as its fuel.

Er.  Note the 'rare'.  How likely is it they'd hit not just a nebula, but one with rare gases, on the first go?  At least with the Knossos, you can say the Ancients could have built a lot of others, etc.

Quote

I imagine it is a lot cheaper then gooing around looking for rare gas deposits or looking for gas gants that have the right combination of gasses. This reminds me if sol has no less then  3 gas giants does this mean fueling or rather gathering fuel for the ships is rather cheap then opesed to what the GTVA curently has??

Cheaper?!

Firstly, as was pointed out, gas giants are rather common.  We've found a few with long-range telescopy, after all.

More importantly, you're talking about building a Knossos.  A gigantic, massively expensive, massively high tech construction.  And you're at the same time completely guessing that it will lead to anywhere useful atall; for all you know it could (and is possibly more statistically likely to) lead to another Gamma Draconis.

This is like the 3rd time I've said this, so just think of this - if you take a drill, poke it in the ground randomly, how likely are you to hit treasure, or oil?

umm and all of the planets in the sitems mentioned on FS are uninhabitable. Regardless that does not answer mi question about the economical values of gas giants and nebulas. If it was that available then the GTVA would not sent almost imediately gas miners to collect gas from the nebula.

It had argon.

That, and it was probably cheaper and easier to do it in the nebula; or perhaps it made more sense logistically, supplying ships with nebular gas rather than a longer chain.  The Colossus had a veritable army of freighters and miners supplying, after all.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 04, 2006, 05:28:12 pm
When you actually think about it the military sounds as a good option for the Capellan refugees.

The GTVA lots' lots of personell and pilots, so there will be a lot of outposts, bases and installations with vacancies.
As for food, a advanced society like GTVA has probably advanced farming techniques. I don't think the food shortage is going to be a problem, and there's a lot of planets where the survivors can be spread over.  250000 per planet is easily handeled - hell if we are to drop that many people in hte US right now it could handle it, let alone a whole advanced planet.

As for the construction of the Orion - I guess it would take roughly as it takes us to build a carrier today - about a year. I doubt it takes more as the rebellion has been going on for 18 months and the rebels have meade heavy use of hte shipyards.

We don' actually know the extent of the losses (Petrach sez half the fleet, but how big was the fleet to begin with? Does he mean total fleet or half the Capella fleet?). We know they are big, but not exactly how big.

I would say 4-5 years and the GTVA would be up and running as usual.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 04, 2006, 05:43:33 pm
Quote
When you actually think about it the military sounds as a good option for the Capellan refugees.

The GTVA lots' lots of personell and pilots, so there will be a lot of outposts, bases and installations with vacancies.

Um, millions?  What about regular recruitment - those people surely need accomodation?  Sure, hundreds of thousands died in the battle(s), but that's a drop in the ocean.  And assuming that facilities weren't destroyed by the rebellion.  Why would the military have lots of 'spare' space above the existing personnel?  The dead did tend to die along with their berths, after all.

Quote
As for food, a advanced society like GTVA has probably advanced farming techniques. I don't think the food shortage is going to be a problem, and there's a lot of planets where the survivors can be spread over.  250000 per planet is easily handeled - hell if we are to drop that many people in hte US right now it could handle it, let alone a whole advanced planet.

Tell Sudan that.  Or Pakistan (Kashmir).  And these are countries with some degree of external support, whereas the GTVA has no-one.  And lets not ignore those planets affected by the NTF rebellion and ground combat.

And what are you assuming 250,000 per planet upon?  If only 10% were evacuated, that's still 25 million and about 100 inhabitable planets you need.

Quote
As for the construction of the Orion - I guess it would take roughly as it takes us to build a carrier today - about a year. I doubt it takes more as the rebellion has been going on for 18 months and the rebels have meade heavy use of hte shipyards.

Um... are carriers not just a tad shorted and less complex than a 2km behemoth?  And what did the rebels actually do with the shipyards, then, because I honestly can't remember anything specified as being built in the period of the NTF rebellion (not forgetting that Bosch could have been preparing years in advance, using his admiralship and fleet command)

Quote
We don' actually know the extent of the losses (Petrach sez half the fleet, but how big was the fleet to begin with? Does he mean total fleet or half the Capella fleet?). We know they are big, but not exactly how big.

The context seems quite clear to me, given that multiple fleets were involved in the battle for Capella; if he meant a specific fleet he would surely have said so.  Also, it simply makes less dramatic sense, particularly coupled with military casualty figures in the hundreds of thousands even before the supernova.  Finally, the use of 'Allied fleet' (..pulverized) to me makes it pretty clear it refers to the Galactic Terran Vasudan Alliance forces rather than a specific numbered fleet.

Also, I can't find where you get the 50% figure from in command brief texts.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 04, 2006, 06:34:46 pm
Quote
As for food, a advanced society like GTVA has probably advanced farming techniques. I don't think the food shortage is going to be a problem, and there's a lot of planets where the survivors can be spread over.  250000 per planet is easily handeled - hell if we are to drop that many people in hte US right now it could handle it, let alone a whole advanced planet.

Tell Sudan that.  Or Pakistan (Kashmir).  And these are countries with some degree of external support, whereas the GTVA has no-one.  And lets not ignore those planets affected by the NTF rebellion and ground combat.

And what are you assuming 250,000 per planet upon?  If only 10% were evacuated, that's still 25 million and about 100 inhabitable planets you need.

Quote
As for the construction of the Orion - I guess it would take roughly as it takes us to build a carrier today - about a year. I doubt it takes more as the rebellion has been going on for 18 months and the rebels have meade heavy use of hte shipyards.

Um... are carriers not just a tad shorted and less complex than a 2km behemoth?  And what did the rebels actually do with the shipyards, then, because I honestly can't remember anything specified as being built in the period of the NTF rebellion (not forgetting that Bosch could have been preparing years in advance, using his admiralship and fleet command)

[/quote]


Sudan and Pakhistan are one thing but this is the GTVA, they're a highly advanced society with advanced technology in possibly all fields, also even with the current technology the agricultural production is incredibly big, the only problem is that due to external pressure the poorer countries are forced to export almost all of what they produced.

About the NTF, let's just guess you're an NTF admiral and the rebellion is going for 18 months, are you just going to leave the shipyards alone and not build anything on them? Not even to replenish your losses? Because if yes, you would've to be extremly skilled to try and win the war.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 04, 2006, 06:40:28 pm
Also, I can't find where you get the 50% figure from in command brief texts.
Quote from: Alpha 1 Dies Cutscene
...We lost entire squadrons, the Colossus and most of our fleet...
I do agree with you Aldo
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 04, 2006, 06:54:30 pm
Space is very big, but by the same token it is also mostly worthless. Controlling a sector of space does you no real good, nor your enemy any harm. It's much like the sea in that regard: in and of itself it is valueless. What it gives you access to, however, may be very important.

However, there is a corollary: FS ships are not required to "cruise" through space to reach a destination. They can use intrasystem jumps to reach other places instantly, and without the enemy being able to stop the transit by any means we know of. This means that space in its entirety is worthless from a tactical standpoint. There is no purpose to controlling it and no reason to devote resources to doing so.

These are, essentially, planets/moons (which probably have defenses of their own), installations (also have defenses of their own, but not very impressive ones), jump nodes, convoys, and fighting ships. Against the Shivans you can eliminate planets/moons from your concerns.

Convoys are the most likely to suck up warship resources; they require powerful close escort, because they may not last long enough for reinforcements to arrive if they don't have such escort. FS' approach seems to be to provide a powerful enough escort that reinforcement will likely be unnecessary.

Installations will normally last long enough on their own merits to summon warship and fighter reinforcements to their defence. Nevertheless they also make logical canidates for leaving a warship or two nearby to protect.

Jump nodes are only of importance under specific sets of circumstances; i.e. you actually want to make use of it, or your enemies do. Since there's no way in or out of the system except for jump nodes, this is most of the time, if only to have a secure line of retreat. Nothing quite inspires confidence like the knowledge you can run away if it all goes to hell. Still, the guard forces would not be large, since a jump node really has no intrinsic value; like a door, its value lies in the ablity to provide access. If one side or the other can afford to devote ships to true blockade instead of securing other objectives, they are probably ascendant already.

Finally, the last object of value to be found in space warfare as practiced in FS are its implements themselves: warships. A destroyer, it goes without saying, is a high-value target: destroyers are what power projection is largely based on. They are thus worth defending: worth defending more then FS normally does. Most FS engagements are open-space battles against or in defense of warships that really have no good reason to be there unless they're hiding (or looking for other warships that are hiding). Rather then scattering warships about in ones and twos through empty space, gathering them together in a group would be safer in both the sense of their becoming harder to find (one spot vs. many) and more defensible. It would really be better, too, for the destroyer to join a one of the subgroups if all its escorts are commited to other tasks.

(The nebula may be a special case, since, probably many LY across, it may not have been possible to cross it in a single jump. A sweep through it would serve a purpose then.)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 04, 2006, 08:30:18 pm
Space is very big, but by the same token it is also mostly worthless. Controlling a sector of space does you no real good, nor your enemy any harm. It's much like the sea in that regard: in and of itself it is valueless. What it gives you access to, however, may be very important.

However, there is a corollary: FS ships are not required to "cruise" through space to reach a destination. They can use intrasystem jumps to reach other places instantly, and without the enemy being able to stop the transit by any means we know of. This means that space in its entirety is worthless from a tactical standpoint. There is no purpose to controlling it and no reason to devote resources to doing so.

Jump nodes are only of importance under specific sets of circumstances; i.e. you actually want to make use of it, or your enemies do. Since there's no way in or out of the system except for jump nodes, this is most of the time, if only to have a secure line of retreat. Nothing quite inspires confidence like the knowledge you can run away if it all goes to hell. Still, the guard forces would not be large, since a jump node really has no intrinsic value; like a door, its value lies in the ablity to provide access. If one side or the other can afford to devote ships to true blockade instead of securing other objectives, they are probably ascendant already.


Impressive, ngtm1r. But fighting the shivans wouldnt add a more important role to jump nodes (to blockade and secure them) since that what the shivans since are interested in? Plus, a nebula would a far more dangerous combat ground to be in since sensor range and coverage are severely hampered (like fighting blind). And the GTVA has acquired the ability to track ships trough subspace and yes, they cannot stop it but knowing what and where the enemy forces are going allows the defence of a system to be far more easy, you just deploy your fleet assets (its warships) to where it will be needed.

And knowing is half the battle, like G.I Joe says. :lol:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 04, 2006, 09:10:06 pm
Quote
When you actually think about it the military sounds as a good option for the Capellan refugees.

The GTVA lots' lots of personell and pilots, so there will be a lot of outposts, bases and installations with vacancies.

Um, millions?  What about regular recruitment - those people surely need accomodation?  Sure, hundreds of thousands died in the battle(s), but that's a drop in the ocean.  And assuming that facilities weren't destroyed by the rebellion.  Why would the military have lots of 'spare' space above the existing personnel?  The dead did tend to die along with their berths, after all.

The GTVA usually wouldn't evacuate a military installation unless it was almost sure that it would be lost. Civilian stations would likely be fully evacuated to avoid unnecessary civilians casualties, but it would make sense for the GTVA to fight tooth and nail for major military installations and shipyards that the Shivans or NTF had attempted to take. Enif, for example, was evacuated of its civilian complement, but, even under heavy beam fire, the GTVA fought to preserve the station with its military personnel onboard. 3rd Fleet HQ, on the other hand, was fully evacuated because the GTVA was sure that it would have to be lost.

Quote
250000 per planet is easily handeled - hell if we are to drop that many people in hte US right now it could handle it, let alone a whole advanced planet.

I'd love to know where you get the estimates for both of these statements. If the Earth at present can hold six billion people, what's to say that fringe planets wouldn't be able to hold at least several million Capellans? Forget the core systems, as they're likely full. That's a primary reason why the GTVA would have had to colonize other planets--the realization that living space would eventually run out.

The same goes for the US. You can't simply double the population of the United States and expect it to just work out. That's hundreds of millions of refugees that had to abandon most of their possessions and means and are suddenly dropped into a country where there is already overcrowding in a number of major cities and not a whole lot of habitable room elsewhere. Not to mention that the government would have to work out billions of dollars to relocate, settle, and provide for nearly double the current population, sending millions more into poverty.

You can't simply make these assumptions without evidence. As technoligically advanced as both the GTVA and US are, that doesn't change the fact that living room eventually just runs out.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 05, 2006, 02:42:35 am
I seriously doubt that the GTVA does not have any spare room to acomodate its civilians. Also where on earth did u get the 250 milion figure ?? He said 250.000.

Also Aldo what on earth are you on about regarding the shipyards and destruction of most milatary facilities?? Are you joking?? Can you honestly tell me that most of the GTVA milatary facilities were destroyed? come on they lost one or 2 arcadias but that is a long way away form saing that it lost most of its facilities.

Oh and give it a rest with the whole economical stuff cuz it doesn apply here. You are talking 21'st century tech applied to 24'th century tech. That makes a lot of sence!

Also you should be more then aware of the fact that when a civilization is faced with the posibility of extinction or severe defeat by whatever means you want to apply they tend to...how shall I put this....be more willing to endure severe hardship.

Hell even gouverments tend to put the people through misery in the short term if that would bring them long term benefits instead.

If you want an example regarding sacrifices and gouverment solution just look at the roman empire who actualy decreased the amount of silver in its coins in order to have more silver to pay for the army and weapons and other stuff like that.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 05, 2006, 03:13:32 am
250 million is the canon population of Capella, stated at the point where they began evacuation prior to destroying the Knossos.

I didn't say most military facilities (not that I recall anyways), but it stands to reason some would be destroyed.  And you'd need to rebuild facilities, and pay for that rebuilding, before you could put people in them.  And then you'd need more facilities than present, say, pre-NTF, because you'd be massively recruiting over-and-above the expected and normal rates.  And then you'd need to pay all those people for years to sit on their bums, because you don't have the ships built yet.  Now, I doubt the GTVA military budget is designed for charitable purposes.

You can't reinvent economics to use effective magic just because it's set 300 years in the future.  If anything, that's a tacti acknowledgement it doesn't make economic sense by any contemporary measure.   Why not just decide the GTVA finds a money tree forest growing on the 2nd planet of Ross 128?

There's also a difference between severe hardship and lethal famine.  And the Roman coin example is completely meaningless because one of the prevailing theories is that this was due to a materials shortage to make the coins; which makes it a scarceley relevant example unless GTVA currency is made out of starship hullmeatal and argon.  And even then the Roman empire continually suffered from drainage due to importing from elsewhere.   And currency devaluation is at best a mixed tactic; just look at hyperinflation in 1930s Germany, for example.

Not to mention you were having a go at the use of 21st century analogies, and then bringing up a ~200BC one!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 05, 2006, 03:55:50 am
Well while a I do agree with you regarding some destroyed milatary instalation they would far few then you think. For the simple reason that the GTVA would go to great lenghts to actualy capture those that were in the hands of the NTF and if there were any significant milatary facilities such as shipyards and stuff like that in Capella then those would represent the majority of what it was lont in terms of industrial equipment.

Also regarding the coins of the Roman empire they actualy were involved in some bloody fighting for soo long they almost bankrupt(sp?)  the empire. That is till they actualy won the bloody war.

Also I do beleieve that with a society as advanced as the GTVA food would be the last concern on they minds. For all we know they could eat milatary rations if nothing else showes up.
However  I do believe that a more serious problem for the refugees would be to actualy provide them with jobs in a very short time frame.

Oh and regarding the milatary costs and other stuff like that involved in the actual training of the new milatary forces that would be an acceptable cost. why? well because the GTVA has a massive short supply of marines,fighter pilots, trained crews for its warships,trained crews for its instalations also we have auxiliari personell for the warships and fighters etc. This would be a rather big task for the GTVA i mean to find enough people as to adequately replace most of its lost personell.

Again At least some of the capellan refugees would make more then good candidates for these jobs. Even if 100.000 people get a job in the milatary that is 100.000 less people you have to worry about not getting proper food ar clothing or housing. They actualy work for what they get such as food clothing money etc.

Also I do beleieve that the GTVA would try and keep at least for a while a strong milatary presence in the former NTF controlled sistems. That could in theory soak up another 500.000 people at least.

I do know that the milatary does have a limited budget but if they could afford to pay the crews of the warships pilots etc etc during the war they can sue as hell afford to pay for lets say 50% of those people now after the war.


Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 05, 2006, 04:25:15 am
Right, and you think the NTF wouldn't also be inclined to destroy anything they couldn't hold?  (likewise GTVA; I mean, you'd like to capture installations, but if you can't, then first order of business is to deny them to the enemy)

Where would they get infinite military rations from?  I mean, I doubt the GTVa has a few hundred million packs lying about on the offchance of a supernova.

And it's all very nice the military taking on xxx thousand people but a) that's not going to go anywhere near solving the problem b) they need ships and training locations to be replaced, both of which take time and money and c) they also have an existing recruitment to consider anyways

Oh, and d) there's an issue of budgeting for new people.  They might not be paying the dead - assuming there's no combat insurance - but they still need to replace everything lost with them by way of supplies.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 05, 2006, 05:42:51 am
Agreed. But I never said it would solve the problem I just wanted to point out at a posible mean to ease up a little the situation. Also there wasnt any data regarding the desetruction of the shipyards in the NTF controlled sistems or facilities. Also I don think those are the only facilities available to the GTVA.

Also I never said they had infinite number of rations on hand I just said they coul posibli use some of the existing stock. Also if the need for food rationing rises they can do just that ration the food.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fragrag on June 05, 2006, 05:46:14 am
Convoys are the most likely to suck up warship resources; they require powerful close escort, because they may not last long enough for reinforcements to arrive if they don't have such escort. FS' approach seems to be to provide a powerful enough escort that reinforcement will likely be unnecessary.

But, why do we actually have convoys, don't transports have jumpdrives so they could just jump to their destination? And if they don't have any jumpdrives, why not install them? Fighters are much smaller and have at least intrasystem jumpdrives.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 05, 2006, 06:01:11 am
Well some of the jumpnodes are just hard to acces. And there you have convoys that travel through normal space for hours perhaps even days. These convoys are very vulnerable to attacks.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Shade on June 05, 2006, 06:02:05 am
Convoys generally do jump for most of their journey. But they need to travel in realspace for the final approaches to their destination, when they aren't sure of the precise location they are heading to (such as resupplying a fleet that's on the move... you jump into the general vicinity and then meet up with them on normal drives, or when it's hard to navigate such as in a nebula), or when there's a navigational hazard such as asteroid fields that it would be really unwise to jump into.

And of course, some transports in fact don't have jump drives, such as seen in the first FS2 main campaign mission. I'd assume that they were originally used only for planetary/orbital operations, and as such never needed them until need pressed them into service as makeshift evacuation vessels.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 05, 2006, 01:16:41 pm
Convoys are the most likely to suck up warship resources; they require powerful close escort, because they may not last long enough for reinforcements to arrive if they don't have such escort. FS' approach seems to be to provide a powerful enough escort that reinforcement will likely be unnecessary.

But, why do we actually have convoys, don't transports have jumpdrives so they could just jump to their destination? And if they don't have any jumpdrives, why not install them? Fighters are much smaller and have at least intrasystem jumpdrives.

They're still vunerable at either end of their transit; and for some odd reason, they, like most other FS ships, end up in the middle of nowhere a lot.

There's got to be some kind of restrictions on subspace drives we're not being told about, but what they are is impossible to say.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 02:07:47 pm
My guess is that there are no-go areas where they don't work, maybe they need to be in the vicinity of a nearby source of gravity, like a planet, or a near sun.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 05, 2006, 03:34:53 pm
My guess is that since a system is a really big place you would need to make several jumps (2 or 3) to reach your destination (planet, base, etc) and the ships would have limits to how many jumps they can make due to power supply, to not stress the subspace drive and due to the technology not being that advanced to support multiple jumps.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fergus on June 05, 2006, 03:55:57 pm
I believe that the population of the GTVA is actualy in the realm of at least 10 bilion citizens.

I hate to be a pain, but I was curious as to what you are basing this claim on?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 04:03:35 pm
AlphaOne, tell me you were kidding.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 05, 2006, 04:11:19 pm
I have to admit i would have went for something like that a while back, but based on the Capella population, 10bn strikes me as rather unlikely.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 04:18:32 pm
I would've to, but especially after reading some of the extremely logical arguments here, it just doesn't seem possible
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 05, 2006, 04:34:20 pm
10bn seems fine when you consider the likely population increase of Earth.  But then you have to factor in that there's only been colonisation for about, what, 60 years?  And then that for most of the years Sol was connected to the rest of the GTA, they were at war with the Vasudans, which can't be positive for migration outwards....

To be fair, you do have the Vasudans own colonies, but that's also minus 4bn and minus whatever the NTF killed as well.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 04:37:55 pm
Oh.. nevermind, it's just me being special again- I thought he said "cruisers"
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 05, 2006, 04:39:47 pm
The biggest number I would guess would be 1000, the most likely, 100-200, less likely but still in realm of reason: 250-500

What, million?  Nah, I'd say more than that.  Not 10bn, maybe... 5bn?  Not sure.  But if Capella was 250m, then I'd expect some systems to have higher pops (namely BA and Aldebaran).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 04:48:12 pm
Oh God, sorry, I just now realized that I am a moron.  (see above) ;)

No, I imagine that there are at least 6bn people in the GTVA, when you add in Sol the population doubles (assuming Mars can sustain a significant number.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 05, 2006, 04:59:12 pm
Oh God, sorry, I just now realized that I am a moron.  (see above) ;)

No, I imagine that there are at least 6bn people in the GTVA, when you add in Sol the population doubles (assuming Mars can sustain a significant number.

I think Sol would be bloody gargantuan, actually - at least 10bn or so.  I'm pretty sure that's a conservative estimate at current growth rates, too, and it might even be one that requires some rather large natural disasters to accomplish.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 05:01:28 pm
Earth can't sustain that many people, Mars can sustain less, lets not forget Europa, which can probably barely handle 1bn
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 05, 2006, 05:06:56 pm
Earth can't sustain that many people, Mars can sustain less, lets not forget Europa, which can probably barely handle 1bn

Hmm.... I'm thinking orbital hydroponics as one thing.  Mars... it's a bit contingent on terraforming Mars or (less likely) Venus, I guess.  I'm envisaging a 'die-off' at some point in the 22nd or so C, followed by some form of agricultural revolution and grown from, I dunno,  3 or so bn over 200 years?

Ignoring the resources, incidentally, at current fertility rates the predicted 2100 population of Earth would be 40bn.  Which would definately lead to famine.

EDIT; the UN predicts a drop in growth rates and a pop of 10bn in 2100.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 05:12:22 pm
Okay, makes sense

I think the largest Terran population outside of Sol is Delta Serpentis, it's right next to Sol, and was the capital of the GTA after the Sol node colapsed.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 05, 2006, 05:17:09 pm
Okay, makes sense

I think the largest Terran population outside of Sol is Delta Serpentis, it's right next to Sol, and was the capital of the GTA after the Sol node colapsed.

Yeah, although... don't know how habitable it is.  It could be a symbolic capital due to proximity or military presence rather than population.  There's a mention, I think, that a lot of the map 'north' of DS was unexplored in FS1 times (well, Laramis, which to me indicates a fair chunk), though, which perhaps points to a concentrated population in the likes of DS, BA and Ross 128.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 05:31:38 pm
You mean South

Alpha Centuri would have the largest symbolic impact in that case.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: StratComm on June 05, 2006, 06:59:35 pm
But Alpha Centauri is Vasudan.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 07:31:08 pm
I know, but it is still the closest system to Earth.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 05, 2006, 10:26:08 pm
The main systems of GTVA (higher population, industrial capacity, military importance, etc), in my estimative, would be:

Delta Serpentis, Deneb, Sirius, Beta Aquilae, Antares, Ribos, Alpha Centauri, Vasuda, Vega, Beta Cignny, Polaris and Regulus.

Also the GTVA would have a population in order of several billions somewhat evenly spread amog these and to a lesser extent other systems like Laramis.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 05, 2006, 10:56:27 pm
All of the systems beyond Laramis (so Luyten 726-BA, Bernard's Star, Wolf 359 (described by debreifing as being remote, and possessing the 12th fleet), Alphard, and Dubhe, and the semi-canon unknown system(s) beyond Dubhe, are the frontier of the Terrans.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 06, 2006, 02:40:51 am
Umm well we do know that the Vasudans actualy lost only Theyr Homeworld. Also it was said somewheer that they dont colonize that many planets but rather when they set up a colony they tend to stai there untill that coloni reaches its limit in terms of population support then go around looking for a new place where they can establish yet another colony.

Also Capella is a rtaher long way away from the GTVA core sistems so I guess its pulation while dense and rather large is still only a small percentage of its actual population. (of the GTVA that is).

I wonder if the GTVA actualy has something like modern day cruise liners that carry people from one place to another. Or in times of war strip them aout and double or even tripple theyr loeading capacity.

There was this one case when a german pasanger ship ment to take on some 200-300 people actualy took on boar more then 800.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Wanderer on June 06, 2006, 03:21:47 am
Its bit different in space... Life support on normal 'wet navy' ships is relatively simple.. Just some food and water and its done. However in space life support also has to provide enough air for everybody so taking more onboard than what the life support can handle is likely to be a very bad solution. So it isnt as simple (or how do i know) as it is now to convert cargo freighters or cruise liners into troop transports.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 06, 2006, 03:59:55 am
Umm well we do know that the Vasudans actualy lost only Theyr Homeworld. Also it was said somewheer that they dont colonize that many planets but rather when they set up a colony they tend to stai there untill that coloni reaches its limit in terms of population support then go around looking for a new place where they can establish yet another colony.

Also Capella is a rtaher long way away from the GTVA core sistems so I guess its pulation while dense and rather large is still only a small percentage of its actual population. (of the GTVA that is).

I wonder if the GTVA actualy has something like modern day cruise liners that carry people from one place to another. Or in times of war strip them aout and double or even tripple theyr loeading capacity.

There was this one case when a german pasanger ship ment to take on some 200-300 people actualy took on boar more then 800.

You're making a key mistake here; you're assuming Capella is not densely population due to distance, but ignoring the possibility that it is a far more habitable system than others.  Ultimately, distance from resources will matter more than distance from other systems; Vega might be closer to BA, but if all the planets are blasted hellholes incapable of supporting life without massive investment and if (purely if) Capella was full of lush, green, inhabitable worlds... well, which do you think is more likely to be populated?

To me ' the densely-populated Capella system' in A Flaming Sword makes it pretty clear.

TO CLARIFY; dense can have several meanings, to be fair.  A small population in a smaller space being one.

But, the only meaning that makes sense in this context, to me, is a high population which is difficult to evacuate.  The reason being, this is a military briefing; if it was a small, i.e. trivial, population, there's no need for the dense bit.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 06, 2006, 04:02:21 am
umm i thought something like that would be the answer. This sucks...I mean you know you can put more people in one ship the space alows you to but the Life support sistems dont cut it. Well they can alwasy hold theyr breath. :P

umm i never said it wouldnt be desly populated I just wanted to say that its not as populated as it could of been should it of been more close to the core sistems. Also was capella around in FS1 I mean was it discovered or colonized??
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 06, 2006, 05:17:40 am
umm i never said it wouldnt be desly populated I just wanted to say that its not as populated as it could of been should it of been more close to the core sistems. Also was capella around in FS1 I mean was it discovered or colonized??

I corrected my usage of 'densely' above to clarify it.  It's not clear whether Capella was colonised in FS1 era or not; it seems quite unlikely due to probable fighting in Vega.  However, looking at the likes of Regulus and Polaris, which are arguably (as NTF base-systems) predominantly Terran, it's hard to judge colonisation times or otherwise.  We do, at least, know that Laramis was only explored during the Great War, which makes colonisation of the systems off of it less likely; it also indicates that none of the systems like DS, Ross 128, etc were overpopulated (although this is a rather relative concept in itself).

In any case, to evaluate the likely population of the GTVA you have to guess a) how many people likely emigrated from Vasuda Prime and Sol prior to their being cut off, b) what the reproductive rates were in the 30-odd years since then (and on top of post-emigration rates), and c) how many died as a result of the 2 Shivan wars, the TV War, and the NTF genocide.  To determine likely distribution is somewhat tougher; firstly, naturally habitable (i.e. supporting large populations without extensive terraforming or domed colonies and exterior reliance) planets are believed very rare in actuality.  Secondly, and annoyingly, I don't think FS2 systems bear any resemblance to reality, so we probably can't use actual stars to guess at likely habitability.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 06, 2006, 07:39:18 am
No arguement from me there! 

I was just on about the fact that the Vasudans actualy had very few colonies established as oposed to their numbers. I believe it was on the VBB that it was said that the vasudans tend to actualy not go too far from their homeworld. This could actualy sugest a rather large population in the sistems that are actualy under vasudan control or rather in the sistems where the vasudans established colonies.

Also I would imagine that given the fact the Sol can only provide habbitable place for only limited amount of people the star sistems that can actuali support life would be very densly populated. Meaning planets from DS and others like it . Basicly the star sistems that were first colonized.

Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 06, 2006, 07:54:55 am
If anything, the Vasudans are more likely to have colonies than the Terrans......

Also, how do you know the first colonized systems, and how do you know they were the most habitable rather than, well, the first?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 06, 2006, 08:10:20 am
umm actualy i dont! I was just asuming that with early tech the colonization of other planets wouldnt be as easy as with current tech!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 06, 2006, 08:13:01 am
The vasudans intel says that the little buggers developed spaceflight to colonise other planets, But as to whether that was before Uber humanity got around to it, Thats another matter.
Discussion point...>>

Do you reckon the vasudans met us on our turf, or vice-versa, Cos tha would go a little way towards showing who was more outgoing in some slight way i assume. :confused:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 06, 2006, 08:34:32 am
umm actualy i dont! I was just asuming that with early tech the colonization of other planets wouldnt be as easy as with current tech!

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain what your point it here, because I don't get it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 06, 2006, 09:52:48 am
Well it wasnt suposed to be a point there it was just an asumption that the first stages of the expansion for both the terrans and vasudans wasnt that extensive I mean posibly just in the neighboring starsistem. If subspace tech was in its infanci then it would of benn posibly harder for them to move over great leghts. That is if there were such problems in the begining. But even if there were no such problems with engines with ship size there suer was. So no large scale expansion in the begining I guess with only one posibly 2 starsistem beeing colonized and posibly becoming densly populated over time.

Umm dont know exactly what tipe of engines thy had in the begining but rest asured that they were not capable of traveling outside of theyr sistems. Also I beleive there is a paragraph somewhere that sais that the GTA was unable to overcome to dificulties of faster then light travel.


This would sugest that they migh of come close to the speed of light or even managed to get at ligh speed travel. But it was unusable outside of theyr own sistem. So they were esenciali trapped till the discovery of subspace.


From what I know the Terrans migh of stumbeled across the vasudans. And with bad language they eventualy started blasting the hell out of eachother.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 06, 2006, 09:59:13 am
It was different from the Terrans to Vasudans. The Terrans probably started by colonizing planets in their solar system, whereas Vasuda Prime is the only planet is Vasuda capable of supporting life, so they probably would have started out with orbital stations.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 06, 2006, 10:31:35 am
Umm that raises a whole new question about the time they actuly developed subspace drives!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 06, 2006, 10:47:08 am
It says when the Terrams discovered subspace somwhere, I think in one of the cancelled cutscenes, but I don't know where the scripts are anymore.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 06, 2006, 10:49:53 am
It says when the Terrams discovered subspace somwhere, I think in one of the cancelled cutscenes, but I don't know where the scripts are anymore.

Not particularly when. The FS Ref Bible does say that the nodes required for interstellar travel were discovered by a Prof. J. Whiteside, though it gives no dates.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 06, 2006, 10:53:54 am
Tis true, t doesnt really go into dates much, just speculation.
We were a system state before Inter-system jumps, but Intra system jumps could have been developed years before, you never know  ;7
(s/p fix)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 06, 2006, 10:55:01 am
It says when the Terrams discovered subspace somwhere, I think in one of the cancelled cutscenes, but I don't know where the scripts are anymore.

Not particularly when. The FS Ref Bible does say that the nodes required for interstellar travel were discovered by a Prof. J. Whiteside, though it gives no dates.

I'm pretty sure there is a canon date somewhere, but I'll need to get home first (and have dinner!), before checking.  I think it's also said that the Vasudans were earlier into space than the Terrans, although same conditions apply.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 07, 2006, 02:02:03 am
I belive you are right on that one.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 07, 2006, 04:23:11 am
me too! That would explain the somewhat more advanced vasudan designs then compared to the terrans. I mean in terms of reactors at least. But the designs of theyr ships is also somwhat more advanced. This could be from the fact that they were at least some years ahead of the terrans in space posibly even a few decades. But that doesnt mean the subspace tech came in much the same fashion. I beleive that both species developed subspace drives in much the same time frame.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 07, 2006, 10:26:14 am
me too! That would explain the somewhat more advanced vasudan designs then compared to the terrans. I mean in terms of reactors at least. But the designs of theyr ships is also somwhat more advanced. This could be from the fact that they were at least some years ahead of the terrans in space posibly even a few decades. But that doesnt mean the subspace tech came in much the same fashion. I beleive that both species developed subspace drives in much the same time frame.
I'm inclined to disagree, the only superior Vasudan desgins are the Hatshepsut and (only in some ways) the Sobek. Think about the Mentu versus the Aeolus, or the Typhon versus the Orion (despite what the tech description says) the ships of the GTN are far more advanced than those of the GVN
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 07, 2006, 12:00:18 pm
In terms of reactors, like AlphaOne said the vasudan are somewhat superior, remember that the Deimos uses vasudan reactors for power.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 07, 2006, 12:04:58 pm
I'll grant you that... but the Vasudans seem behind everywhere else except for beam technology- and I'm not convinced that that's not just because the Terrans can't afford the latest in all of their ships.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 07, 2006, 12:35:37 pm
I remember seeing somewhere that they prefer to count more on their numbers and rate of fire of their weapons than anything else, perhaps thery're more advanced in construction techniques to support a larger army and this kind of strategy?
But still wouldnt say why they cant build an actually decent cruiser. Actually are there any fan made vasudan capital ships?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 07, 2006, 12:40:30 pm
I'll grant you that... but the Vasudans seem behind everywhere else except for beam technology- and I'm not convinced that that's not just because the Terrans can't afford the latest in all of their ships.

The Vasudans are excellent engineers in general, but behind on weapons tech, IIRC.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 07, 2006, 01:23:11 pm
The Vasudans are excellent engineers in general, but behind on weapons tech, IIRC.
But their beams are generally superior to Terran beams, and other then the Mekhu HL-7, their "light" weapons are all the same as the Terrans.   :doubt:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mongoose on June 07, 2006, 02:33:39 pm
Regarding the question of just how many refugees made it out of Capella, I seem to remember one of the briefings near the end of the campaign (in fact, it may have been the last briefing) stating that the evacuation was all but completed at the time of the supernova.  Didn't one of the convoy members in the last mission say that their few ships were the last of the evacuees?  I also seem to remember Petrarch mentioning something about most of the inhabitants of Capella making it out safely in the ending cutscene.  I was always under the impression that the vast majority of that 250 million managed to make it out of Capella before the end.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 07, 2006, 03:22:44 pm
Why dont the terran fleet utilizes the vasudan beams? That would give all ships a definitive edge.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 07, 2006, 03:52:39 pm
Why dont the terran fleet utilizes the vasudan beams? That would give all ships a definitive edge.

The technology is probably just incompatible (although the Deimos is possibly anomolous in that respect); for example, Vasudan beams could use energy conduits or cabling types radically different from those that Terran designers design for.

Or, Terrans just prefer green :D

Regarding the question of just how many refugees made it out of Capella, I seem to remember one of the briefings near the end of the campaign (in fact, it may have been the last briefing) stating that the evacuation was all but completed at the time of the supernova.  Didn't one of the convoy members in the last mission say that their few ships were the last of the evacuees?  I also seem to remember Petrarch mentioning something about most of the inhabitants of Capella making it out safely in the ending cutscene.  I was always under the impression that the vast majority of that 250 million managed to make it out of Capella before the end.

2nd last
Quote
The majority of the fleet is fending off a massive attack at the Vega node. Thousands of civilians await evacuation and the enemy continues to flood in from Gamma Draconis. We will not get a second chance to pull this off. If we fail here, we unleash the Second Shivan War. We must get the Bastion through at any cost.

last
Quote
The Security Council has authorized the deployment of the GTD Nereid. The destroyer will depart from the Vega system and collapse the node in fifteen minutes. We must therefore complete our evacuation of Capella by that time. Any ship that remains behind will be trapped with the Shivan armada.

I used to be quite convinced that millions died in Capella.  to be fair, I do have the defense of no wiki to check at that time :D

The 3rd last brief also indicate Capella is Terran, which also answer that question.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 07, 2006, 06:48:40 pm
Not that Deimos is a anomaly but that it was designed in conjuction with the vasudans, it uses they reactor design so possibly its structure is hybrid as to support the both types of thecnologies. It really is true when its said that this type of ship is the foundation of tomorrow's fleet (by type I mean ships designed in conjuction by both species).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 07, 2006, 07:04:14 pm
That and the Hecate... and we all know the Hecate is the ultimate in **** ups. So why weren't any of the Zod ships constructed with the help of Terrans?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 07, 2006, 07:29:27 pm
Uh, Zods? :wtf:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 07, 2006, 07:35:22 pm
Zods=Vasudans
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 07, 2006, 08:14:40 pm
There is the Ulisses and it's vasudan counterpart IIRC.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 07, 2006, 08:23:29 pm
But I remember that being a joint endeavour by both sides [a la the Colossus], that both sides would use against the Shivans.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 07, 2006, 09:18:50 pm
The Ulysses was the first step, the Colossus and the Deimos were further steps in this joint endeavour and possibly, in my opinion, the actual future of the GTVA fleet, the combination of the best of both, everyone knows that the Ulysses was a sucess and more are likely to come. Really, did nobody ever designed a vasudan capital ship?



That and the Hecate... and we all know the Hecate is the ultimate in **** ups. So why weren't any of the Zod ships constructed with the help of Terrans?

Because its a process that its only starting to take off now, so its quite possible that the next vasudan capital will be made with terran help.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 07, 2006, 10:09:27 pm
The Vasudans have done pretty well all by themselves, look at the Hecate compared to the Hatshepsut, as for Zod capital ships, go to Hades Combine (http://www.hades-combine.com/)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 03:05:53 am
Not that Deimos is a anomaly but that it was designed in conjuction with the vasudans, it uses they reactor design so possibly its structure is hybrid as to support the both types of thecnologies. It really is true when its said that this type of ship is the foundation of tomorrow's fleet (by type I mean ships designed in conjuction by both species).

It's anomolous in the sense of using Vasudan reactors whilst having Terran beams.  Otherwise I'd suggest it was just down to reactor power or somesuch, but clearly it's a concious design choice for some reason or t'other.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 08, 2006, 03:08:14 am
Well vasudan designs in FS 2 at least in capital sjip terms tend to be somewhat better. Although they tend to screw up with the cruisers.

But they have very good corvettes and they destroyer is actualy superior in many wais to the terran Hecate. More HP, more powerefull beams good AAAF defences you name it. I would much rather go into battle with a Hatsheepsut then a Hecate. It just makes me feel more secure about its chances of surviving an actual engangement with shivan warships. Cant say the same about the Hecate.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 08, 2006, 05:25:47 am
The tech description clearly mentions anti-cap beams on the Mentz.. why they were removed is anyones gus...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 08, 2006, 05:53:17 am
The Vasudans have done pretty well all by themselves, look at the Hecate compared to the Hatshepsut, as for Zod capital ships
But they have very good corvettes and they destroyer is actualy superior in many wais to the terran Hecate. More HP, more powerefull beams good AAAF defences you name it. I would much rather go into battle with a Hatsheepsut then a Hecate. It just makes me feel more secure about its chances of surviving an actual engangement with shivan warships. Cant say the same about the Hecate.
You do realise that the Hecate is obviously not meant as a ship of the line? In spite what the database says [which is hazy to say the least], the Hecate is closer to an aircraft carrier than a battleship, moving away from the duel role of the Orion and focussing on the ability to project its firepower across a system. The term 'flagship' does not instantly denote the ability to go toe-to-toe with modern Shivan warships, but rather to hold the commanding officer and serve as the central part of a given fleet.

The feeling I get, is that while Vasudans are preferring to stick closely to the old style of Fleet composure we have seen since Freespace 1, centered by a large ship somewhere between Carrier and Battleship, the Terrans have instead begun to create ships more suited to singular tasks, rather than being a jack of all trades, master of none. The Hecate gives up brute force for more fighters and C&C Components, leaving the brute anti-cap force to the ageing Orion, soon to be replaced by the pocket-battleship that is the Deimos.

Just because the Hecate can't go up against a Shivan warship with the same voracity that a Hatshepsut can bring to bear, doesn't necissarily mean the design is a failure, and to think so is to simply be presumptuous.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 08, 2006, 05:53:49 am
Here is an idea regarding the cruisrs in fs era. I mean could you posibly convert them into armed supply transports i mean how much supplyes would a fenris or whatever be able to carry and stilll retain its guns well maibe not the slasher in the front but the other ones.

Also what about a sobek or a Deimos??

Edit:

Well I never said it was a failure as a carrier I just said it was a failure as a "Destroyer" The Hecate should really be put in a category of its own with the Orion and the Hatsheepsut as the fron line destroyers.

Also the Deimos is a lon way away from actualy beeing called a pocket battleship because it has no real puch to its weapons.

Not of if the DEimos had at least one BG mounted on it then it would of been superb for the role altough I much more prefere the Deimos with 2 BG.

The best ships suited for the role of pocket battleship would be the Iceni. But that was a one thing build.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 08, 2006, 05:59:17 am
You may as well just dock to TC-Tris to the Fenithans "Nose-Docks".
It would look VVV Stoopid but it could work. Hmmmmmm

Actually, i could make modular weapon pods for those nose-docks..

You heard nothing PEOPLE !!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 08, 2006, 06:55:42 am
Amm work on what exactely cargo carring?? Well yeah it could probably work but the again I was talking about more like internal storage rather then outside atachements or cargo containers!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 08, 2006, 07:01:31 am
It must have stores to supply a crew of however many, I'd assume you could scrap some intermnal areas, but why would you want a cruiser to ferry cargo?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 07:17:02 am
The tech description clearly mentions anti-cap beams on the Mentz.. why they were removed is anyones gus...

Balancing, probably.

Amm work on what exactely cargo carring?? Well yeah it could probably work but the again I was talking about more like internal storage rather then outside atachements or cargo containers!

Presumably, a fair wodge of internal space is required for having it, well, armed.  They wouldn't make it bigger than it needed to be, would they?

(also, you'd probably need to completely redesign the interior to have a configuration for taking in, storing, and sending out cargo crates)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 08, 2006, 07:17:35 am
cuz it's beeing replaced gradualy by newer designs and why throw away a perfectly good cruiser when you can actualy reasign it to other duties. Amm the internal compartments hjom much would it be gained in terms of internal space if you were to remove the missile launcher and the beam cannon? I mean the missile laucher must be using a supply of missiles which could be used for storing cargo instead.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 08, 2006, 07:45:33 am
Arguably, you could use the freed up space from reducing the crew memberrs (quarters, food stores etc) that are trained in firing said weapons and replacing them with some sort of AI / Batch file (Batch file wtf was i thinking there?)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 08, 2006, 08:05:02 am
I have no ideea ! Perhaps you could elaborate!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 08, 2006, 08:26:25 am
On second thoughts, theres ,most likely a gunnery control station, as mention in camp mission 1. Dangit just get GTDHL to do all the deliveries  :P
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 09:49:37 am
cuz it's beeing replaced gradualy by newer designs and why throw away a perfectly good cruiser when you can actualy reasign it to other duties. Amm the internal compartments hjom much would it be gained in terms of internal space if you were to remove the missile launcher and the beam cannon? I mean the missile laucher must be using a supply of missiles which could be used for storing cargo instead.

Quite a lot of space presumably, otherwise Tritons woud have them.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 08, 2006, 10:18:16 am
hmm that would make the Fenris capable of cariing a decent load of suplyes. Cool Then This is definetly one of the reasons for the Fenris to be converted to a cargo ship. at least some of them.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 08, 2006, 10:24:28 am
(not having a go) They're not reasons why, this is speculation as to how.......
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 10:26:06 am
hmm that would make the Fenris capable of cariing a decent load of suplyes. Cool Then This is definetly one of the reasons for the Fenris to be converted to a cargo ship. at least some of them.

Eh?  Spending a big wodge of cash gutting an old ship to do a job the likes of the Argo and Triton can already do about just as well?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kosh on June 08, 2006, 12:20:54 pm
Quote
leaving the brute anti-cap force to the ageing Orion, soon to be replaced by the pocket-battleship that is the Deimos.

I'm not totally convinced the Orion was intended to be totally replaced by the Deimos. It does say in the techroom that it was supposed to replace the Fenris and Leviathan classes. Why they would want to do that is anyone's guess, then again this IS Command that we are talking about.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 08, 2006, 01:12:22 pm
You may as well just dock to TC-Tris to the Fenithans "Nose-Docks".
It would look VVV Stoopid but it could work. Hmmmmmm

Actually, i could make modular weapon pods for those nose-docks..

You heard nothing PEOPLE !!
They don't have "nose docks" just one on either side
Quote from: aldo
Balancing, probably.
So why is the Aeolus capable of destroying the Mentu while possessing a greater anti-fighter array?
Quote
leaving the brute anti-cap force to the ageing Orion, soon to be replaced by the pocket-battleship that is the Deimos.

I'm not totally convinced the Orion was intended to be totally replaced by the Deimos. It does say in the techroom that it was supposed to replace the Fenris and Leviathan classes. Why they would want to do that is anyone's guess, then again this IS Command that we are talking about.
Maybe because Fenathan cruisers are beam bait?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 01:18:48 pm
Quote from: aldo
Balancing, probably.
So why is the Aeolus capable of destroying the Mentu while possessing a greater anti-fighter array?

How the hell would I know?  :p
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: ZmaN on June 08, 2006, 02:34:58 pm
aeolus cruisers are soooo much more sexy than fenris or levi cruisers!!!  :nod:

Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 02:36:58 pm
Oi, don't you owe us textbook scans?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 08, 2006, 02:53:56 pm
Oi, don't you owe us textbook scans?
Why do you say that every time Zman posts?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 08, 2006, 02:55:53 pm
Oi, don't you owe us textbook scans?
Why do you say that every time Zman posts?

Because he still does.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 08, 2006, 02:57:00 pm
Oi, don't you owe us textbook scans?
Why do you say that every time Zman posts?

Because he does, search his posts in the HLP main forum and you will see why.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 08, 2006, 03:02:18 pm
aeolus cruisers are soooo much more sexy than fenris or levi cruisers!!!  :nod:

Asthetically I prefer Fenathan cruisers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 08, 2006, 03:43:17 pm
umm well one good thing came out of the thread actualy more then one but one I prefere and that is that the old cruiser classes and the Orion will still be around for at least anothe decade. Cant say that i dont like it. I love the boxy shape of the Orion! That is one pure terran design!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 04:09:08 pm
Oi, don't you owe us textbook scans?
Why do you say that every time Zman posts?

Remember the bastardin great evolution thread?

He posted and said he had a textbook that had 'proof' evolution was wrong.  Naturally, we asked for scans of said textbook (or were they offered?  I forgot).

Anyways, asked to provide any sort of basis for some patently ridiculous and sadly ill-informed statements, and having promised said scans......he buggered off for a few months.  And I want to see my scans, dammit!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: pecenipicek on June 08, 2006, 04:27:26 pm
umm well one good thing came out of the thread actualy more then one but one I prefere and that is that the old cruiser classes and the Orion will still be around for at least anothe decade. Cant say that i dont like it. I love the boxy shape of the Orion! That is one pure terran design!
nothing screams raw and pure overcompensation the way GTD Orion does :p :D ;)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 08, 2006, 04:30:30 pm
nothing screams raw and pure overcompensation the way GTD Orion does :p :D ;)
Overcompensation for what? :nervous:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 04:31:30 pm
umm well one good thing came out of the thread actualy more then one but one I prefere and that is that the old cruiser classes and the Orion will still be around for at least anothe decade. Cant say that i dont like it. I love the boxy shape of the Orion! That is one pure terran design!
nothing screams raw and pure overcompensation the way GTD Orion does :p :D ;)

Why, have you got something you'd like to share with us?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 08, 2006, 04:43:13 pm
*pawned*
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: ZmaN on June 08, 2006, 06:12:10 pm
Oi, don't you owe us textbook scans?
Why do you say that every time Zman posts?

Remember the bastardin great evolution thread?

He posted and said he had a textbook that had 'proof' evolution was wrong.  Naturally, we asked for scans of said textbook (or were they offered?  I forgot).

Anyways, asked to provide any sort of basis for some patently ridiculous and sadly ill-informed statements, and having promised said scans......he buggered off for a few months.  And I want to see my scans, dammit!
i apologize for that.  my life had gotten really busy and i wasnt on the computer that much...  it went from 5 hours a day to almost a mere 45 minutes at time....

I just had alot of friends coming and going and i kinda had crushed on a friend at that same time, which was a big deal so i had other things to worry about.

I'll do those scans but i am NOT posting in that Evolution thread....

Please dont bug me anymore!  And yes they were offered.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: pecenipicek on June 08, 2006, 06:28:11 pm
nothing screams raw and pure overcompensation the way GTD Orion does :p :D ;)
Overcompensation for what? :nervous:
why do you even ask? :p
umm well one good thing came out of the thread actualy more then one but one I prefere and that is that the old cruiser classes and the Orion will still be around for at least anothe decade. Cant say that i dont like it. I love the boxy shape of the Orion! That is one pure terran design!
nothing screams raw and pure overcompensation the way GTD Orion does :p :D ;)

Why, have you got something you'd like to share with us?
did i design the orion?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 08, 2006, 11:20:24 pm
Just because the Hecate can't go up against a Shivan warship with the same voracity that a Hatshepsut can bring to bear, doesn't necissarily mean the design is a failure, and to think so is to simply be presumptuous.

No, actually it's not. Because for a rear-area role to work, there has to be an actual rear area, and that does not exist in Freespace terms. Every ship in the system is equally vunerable to attack without warning, because of intrasystem subspace jumps. The Hecate's design and space warfare as practiced by FS don't mesh. At the best, some serious errors were commited with Hecate.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 09, 2006, 12:49:11 am
No, actually it's not. Because for a rear-area role to work, there has to be an actual rear area, and that does not exist in Freespace terms. Every ship in the system is equally vunerable to attack without warning, because of intrasystem subspace jumps. The Hecate's design and space warfare as practiced by FS don't mesh. At the best, some serious errors were commited with Hecate.
But we've not seen large fleet operations, so we don't truly know all that much about space-warfare techniques as practiced by the GTVA.

Now, every ship in a contested system is not immediately in the firing line, as - while you can jump anywhere in the system - you need to know where the hell you're going, meaning a scouting operation beforehand, which gives you a little bit of warning before 6 Orions jump in on top of you. Moreover, by 'rear area', I mean that by context, whether by standing 20 kilometres from a node blockade, or sitting near the node into a hostile system to stand as a base for launching fighters and fleet C&C. IMO, the Hecate was given enough firepower to defend itself until it's true power - over 150 fighter-craft - can bring forth the hurt. Of course, there are abberations, such as the Aquitaine moving into the Nebula, a decidedly hostile system theorised to hold one or more Shivan destroyers. However, this can be taken as an non-standard operation, given that "reconnaissance in force" is needed, and a beach-head was required to be established in-system. Furthermore, given our distinct lack of knowledge regarding the greater situation regarding fleet organisation at that point of the Civil War, not to mention the confusion and panic that would have erupted given the appearance of the Shivans, it is likely an extraordinary occurence.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 09, 2006, 02:43:41 am
Umm then please do tell me what makes the Hecate better then an Orion in this case?? Sure it mai hold another 50 spacecraft's but then again the Orions 100 or so spacecrafts are not to be taken lightly. Hell all you have to do is track down from where all the fighters are coming jump there with the Orion fire 2 salvos of those BG and the Hecate is gone with all of its 150 spacecrafts.

I'm not sayng that the Hecate is not a good ship. Hell no i think its a great carrier but sucks as a destroyer. Or rather it should be put in a class of its own. I mean even a deimos can take the blasted thing down. And the Deimos does not have to worry about those spacecrafts sine well it has superb af defences.

I'm not saing give the blasted Hecate BG all around i'm just saind mount a f*****g BG on the side for cryng out loud. God even the Iceni had more firepower in terms of beam cannons although that is rather a streched to the braking point comparison since it was a one of ship.

But still if I was to go into combat against an enemy that has superior subspace tech i would much rather go with the Hatsheepsuit or the Orion then the Hecate which I would stick somewhere in acorner to proide C&C and fighter support. Of course I would also be sticking a couple of vasudan corvettes with is just for that unforseen event.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 09, 2006, 04:14:02 am

They don't have "nose docks" just one on either side


Thats what i was referring to.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 09, 2006, 04:34:12 am
But we've not seen large fleet operations, so we don't truly know all that much about space-warfare techniques as practiced by the GTVA.

That's effectively irrevelant, since the observation is basic and fundemental; regardless of tactics it applies.

Now, every ship in a contested system is not immediately in the firing line, as - while you can jump anywhere in the system - you need to know where the hell you're going, meaning a scouting operation beforehand, which gives you a little bit of warning before 6 Orions jump in on top of you. Moreover, by 'rear area', I mean that by context, whether by standing 20 kilometres from a node blockade, or sitting near the node into a hostile system to stand as a base for launching fighters and fleet C&C. IMO, the Hecate was given enough firepower to defend itself until it's true power - over 150 fighter-craft - can bring forth the hurt.

However, as the saying goes, a good recon leaves the same evidence as no recon. The whole idea is to see without being seen; and we do know that you can do that. Furthermore there is good evidence that such recon is not necessary. The Shivans in particular have a faculty for attack without warning; and for whatever reason the 150 fightercraft don't show up often.

The 20km from a node blockade works (it isn't possible to jump that short a distance...as far as we know), but the node thing doesn't. Either your on the other side and can commit almost no fighters (recall that most are not fitted with intersystem drives still, according to the techroom) but safe, or you're insystem, and therefore in danger...even greater danger then normal, since you've combine two of the only types of valuable targets in FS space warfare.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 09, 2006, 05:22:33 am
umm like he said! Actualy he just agreed with what i was tring to say. God damn spelling! 150 spacecrafts are useless if you can not survive the engament with even a cruiser. Also its not that cost efective to have a ship that always need some close quarter protection from beam cannons.

As i said just mount one BG on each side and that should work just fine. Not too powerfull not to weak just the right mix of combinations.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 09, 2006, 06:14:17 am
That's effectively irrevelant, since the observation is basic and fundemental; regardless of tactics it applies.
Fair enough.

However, as the saying goes, a good recon leaves the same evidence as no recon. The whole idea is to see without being seen; and we do know that you can do that. Furthermore there is good evidence that such recon is not necessary. The Shivans in particular have a faculty for attack without warning; and for whatever reason the 150 fightercraft don't show up often.
You make a good point, but that logic applies both ways, and given the Hecate is a mobile base of operations, effective friendly reconnaissance can enable said Hecate to parry any hostile move, and riposte with its own forces. Shivans are of course an aberration to this, but given the distinctly alien mechanics of their own fleet, conventional tactics would obviously be less effective.

Regarding the 150 fighters not showing up, that's simply engine limitations and gameplay taking precedence over logic within canon. A case in point is the Colossus launching something along the lines of one bloody wing of fighters in High Noon. Hence conclusions drawn on this topic ingame - while canon nonetheless - must be taken with a grain of salt, as they say.

The 20km from a node blockade works (it isn't possible to jump that short a distance...as far as we know), but the node thing doesn't. Either your on the other side and can commit almost no fighters (recall that most are not fitted with intersystem drives still, according to the techroom) but safe, or you're insystem, and therefore in danger...even greater danger then normal, since you've combine two of the only types of valuable targets in FS space warfare.
Yes, you've got me with that one. For some reason, I always instantly assume that all fighters are inter-system capable. My bad.

As a C&C Vessel, the Hecate would indeed be stationed in-system out of necessity, but given the obvious importance of such a craft, it would obviously be guarded. What i'm trying to say is that the Hecate is quite simply not intended to be a ship-of-the-line, but still an integral part of the battlefleet. Yes, she's a damn valuable target, but she sure has hell isn't defenseless, and when used in tandem with a guarding fleet, the Hecate would be more than capable to bring her fighter compliment to bear on any dogged opponent aiming to take her out, or simply jump the frak out of their if the fighting got too intense.

If the designers initially intended her to be a vessel comparable in strength to the Orion, then yes, it was a failure in design. However, if she was in fact designed in a style departed somewhat from the powerful, lumbering behemoths of old, and more in terms of a fleet-controlling vessel and carrier craft, then the design can indeed be called a success. It depends on your interpretation of her depicted role, and whatever meaning you can discern from the questionable tech-room description.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 09, 2006, 06:19:54 am
<lazyquote>ALPHAONE posted-pblah blah(instert date here)

Regarding the 150 fighters not showing up, that's simply engine limitations and gameplay taking precedence over logic within canon. A case in point is the Colossus launching something along the lines of one bloody wing of fighters in High Noon. Hence conclusions drawn on this topic ingame - while canon nonetheless - must be taken with a grain of salt, as they say.</lazyquote>

I completely agree with you there you optimistic Romanian Bunny ninja  :D
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 09, 2006, 06:26:41 am
ALPHAONE posted-pblah blah(instert date here)
Mefustae posted-pblah blah(instert date here}
*Ahem* Corrected.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 09, 2006, 06:29:16 am
"soothing voice" sorry Mefustae...........
good point
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 09, 2006, 06:33:37 am
<lazyquote>ALPHAONE posted-pblah blah(instert date here)

I completely agree with you there you optimistic Romanian Bunny ninja  :D

Ahem its optimistic romanian dark-jedy-bunny-master!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 09, 2006, 06:37:11 am
I thought DJ's were lords not masters?
Anyway,  random Chocobo post.........
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/031027.jpg (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/031027.jpg)

Its funny cos' its True
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 09, 2006, 07:29:22 am
I'm telling you I laughed mi head off with that comic page. Nice one !
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 09, 2006, 11:02:39 am
So then the GTVA should now work in two issues to the terran side of the fleet, building a sucessor to the Orion, with more or less equal fighter carring capacity and upgrading the anti-capital weaponry of the Hecate. A good idea would be to make vasudan beam canons more compatible with terran systems to give all ships a better punch, an Hecate with these weapons would be an incredible treath.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 09, 2006, 11:34:34 am
Eventually all GTVA ships will "evolve" into giant flying hangars with super armour, bristling with ER-LRBFsoopaGs and hyper traswarpsubspace chrono engines. And how boring would that be, identicl ships, no diversity...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 09, 2006, 12:23:11 pm
I though that we came to the conclusion that the Terran fleet was evolving into carrier based fleets with corvettes and cruisers to do the anti-capital work.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 09, 2006, 12:29:56 pm
The Terrans are getting bigger and bigger carrier-type capital ships and letting smaller, cheaper ships provide the heavier firepower, while the Vasudans are letting the bigger ships deliver the heavy firepower.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 09, 2006, 03:07:07 pm
The Terrans are getting bigger and bigger carrier-type capital ships and letting smaller, cheaper ships provide the heavier firepower, while the Vasudans are letting the bigger ships deliver the heavy firepower.

I agree, let's not forget the that they're fighting together now so both types of fleets will complement each other nicely in combat.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 09, 2006, 03:11:30 pm
That is an extremly valuble point. Should the Terrans encounter a situation where their small, fast ships are not able to cope, the Vasudans can send in one of their destroyers. Should the Vasudans encounter a vessel that has more than enough firepower to vaporize any destroyer the Vasudans trot out (the Sathanas) the Terrans could (if Command used tactics) use many corvette type vessels and combat craft to nutralize the Sathanas.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 09, 2006, 05:35:56 pm
Yeah, but Command doesn't use tactics..or common sense :D


I don't know if the Terrnas will leave all the close fighting work to the corvettes.  While they do seem to specialize the fleet, with the Heacte being the carrier, it doesn't exculde the possibility of a Orion sucessor that will be even more anti-cap oriented...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 09, 2006, 08:41:30 pm
I don't see too much why there'd need to a successor to the orion. There's more than enough orions in service for the gtva. Then again on the other hand for the hecate. The hecate seems to resemble the orion from fs1 in a certain aspect. The orion from fs1 didn't have so much armament as in fs2. Then hecate design comes along, and it sort of reflects the orion from fs1 in that aspect, it doesn't have so much armament, it posses's the latest weaponry that it was designed to use. The orion used the latest weaponry from fs1, until it had newer weapons tossed on the side of it with all the existing weapons. The hecate possibly has a similar future if new revolutionary weapons get created. GTVA  has enough destroyers, the hecate has more than enough space on it for adding more turrets. GTVA should like do research into building frigates, they saw more than enough examples of how useful a frigate class can be. A frigate class would be awesome for an orion successor. Also with as much fs2 ships are different from fs1 ships, a lot of emphasis on weapons in fs2 is on fighter repellant and bomb interception. I can see how the move to making ships more into carriers can have it's principles.
Anyway, more frigates would be cool.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 09, 2006, 09:29:58 pm
I don't see too much why there'd need to a successor to the orion. There's more than enough orions in service for the gtva. Then again on the other hand for the hecate. The hecate seems to resemble the orion from fs1 in a certain aspect. The orion from fs1 didn't have so much armament as in fs2. Then hecate design comes along, and it sort of reflects the orion from fs1 in that aspect, it doesn't have so much armament, it posses's the latest weaponry that it was designed to use. The orion used the latest weaponry from fs1, until it had newer weapons tossed on the side of it with all the existing weapons. The hecate possibly has a similar future if new revolutionary weapons get created. GTVA  has enough destroyers, the hecate has more than enough space on it for adding more turrets. GTVA should like do research into building frigates, they saw more than enough examples of how useful a frigate class can be. A frigate class would be awesome for an orion successor. Also with as much fs2 ships are different from fs1 ships, a lot of emphasis on weapons in fs2 is on fighter repellant and bomb interception. I can see how the move to making ships more into carriers can have it's principles.
Anyway, more frigates would be cool.


Interesting thing on the Orion and Hecate, its pretty possible and even expected, I think, that the GTVA does that upgrade them on the same way. About frigates, they would simply be just a somewhat bigger corvette, a good example is the Fenris and Leviathan, one simply adds something the other was lacking but pays in mobility, it would happen the same thing with frigates.


Destroyers are far more cooler. :)






Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 10, 2006, 04:04:07 am
Yes, but the only existing frigate was built to outrun ships, had shielded subsystems, armed like a destroyer, and even fashioned to break through blockades. That's a ship worth studying, now if only bosch had put a fighterbay in the back of it :drevil:
However that's true destroyers are far more cooler. But why not have the gtva invest in frigates? They decided to invest in corvettes and had a very good outcome, and a corvette is only bigger than a cruiser.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 08:29:48 am
The reason the Leviathan had to give up speed is because it got more armor for the same form factor
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 09:15:41 am
Yes, but the only existing frigate was built to outrun ships, had shielded subsystems, armed like a destroyer, and even fashioned to break through blockades. That's a ship worth studying, now if only bosch had put a fighterbay in the back of it :drevil:
However that's true destroyers are far more cooler. But why not have the gtva invest in frigates? They decided to invest in corvettes and had a very good outcome, and a corvette is only bigger than a cruiser.

If they added a fighterbay, then it would be a destryoer. A corvette is only bigger than a cruiser, a frigate would be only bigger then a corvette, a destroyer would be bigger then all of these and own the battlefield (a true destyoer, really, an actual Orion sucessor).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 09:49:19 am
The Orion doesn't "own the battlefeild" it has strong anti-capital weaponry but  poor bomber protection. The result is a ship that can take out almost everything but can be taken out by a Medusa and a Hygeia (okay, maybe two squadrons of bombers.

I made a mission where an Orion launched it's full complement against me, 12 at a time, I wouldn't say it was easy, but I had destroyed 3/4ths of the complement in 15 minutes.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 10, 2006, 10:04:04 am
WEll I believe it would be rather hard for the GTVA to produce a good succesor to the Orion.

I mean look at the Hecate the newest, "baddest" thing in the fleet yet from a destroyer point of view its the mother of all f**kups. It has no real firepower mounted on it. However it is the mother of all carriers so far. Very good AAAf defences and a big spacecraft payload. Its fast and has a very good C&C abilaty.

However if the GTVA would enbark on an endevour to crese a succesor for the ORION then it must have at LEAST the same raw firepower that the Orion has with good AAAF defences. Not as good as the Hecate maybe but good so that fighters and bommbers do net represent the greatest threat to it.


Look at the Hecate the most danger didnt came from fighters or bommbers it actualy came form other warships. The Hecate smashed those shivan bommber wings and fighter wings like they were bugs. Sure it got somewhat damaged in the battle but still it could of handeled the bommbers etc.

It would have to have at least the same HP as the Hatsheepsuit class which ahs like what 30-35% more hp then the Hecate and the Orion?

Also about the frigate class.....errr.....how big was the Iceni in fact?? Hell even with its limited AAAF defences I would much rather have one of those on mi side then against me. WEll maibe a few more moders aaaf turrets wont hurt. Those old ones really do suck big time. Maibe replace them with more modern ones and you have already improved the design.


Friggates would be like pocket destroyer's.......errrr without the fighterbay. From a beam cannon point of view. Or maibe like pocket battleship's but that is really stretching since battleships are desingded for raw firepower and lost of it.


Also whoevr imagines the Deimos as actualy beeing a pocket-battleship please do me a favor and think again. The deimos like the Hecate is missing at least one BG. Well the Hecate has one but it really needs like 3 of them.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 10:34:11 am
The Deimos is still capable of giving some serious damage- maybe one alone won't beat out a destroyer, but it'll sure damage one.

What's a Frigate?

GTC Fenris:      Cruiser class     253M     8,000
GTC Leviathan: Cruiser class     253M   35,000
GTC Aeolus:     Cruiser class     272M   38,000
GTCv Deimos:   Corvette class  717M   80,000
NTF Iceni:        Frigate class    998M   90,000

Proportional Lengths
------------------------- F
------------------------- L
--------------------------- A
----------------------------------------------------------------------- D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I

Proportional Hit points
-------- F
----------------------------------- L
-------------------------------------- A
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I

F = Fenris
L = Leviathan
A = Aeolus
D = Deimos
I = Iceni

comments
So really the Fenris should be in a "Light Cruiser" category, while the Iceni is truely in a class of its own, and this graph doesn't even show total combined (beam) firepower.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 10, 2006, 11:02:44 am
Umm isnt the Iceni a frigate? or whatever its spelled.

I think you are right about the fenris should be put in a lighcruiser role.

Iest the Deimos can inflict some damage to...the Hecate perhaps or to something else but when facin like what 3 vasudan beams or 2 BG from an orion it's well screwed. The DEimos really need one big beam cannon in order to be efective.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 11:11:47 am
Umm isnt the Iceni a frigate? or whatever its spelled.
Quote from: Mars
NTF Iceni:        Frigate class    998M   90,000
That was the entire point of that post, there was some confusion over the frigate class.
I think you are right about the fenris should be put in a lighcruiser role.

Iest the Deimos can inflict some damage to...the Hecate perhaps or to something else but when facin like what 3 vasudan beams or 2 BG from an orion it's well screwed. The DEimos really need one big beam cannon in order to be efective.
That's true, but I'm not sure a single large beamed corvette (monitor) would be the solution.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 10, 2006, 11:17:12 am
never said a single large beam corvette. I said the DEimos need a large beam.

You could get rid of the 2 slashers in the front and mount a BG over there and leave the slashers on the side. Now that would be one awesome looking corvette. And it could inflict some good damage even take out a Hecate.

Well not sure about the taking out of a destroyer part but still in theory in coud work.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 11:52:43 am
The total beam firepower (sustained damage per second for all beams on a ship, including AAA) of a Deimos is 1380, a Hecate's is 2204, so the Hecate only outbeams a Deimos by 824, if you use total combined firepower (total damage per second for all weapons mounted on a ship) , the Deimos is up to 3049, and Hecate is up to 3811.3, so really, a Deimos can theoretically rival a Hecate (although this is only under optimum conditions, and in reality, probably not.)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 10, 2006, 11:59:19 am
The Deimos actually might have the advantage, since it concentrates its firepower in the front or either broadside, where the Hecate has its beams spread out all over the hull.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 10, 2006, 12:19:20 pm
I've always figured an Orion follow-on class as a sort of logical conclusion for the GTVA; they need something with that supercap flag on its weapons. It would sacrifice most of its fighters (maybe just two-three squadrons of space superiority or interceptors) for the ability to sustain overcharge fire with its BGreens.

EDIT: The Hecate's firepower is deceptive; the BGreen, mounted so far forward, does not cover a whole 180-degree arc. It leaves more of the ship exposed then that. So really, the chances of a Deimos outgunning a Hecate purely on beam-based firepower are somewhat better then half.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 12:49:19 pm
The GTVA should build a new destroyer so it would a ''counterpart'' of the Hecate, it should focus on anti-capital ship role with adequate defenses and with enough fighter carring capacity for protection and to help take out anything larger or more numerous enemies.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 10, 2006, 01:22:29 pm
Umm thats what i said. The Orion aide from its poor aaaf defenses is really a very good ship. Even if its got a 1/3rd smaller fighterbay 100 spacecrafts is really good enough.

The next ship would be somewhat bigger then an orion maybe 10 or 200 metters larger but with good aaaf defences a 100 place fighterbay and s**tloads of beam cannons. Well not that many but powerfull ones nonetheless. With the option to overload them without actualy loosin 20% hull integrity.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 01:24:34 pm
Isn't the definition of overload "to be subject to a greater than was designed for"?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Roanoke on June 10, 2006, 01:37:15 pm
For the record, in WW2 terms a frigate was originally developed as a super corvette.

But we all know how messed up FS2 names are.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 10, 2006, 01:37:58 pm
mars i dont think i follow your post can you be a little more detailed please!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 02:13:08 pm
A good armament would be 7 or 6 anti-capital ship beam canons, the same defensive armament of the Hecate (at least close to that), less or the same fighter capacity of the Orion (at the very least 50 fighter wings), more armor (that collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing of the Deimos can be a good idea to implement) and it could be powered by vasudan reactors (it should I think).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 10, 2006, 04:24:20 pm
What's so bad about tossing a fighterbay in the back of a hecate :p The shivans do it with a flimsy corvette called a moloch, and i was like, what the **** that thing's going to like launch 1 squadron and be done with. A frigate could easily do a lot more fighters, probably something like 3 or 4 squadrons. Yes a frigate is a class above a corvette, but a corvette is above the class of a cruiser, and so on. There wouldn't be no point to building frigates, idk why it's being dismissed as such, like i said before, obviously the gtva struck the gold mine on going with a ship class slightly bigger than cruisers. I know it'd do the same with frigates :nod: Frigates do like a much better job than a sobek does(play inferno), that thing where a single ship takes on an armada ;7
How messed up fs2 names are? There's not confusion, it seems obvious, fenathan, deimos, iceni, orion. Classed in the correct order going up from size. I don't see why the iceni wouldn't be considered a super-corvette/frigate anyway, it's clearly bigger than a corvette, and obviously smaller than a destroyer. But, we all do know that the gtva is addicted to tiny ships. A few destroyers, lots of cruisers and corvettes, and a bunny ****ing load of fighters. The usual offensive setup of a cruiser or corvette with fighters and bombers. I'm still annoyed by the fact that only destroyers can deploy fighters. Shivans don't give a ****, they'll have a corvette with a fighter bay. Hell, even something minimal like a faustus launching 2 or 3 perseuses would be cool(it can hold about that many, and has a launch bay). I still don't know why bosch didn't put a fighterbay on the back of the iceni. The iceni has the space, and being able to generate you're own support, or provide support with fighters is a very powerful thing.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 10, 2006, 04:28:21 pm
Isn't the definition of overload "to be subject to a greater than was designed for"?

Yes, but I never said it would like doing it. Just that it could sustain it. The deck force would probably hate you for a few weeks afterward...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 05:02:33 pm
The space on the Iceni was probably fully occupied with other things like the ETAK. S-99, you're addicted to fighter bays, arent you? :)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 10, 2006, 05:24:46 pm
No, just pissed off at how many launch bay less ships there are. Destroyers do it, the only other ship that does is a moloch corvette. But, you could however redesign a new iceni class frigate with a fighterbay, they won't be bothering with a secret etak project onboard like the iceni. :D
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 05:35:10 pm
Instead of spending much money redesigning the Iceni class to support an fighter bay and actually build and test the whole thing, it just far less consuming and better to build a destroyer.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 05:38:43 pm
Or designing a carrier module for the Triton :nervous:

Seriously, I think the future of the GTVA might be in modular designs.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 10, 2006, 05:43:10 pm
The carrier module for the triton is really genious. That should be something good to implement. That's what got me obsessing over this. But mainly in the viewpoint of why don't more warships have launchbays?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 05:55:20 pm
Yeah, that carrier module for the Triton is impressive. To support the entire structure of an lauch bay together with the fighters, bombers, their ordnance, crew and spare parts you would need an imense part of the ship, so only something as big as a destroyer and above could suport such thing. The Moloch also has it but its carring capacity is defitinely much, much smaller.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 10, 2006, 06:08:37 pm
The Hecate actually suckorz... The effective volume and shape make it a really ineffective design.

Good carrier, has good aaf, but it could be so much better. So many dead angles..so many places to hide ...tsk, tsk
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 06:41:35 pm
Well if you get down to it the most effective design for a warship is a sphere, like a deathstar or borg sphere, but that would get boring rather quickly.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 06:44:51 pm
No, Mars, there shall never be any modular or sphere like design in FS, NEVER. :P
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 06:48:43 pm
Modular yes, there will, that's the Triton carrier.

Sphereical no, I was just commenting on Trashmans trashtalk about the Hecate.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 09:34:45 pm
Oh.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 10, 2006, 09:49:23 pm
Well if you get down to it the most effective design for a warship is a sphere, like a deathstar or borg sphere, but that would get boring rather quickly.
No, no, no. A Spherical design is not an efficient warship design. While a sphere will have extremely efficient power distribution, but it would be a somewhat crappy dedicated warship. Think about it, at any one time, it will only be able to bring >40% of its weapons an any one target, >30% if we're talking about something like Freespace beams that are incapable of reorientating themselves.

An efficient design would be dagger-shaped, much like an Imperial Star Destroyer.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 10, 2006, 09:50:39 pm
Which would also get boring.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 10, 2006, 10:41:00 pm
The current designs are just fine, really.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 11, 2006, 12:20:49 am
I'd agree, I don't know how we even got to that topic, although it is interesting.

With a wedge shape, what angle would be optimum?

Back to cruisers and all: I did this when I was boared (in about half an hour)
HP= Hit points
TCF= Total combined firepower (all of the damage / second from all of the weapons on a ship added together)
BF= Beam firepower, all of the sustained damage / second from all of the beams added together (including AAA)
Ship              Length   HP     TCF        BF
GVC Aten        230   18000     207.6   48
GTC Fenris       253    8000     496      197
GTC Leviathan  253    35000    368.4   157
GTC Aeolus      272    38000    1453.3   170
GVC Mentu      322    60000    1129.5   72
GVCv Sobek     608    80000    2947.5   1472
GTCv Deimos   717    80000    3049.6   1380
NTF Iceni        998    90000    3467.5   2328
GTD Hecate     2174   100000   3811.3   2204
GTD Orion       2023   100000   3661.2   3363
GVD Typhon     2153   120000   2797.4   1664
Hatshepsut       2126   135000   5596.8   2734
GTVA Colossus 6166   1000000   10404   7143


Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: FireCrack on June 11, 2006, 01:27:01 am
You'd want a wedge as shallow as possilbe while still steep enough that all weapons on the non rear face can fire forwards.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 11, 2006, 03:03:29 am
WEll the frigate class would be a great adition to the GTVA warship classes since it would have enough firepower to be serious threat to any big warship(like a destroyer) . And with colapsed ore-molibden sheating or whatever its called and shielded subsitems it would be able to sustain a lot weapons fire. The ideal friggate would be somethinlg like the Iceni with at least the AAAf capabilities of an Aeoulous if not a corvette.


It would have the room for all these weapons because it wouldnt be using any kind of ETAK devices or anithing. Now that would be a verry powerfull warship. Fast, manouverable, deadly.

what about a pocket carrier something like covette sized with 2 sqoadrons based on it?

Oh and what does Fenathant stand for anywai???
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 11, 2006, 03:39:27 am
Well the frigate class would be a great addition to the classes of GTVA warships since they would have enough
firepower to be serious threat to any big warship (like a destroyer).

I agree with that, but as far as I'm concerend, the Deimos could be a serious threat to a destroyer, all it needs are slightly more powerful beams, that extra 10,000 hitpoints, while nice, are not what's required, and actually, as you can tell from my chart, the real strength of the Iceni comes from its beams.

And with collapsed "ore-molibden seating"

For the record, it's collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing, I can't spell molybdenum either.

[A frigate with collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing] and shielded subsystems would be able to sustain a lot [of] [damage].

As far as I'm concerned, the collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing thing was kind of BS, you see, there's no mention of any special armor on the Sobek, but it has the same hitpoints as a Deimos, depleted uranium is
The ideal friggate would be somethinlg like the Iceni with at least the AAAf capabilities of an Aeoulous if not a corvette.

It [a frigate] would have the room for all these weapons, because it wouldn't be using any kind of ETAK devices or anything. Now that would be a very powerfull warship! Fast, manouverable... deadly.

For all we know ETAK could be a computer program, I doubt very heavily that it takes up much room at all, because Bosch was able to remove it very quickly to an Arael transport, as was the GTVA boarding party of the Iceni.

What about a pocket carrier: something covette sized with 2 squadrons based on it?

You know that Triton carrier module we were talking about? Well a TC-TRI container takes up roughly the same space as that taken up by two squadrons, now compare the TC-TRI to a Deimos, Sobek, or Moloch... you can see there'd be a problem fitting it in there, and if they found a way to put a 2 squadron fighterbay in a corvette, it would certainly reduce some important aspect, be it firepower, maneuverability, or speed.

Oh and what does Fenathan stand for anyway???

Fenathan that's Fenris + Leviathan. That's my way of refering to both of them together since they are so close in design.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 11, 2006, 03:54:19 am
WEll the frigate class would be a great adition to the GTVA warship classes since it would have enough firepower to be serious threat to any big warship(like a destroyer) . And with colapsed ore-molibden sheating or whatever its called and shielded subsitems it would be able to sustain a lot weapons fire. The ideal friggate would be somethinlg like the Iceni with at least the AAAf capabilities of an Aeoulous if not a corvette.


It would have the room for all these weapons because it wouldnt be using any kind of ETAK devices or anithing. Now that would be a verry powerfull warship. Fast, manouverable, deadly.
Okay, so how are the GTVA  supposed to afford it in a post-Capella age?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 11, 2006, 03:57:46 am
Which is why I think they should just upgrade the Deimos's (if they find the money), and forget about building warships other than some type of light carrier; the reason I like Axems fighterbox so much is because I think that's a prefect design for the post Capella age.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 11, 2006, 04:15:49 am
Yep know about the Leviathan. Was just confused about the naming thats all.

In regards to the Deimos carrer thing. It doesnt have to be the same volume as a Deimos. sure it would have to trade something I was just thinking of the Deimos a sort a starting point for something like a pocket carrier. Although it would have to be wider...basicly have a lor more internal volume.

also cool ideea about the triton carrier. I'm somewhat confused as to the kind of role they would play in a fleet since they would have to be escorted by something.

Also why does a Deimos have 80.000 HP and about 1/3 th leghth of a destoyer. Doesnt that make the destroyer class somewhat flimsy(sp?) .

Sure the Deimos could be a serious threat to a destroyer but at the same time that depends on the destroyer doesnt it. I mean I can see a Deimos rape a Hecate but I dont see it dooing the same to an Orion or a Hatsheepsut (i'm finaly able to spell this name corect. Dont know who posted those pics depicting a hat a sheep and a suit but it worked thanx).

A frigate like the Iceni would really come in handi for the GTVA cuz other then the Orion which would eventualy be phased out and replaced by something else if posible they really dont have any other warship capable of such firepower. other the the Hatpsheepsut that is.






Edit: Well it would be a lot cheaper then building an entire destroyer and since it requires less crew to operate they can make the worth while. You know the whole we dont have enough trained crews to go around thing.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 11, 2006, 04:33:55 am
In regards to the Deimos carrer thing. It doesnt have to be the same volume as a Deimos. sure it would have to trade something I was just thinking of the Deimos a sort a starting point for something like a pocket carrier. Although it would have to be wider...basicly have a lor more internal volume.

Sounds about right, but Mefustae has a point, where is the GTVA getting this money?

also cool ideea about the triton carrier. I'm somewhat confused as to the kind of role they would play in a fleet since they would have to be escorted by something.

Well, there are the fighters and bombers it carriers for one, and then there's the rest of the fleet.

Also why does a Deimos have 80.000 HP and about 1/3 th leghth of a destoyer. Doesnt that make the destroyer class somewhat flimsy(sp?).

Yes it does, but they're extremely well armed flimsy things.

Sure the Deimos could be a serious threat to a destroyer but at the same time that depends on the destroyer doesnt it. I mean I can see a Deimos rape a Hecate but I dont see it dooing the same to an Orion or a Hatsheepsut (i'm finaly able to spell this name corect. Dont know who posted those pics depicting a hat a sheep and a suit but it worked thanx).

I'm sorry, it's Hat - shep -sut

Anyway, it obviously does depend on the destroyer, and I'm not saying a Deimos could do it on its own, but supported by fighters and bombers, or by each other, yes, corvettes can take out destroyers.

A frigate like the Iceni would really come in handi for the GTVA cuz other then the Orion which would eventualy be phased out and replaced by something else if posible they really dont have any other warship capable of such firepower. other the the Hatpsheepsut that is.

Your right there, but multiple, smaller ships can do the same job. It's like real life, you don't have giant battleships with 16" guns anymore, instead you have carriers, with planes, and missile destroyers and cruisers, all of which deliver a fraction of the firepower of 16" shells, but there are more of them.






Edit: Well it would be a lot cheaper then building an entire destroyer and since it requires less crew to operate they can make the worth while. You know the whole we dont have enough trained crews to go around thing.

[/quote]
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 11, 2006, 04:44:33 am
Umm a frigate class would actualy be worth while since it is small enough and i'm willing to et cheap enough to be inclueded in the fleet.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 11, 2006, 06:33:33 am
I'd agree, I don't know how we even got to that topic, although it is interesting.

With a wedge shape, what angle would be optimum?

Back to cruisers and all: I did this when I was boared (in about half an hour)
HP= Hit points
TCF= Total combined firepower (all of the damage / second from all of the weapons on a ship added together)
BF= Beam firepower, all of the sustained damage / second from all of the beams added together (including AAA)
Ship              Length   HP     TCF        BF
GVC Aten        230   18000     207.6   48
GTC Fenris       253    8000     496      197
GTC Leviathan  253    35000    368.4   157
GTC Aeolus      272    38000    1453.3   170
GVC Mentu      322    60000    1129.5   72
GVCv Sobek     608    80000    2947.5   1472
GTCv Deimos   717    80000    3049.6   1380
NTF Iceni        998    90000    3467.5   2328
GTD Hecate     2174   100000   3811.3   2204
GTD Orion       2023   100000   3661.2   3363
GVD Typhon     2153   120000   2797.4   1664
Hatshepsut       2126   135000   5596.8   2734
GTVA Colossus 6166   1000000   10404   7143




"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics.".......

NB: Fenriathan; Fenris-Leviathan.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 11, 2006, 06:37:47 am
whats that suposed to mean? I mean the whole quete and the lies part? Did i miss something??
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 11, 2006, 08:44:47 am
That was a quote from... who was it, Winston Churchill? Anywaym he was pointing out that frigates aren't small, and probably aren't cheap.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 11, 2006, 09:56:28 am
Umm they are smaller then a bloody destroyer and a hell of a lot cheaper. Or are you gooing to tell me that a frigate is actualy more expensive then a destroyer.

Also I believe I saw an actual frigate in the Derelict campaign it was way cool but somehow lacked the punch the Iceni once had. Cant figure out why. It did say something about weapons emplacements beeing optimized for better coverage.

Anyway can someone please enlighten me as to why the Hecate has 35000 hp less then the Hatshepsut?(Yey finali got it right.)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 11, 2006, 10:40:08 am
Because it's better armored.

Actually I was wrong, aldo was saying those are just statistics that don't really mean anything, and he's right, but I already wrote that.

I need to get more sleep at night.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 12, 2006, 01:11:20 am
I'd imagine that ships smaller than destroyers are cheaper to produce :)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 12, 2006, 03:18:01 am
Technically, we don't actually have a class definition for a frigate.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 12, 2006, 05:03:59 am
Indeed, the Iceni is actually without a class definition beyond the tech-room describing it as the NTF's 'Command Frigate', and quite frankly, I find the whole 'command frigate' thing rather iffy, and not really enough to hail it as an entirely new 'Frigate' class. More likely; it's a completely unique ship not unlike the Colossus or Lucifer [AFAWK], and therefore not privy to it's own 'class'.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 12, 2006, 05:23:15 am
As far as Freespace goes, Doesn't a Frigate fill the gap between cruiser and corvette, or is the Iceni a bit bigger than a corvette?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 12, 2006, 05:26:44 am
As far as Freespace goes, Doesn't a Frigate fill the gap between cruiser and corvette, or is the Iceni a bit bigger than a corvette?

Well, in table definitions and model name the Iceni is a corvette (flagged, and offhand the FREDname is rebcorvette or somesuch), so it's all rather open as to what a frigate would do if such a thing existed.  Especially as the Iceni was, er, an asteroid at the start of its life, which presumably is not a common feature.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 12, 2006, 05:56:17 am
The definition most people seem to adopt for frigate is either "special-purpose ship" or "destroyer minus fighterbay".
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 12, 2006, 06:01:56 am
Dang FS2 conventions, Before i played this i was an advocate of Cruiser being larger than Destroyer, thats just Real life playing its part though..

Off topic slightly, how would you guys rate ship class by size, Biggest first..
EG..


Dreadnought
Cruiser
Carrier
Battleship
Destroyer
Frigate
Corvette
Gunboat (gunships fly dont they? :confused:)
Patrol craft
Lifeboat
Dinghy
Life Jacket




Thats how my hierarchy would be..
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 12, 2006, 06:13:02 am
Destroyer sounds cooler than Cruiser, though.

(hence why we have FS' arse-backwardness approach, I reckon.  NB: isn't there a former navy bloke listed in the credits in the instructions as an advisor?)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 12, 2006, 06:23:39 am
Battleship
Carrier
Cruiser
Destroyer
Gunboat
Fighter craft

This is how I would rate. I didnt take this from real life but from those damnable 80's space opera animes (a certain Legend of Galactic Heroes mainly).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 12, 2006, 06:27:59 am
In credits (credits.tbl check anyone?) It mentions a commander of some description IIRC.
Good catch Aldo..

FS2talage aside, i never take game hierarchy that seriously, otherwise HW wouldave broken my brain years ago..
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 12, 2006, 08:00:17 am
Dang FS2 conventions, Before i played this i was an advocate of Cruiser being larger than Destroyer, thats just Real life playing its part though..

Off topic slightly, how would you guys rate ship class by size, Biggest first..
EG..


Dreadnought
Cruiser
Carrier
Battleship
Destroyer
Frigate
Corvette
Gunboat (gunships fly dont they? :confused:)
Patrol craft
Lifeboat
Dinghy
Life Jacket
patrol boat



Thats how my hierarchy would be..

Interesting...dingy :D

You listed a Battleship below cruiser? Dreadnought at the top? ???

This is how I would lsit them:

Heavy Carrier
Battleship
Dreadnought
Carrier
Battlecruiser
Cruiser
Light carrier
Frigate
Corvette

???Destroyer??? - the only thing I'm not sure where to put..
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Wanderer on June 12, 2006, 08:17:36 am
My version, all with options for different namings according to the designers preferance and perceived mission...

Capital ships (or main combatants):
Battleship/Dreadnought
Heavy Cruiser/Battlecruiser
Cruiser/Strike Cruiser
Frigate/Destroyer
Corvette/Gunboat/Missileboat

Carriers are imo sort of separate but arranged in similar way:
Fleet Carrier/Heavy Carrier
Carrier/Strike Carrier
Escort Carrier/Light Carrier
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Black Wolf on June 12, 2006, 12:41:04 pm
As far as Freespace goes, Doesn't a Frigate fill the gap between cruiser and corvette, or is the Iceni a bit bigger than a corvette?

Iceni is over a kilometer wrong, so yeah, bit bigger. I think a frigate is just any relatively small ship with a specific, non-combat primary purpose, but is still armed and employed by a military organization. Thus the Hippocrates is a medical frigate (It's called frigate2t-01.pof and I think its called a medical frigate ingame somewhere too (though, truth be told, thinking from a computer game designers POV, I suspect that comes more from its resemblance to a Nebulon B, the medical frigate from Star Wars), the Iceni is a command frigate, etc.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 12, 2006, 12:45:08 pm
As far as Freespace goes, Doesn't a Frigate fill the gap between cruiser and corvette, or is the Iceni a bit bigger than a corvette?

Iceni is over a kilometer wrong, so yeah, bit bigger. I think a frigate is just any relatively small ship with a specific, non-combat primary purpose, but is still armed and employed by a military organization. Thus the Hippocrates is a medical frigate (It's called frigate2t-01.pof and I think its called a medical frigate ingame somewhere too (though, truth be told, thinking from a computer game designers POV, I suspect that comes more from its resemblance to a Nebulon B, the medical frigate from Star Wars), the Iceni is a command frigate, etc.


Except IIRC you also get Strike Cruisers (the, er, Shivan one that carries fighters), so....maybe best not to over-analyze it :D
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 12, 2006, 12:53:59 pm
Iceni is over a kilometer long, so yeah, bit bigger.

Does anyone look at posted statistics. The Iceni is 998M long, just under a kilometer. I think a frigate is just between a corvette and a destroyer. I'm not sure how anyone could belive a frigate to be betwen a cruiser and a corvette, when my post I showed the realitive sizes of all Terran / Vasudan cruisers, corvettes, the Iceni and destroyers.

Except IIRC you also get Strike Cruisers (the, er, Shivan one that carries fighters), so....maybe best not to over-analyze it :D

Isn't that canonically a corvette, to me it looks like a corvette with a small fighterbay, probably holding 2 or 3 wings.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 12, 2006, 01:05:22 pm
Quote

;; I added in this Strike Cruiser because I needed a ship besides the Cruiser, one that had docking
;; bays.  This is a strike cruiser, it's faster and can hold ships, but at the expense of hull.
;; - SS

$Name:                  SC Rakshasa

:)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Shade on June 12, 2006, 01:16:32 pm
Its docking bays seems to have suffered the same fate as the Mentus heavy beams though.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 12, 2006, 01:23:13 pm
Except that the Mentu with heavy beam cannons is only marginally effective because of the Mentu's horrible turret placement, but a Rakshasa with a fighterbay could be very impressive. If anyone makes a high poly Rakshasa, they should add that in; it sounds cool.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 12, 2006, 01:45:01 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate)
Frigate in modern terms is used for a vessel thats larger than a corvette, and smaller than a destroyer. Just because the iceni is the only frigate of it's kind in the game doesn't mean it qualifies for not being a frigate just because it's the only frigate class ship in the game. The iceni is a big ship, bigger than a deimos or a sobek very noticeably, and it's half the length of an orion.
As for the hippocrates being a medical frigate, i don't  understand, it's 546meters long. Maybe they consider the hippocrates a medical frigate not due to it's length, but also buy it's width(hippocrates is one wide vessel).
And a rakshasa with a fighterbay would be about as impressive as a fenris or leviathan with a fighterbay and all 4 or 5 perseus sized fighters it would be launching, considering it's not too small in the first place which would highly be the case. This is like giving a cain or a lilith a fighterbay.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 12, 2006, 02:53:33 pm
I say it would be impressive because otherwise the Rakashasa sucks in an anti-fighter role.

Calith cruisers don't need fighterbays, because the Lilith is the first or second most impressive cruiser to begin with (due to the LRed) and the Cain is supposed to suck.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 12, 2006, 03:18:46 pm
WEll the Calith(see i get it now :P) is what the second most impresive cruiser in the game. Also the small fighterbay on the shivan cruiser is somewhat useless if u ask me. It doesnt hold any large number of ships and since Other then the Orion all GTVA warships have good AAF defences its rather useless. Well theres the Fensris but I dont see the fenris taking on any shivan cruiser.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 12, 2006, 03:44:21 pm
I can see a fenris taking on a shivan cruiser as long as it's within 1500 meters for it's AAA and other laser turrets and missile launcher. Swarm missiles that shivan cruisers shoot aren't that great at hitting anything. And shivan AAA is like one turret per ship. After that for shivan cruisers, you got a couple of laser turrets, and capship beams localized on the front of the vessel. Keep in mind, as long as the fenris or leviathen is within AAA distance and fighting the shivans from it's side and not from the front, it could go good.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 12, 2006, 03:54:21 pm
Aeoli in a toe to toe fight with other cruisers tend not to use their main beams, but still tend to win by flaking the other cruiser to death. Just as well, since their main beams only cause a sustained damage / second of 61, while every flak turret causes 200 damage / second.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 12, 2006, 04:21:23 pm
so basicly the aeouli is the top dog in terms of cruisers is that right??


Also regarding the frigates i would imagine one frigate two or three cuisers and one corvette and one destroyer to be very very efective battlegroup. The frigate and corvette would provide both the muscle(beam cannons) and the AAAf defense if its needed by the destroyer but mainly the beam cannon firepower needed by the destroyer with the cruisers providing escort for the destroyer.

This way you have very good combination of both fighter power projection and beam cannon firepower projection to take on any enemy fleet. Unless they happen to be Sathani in wich case youre screwed.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 12, 2006, 04:34:43 pm
As far as cruisers go I agree with the veteren comments in the wiki (http://www.hard-light.net\wiki\) wherein the Aeolus is the second most effective cruiser in the game, my scale goes like this:

Lilith / Aeolus tie (Lilith is by far the best anti-capital, but the Aeolus is the only one with a good anti-fighter array)
Leviathan
Cain
Mentu
Fenris
Aten
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 12, 2006, 05:35:03 pm
My version, all with options for different namings according to the designers preferance and perceived mission...

Capital ships (or main combatants):
Battleship/Dreadnought
Heavy Cruiser/Battlecruiser
Cruiser/Strike Cruiser
Frigate/Destroyer
Corvette/Gunboat/Missileboat

Carriers are imo sort of separate but arranged in similar way:
Fleet Carrier/Heavy Carrier
Carrier/Strike Carrier
Escort Carrier/Light Carrier

I allways percived a Battleship something a as WW2 equalent - lot's of heavy guns with all around coverage.
The term Dreadnought, automaticly pops a image of a huge ship built around a big weapon (fixed) in my head.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Shade on June 12, 2006, 05:57:18 pm
Well, strictly speaking a Dreadnaught is just a Battleship that foregoes the smaller caliber auxiliary guns for an extra main turret. It's not even an official ship class, just a nickname since the first one to do that was... HMS Dreadnaught. Which was actually a really bad move at the time as it made all fleets, at a time when the british fleet was far superior in number of battleships to any other, start back from square one, negating their advantage in one fell swoop.

Lesson to be learned? Don't introduce advances that nullify your own forces when in fact your forces are far superior in strength and number to everyone else's. Save them for when someone else start doing it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 12, 2006, 06:07:03 pm
Or don't announce it until you've effectively replaced your current fleet.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Setekh on June 13, 2006, 01:43:46 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate)
Frigate in modern terms is used for a vessel thats larger than a corvette, and smaller than a destroyer.

In case you haven't realised this already, you need to be careful with your use of real-world classifications there. FS tips those categories right upside down. For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 13, 2006, 03:40:33 am


FS2talage aside, i never take game hierarchy that seriously, otherwise HW wouldave broken my brain years ago..
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 13, 2006, 08:46:05 am
Yeah I know in Real LifeTM destroyers are just big gunboats (except in modern day real world, where they are medium sized warships) still, Volition decided to call them destroyers, who are we to argue? Or were you saying his "frigate is between a destroyer and cruiser in size" wasn't the most acurate statement, because I think at one point it might have been true.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 13, 2006, 11:19:21 am
Frigates have always been smaller then either...between destroyer and corvette, however, works.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 13, 2006, 01:44:41 pm
Umm i alwais thought frigates in rel life were actualy larger then destroyers.

But nevermind that glad to see we can all agree that a frigate class similar to the Iceni in design would be very welcomed to the GTVA since it would help them to reduce costs in terms of ship building. We have corvettes and figattes coupled with at least one destroyer efectively making the fleet more deadly then it ever was. and with a Triton carrier or poket carrier that would be great. Small manouverable with very good offensive and defensive line to them. Superb.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Shade on June 13, 2006, 01:49:57 pm
Well, destroyers were initially really small. But today, they're effectively cruisers by a different name...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 13, 2006, 02:24:36 pm
Arleigh Burke class destroyer:
     Length:              154 m (Flights I and II) ( 155 m (Flight IIA))
     Beam:              18 m
     Draft:                9.3 m
     Displacement:    9200 tons full load (Flight IIA)

Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate
     Length                136 m overall (139 m for "long-hull" units.)
     Beam:                 13.7 m
     Draft:                   6.7 m
     Displacement:      ca. 4,100 tons

That is suprisingly close, but the Arleigh is much more heavily armed, and much heavier.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 13, 2006, 02:40:07 pm
The frigate class has existed longer then the destroyer, it dates to the Age of Sail, but destroyers have always been larger and more heavily armed then frigates. Relatively few navies still had a class they called "frigate" when the destroyer came of age just before WWI; only the RN comes to mind among major powers, and RN frigates can be reasonably characterized as "one-forth a destroyer" of similar age. Much the same can be said of more modern designs for most nations...but the Royal Navy, determined to be different, classifies their ships by function instead of by size or armament, and so calls any primarily antisubmarine ship a frigate. Some of their frigates are larger then their destroyers. But that's because they're weird.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 13, 2006, 03:02:23 pm
No, the Oliver Hazard Perry class is a US frigate, they can't have the destroyers do everything can they? The Aussies also have a frigate class.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 13, 2006, 05:37:38 pm
Yes that's true, frigates are "usually" smaller than destroyers, and "usually" bigger than corvettes, if they aren't in general :lol: For modern warfare terms, a frigate is something that's smaller than a destroyer and bigger than a corvette. It doesn't matter what an 1800's ship was considered to be a frigate or not. So what's like everyone going on about? You know there are ship classes bigger than destroyers that aren't in fs2. Like carriers and stuff. There is juggernauts, maybe they should be renamed as carriers or something, the sathanas releases a lot of fighters, and doesn't have much weaponry (thinking out loud). Then again, the problem with destroyers in fs is that they are given a carrier and a destroyer role, but you would expect space ships to function and have different habits and roles anyway, especially in size ;) In fs, ship sizes seem to be obvious and go up, cruiser, corvette, frigate, destroyer. The ships in fs2 are different than our modern warfare counterparts, because in fs2 they serve different and mixed roles. As far as modern day warfare and fs2 have in common seem to be the usual sizing category in tact with mixed role, like cruiser...corvette...frigate...destroyer.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 13, 2006, 05:48:24 pm
You have to wonder why we never hear about the Colossus's most powerful weapons, the 20 squadrons in its fighterbay. Even assuming a third of those were bombers, that's 80 bombers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 13, 2006, 08:53:07 pm
No, the Oliver Hazard Perry class is a US frigate, they can't have the destroyers do everything can they? The Aussies also have a frigate class.

Perrys ain't of similar age (although armament-wise they pretty much are 1/4 of a Burke). And the Aussie frigates are Perrys too. :p
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 13, 2006, 09:02:38 pm
Yeah well, but they gave it a different name: Adelaide: basically a lot of navies have frigates, look it up on wikipedia.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 13, 2006, 09:15:50 pm
They're relatively recent, however; WWI-WWII the frigate class was almost dead outside of the RN.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 13, 2006, 09:36:10 pm
I won't argue with that.

You could probably divide this topic into eight and still have them all make sense.

How much do you think the Shivan Incursion effected the production of the Deimos? How many do you think they already have?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 13, 2006, 11:04:49 pm
I won't argue with that.

You could probably divide this topic into eight and still have them all make sense.

How much do you think the Shivan Incursion effected the production of the Deimos? How many do you think they already have?


The production of all ships was already speeded up considerably with the NTF rebellion and with the Shivan Incursion it would be more likely to go even faster, look to the Aelous for example. I think that the NTF rebellion served as the baptism of fire of the Deimos because it was the first major action it participed in. Seeing how good the design operated in the war, GTVA command would've shifted considerable resources to increase its production.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 13, 2006, 11:47:47 pm
Except for the economic pitfall we were talking about, however, considering that the Deimos did preform exceptionally well during the NTF rebellian / Shivan Incursion, I can see the GTN putting resources away from other things and toward the Deimos.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 10:42:02 am
Post Capella, the GTVA would first shift its resources to rebuilding cruisers since they took most of the capital ship losses (this is my guess, though), they're still the basis of the fleets and with no major external enemy they wouldnt need to field larger ships immediately (a Aelous costs less then a Deimos).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2006, 10:44:03 am
Post Capella, the GTVA would first shift its resources to rebuilding cruisers since they took most of the capital ship losses (this is my guess, though), they're still the basis of the fleets and with no major external enemy they wouldnt need to field larger ships immediately (a Aelous costs less then a Deimos).

I would still suspect the GTVA wanted to scrap cruisers outright, myself, even if the same number of corvettes are more expensive.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 10:54:18 am
Yeah, it does seem suggested in the game that the GTVA is scrapping their cruisers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 11:07:08 am
It wouldnt be wise to do that, you wouldnt assign a corvette to guard a depot or escort a convoy also a cruiser could take out a corvette (3 against 1, I mean), you could field more cruisers then corvettes (they cost less and are faster to be built) enabling you to cover a system far more effectively.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 14, 2006, 11:09:22 am
By 3 against one logic, 2000 Poseidon freighters ared with subachs could probably take a juggernaut down  :P :yes:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 11:13:24 am
It wouldnt be wise to do that, you wouldnt assign a corvette to guard a depot or escort a convoy also a cruiser could take out a corvette (3 against 1, I mean), you could field more cruisers then corvettes (they cost less and are faster to be built) enabling you to cover a system far more effectively.
That's a good point but think about it this way, if you spread your forces thinner, they're easier to destroy so therefore a corvette would be able to cover less area, but cover it more effectively, and if you think about the Freespace universe, chances are the area of space you need to cover isn't that big (a jump node for instance) while fighters can partol the majority of the system.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 11:20:42 am
By 3 against one logic, 2000 Poseidon freighters ared with subachs could probably take a juggernaut down  :P :yes:

That's just crazy enough that it might work, you know.

That's a good point but think about it this way, if you spread your forces thinner, they're easier to destroy so therefore a corvette would be able to cover less area, but cover it more effectively, and if you think about the Freespace universe, chances are the area of space you need to cover isn't that big (a jump node for instance) while fighters can partol the majority of the system.

Yeah, but a cruiser with fighter support could, in turn, take down the corvette. I think that cruisers will still be around but more on a anti-fighter role but still with a good enough punch that cant be ignored by other ships, they would be more on a defensive role allowing the other ships to focus more on any offensive aspect.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 14, 2006, 11:24:30 am
Right, SCP dudes, need to add support for 2000 freighters to the engine so i can test the poseiden effect.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 11:31:22 am
Wouldnt 5000 support ships blowing up at the exact same time be able to do the same?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 11:42:24 am
No, their combined effect would probably only be like 500 Heliei, which still won't kill a Sathanas
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 11:45:37 am
But each of them carry helios warheads since they're able to resupply you with them.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 11:51:25 am
Their explosions still aren't that damaging, look at the tables.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2006, 12:04:10 pm
It wouldnt be wise to do that, you wouldnt assign a corvette to guard a depot or escort a convoy also a cruiser could take out a corvette (3 against 1, I mean), you could field more cruisers then corvettes (they cost less and are faster to be built) enabling you to cover a system far more effectively.

Except you're really better off using fighters to cover a system; a Myrmidon can take down a cruiser more or less by itself, after all.  Plus I'd wager a Deimos would make a superb escort, thanks to its AAAf and flak (one of my sole FRED attempts involved a Deimos escorting a convoy through a nebula, against a substantial amount of Shivan wings, and it fended them off with ease)... if we assume capital ships are to be used for convoy escort atall, which I doubt they would be because of the superior speed and mobility of fighters.

(Plus, the smaller (Poseidon / Elysium) transports (I've not bothered checking the Vasudan side, albeit) are in the 40-60ms speed range, and the fastest cruiser/corvette caps out at 30, so IMO it'd have to be fighters)

Plus, I suspect a cruiser is not as little as the third of the cost of a corvette.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kosh on June 14, 2006, 12:14:20 pm
So if the GTVA has no cruisers (other than those kind of crappy Mentu's and those really crappy Fenris cruisers), doesn't that leave something of a hole in their fleet?

Quote
a Myrmidon can take down a cruiser more or less by itself, after all.

Assuming that it isn't armed with a Maxim (which I doubt is standard issue), an Aeolus can shred a wing of Myrmidons.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 12:22:45 pm
It wouldnt be wise to do that, you wouldnt assign a corvette to guard a depot or escort a convoy also a cruiser could take out a corvette (3 against 1, I mean), you could field more cruisers then corvettes (they cost less and are faster to be built) enabling you to cover a system far more effectively.

Except you're really better off using fighters to cover a system; a Myrmidon can take down a cruiser more or less by itself, after all.  Plus I'd wager a Deimos would make a superb escort, thanks to its AAAf and flak (one of my sole FRED attempts involved a Deimos escorting a convoy through a nebula, against a substantial amount of Shivan wings, and it fended them off with ease)... if we assume capital ships are to be used for convoy escort atall, which I doubt they would be because of the superior speed and mobility of fighters.

(Plus, the smaller (Poseidon / Elysium) transports (I've not bothered checking the Vasudan side, albeit) are in the 40-60ms speed range, and the fastest cruiser/corvette caps out at 30, so IMO it'd have to be fighters)

Plus, I suspect a cruiser is not as little as the third of the cost of a corvette.


There's no way a single fighter can take out a cruiser (except if its Alpha 1). About the cost, I think that a Aelous (being the most expensive cruiser) would cost half the price of a corvette. For a escort role, a cruiser with good speed like the Fenris would be perfect (taking in to account just its speed).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 12:44:30 pm
So if the GTVA has no cruisers (other than those kind of crappy Mentu's and those really crappy Fenris cruisers), doesn't that leave something of a hole in their fleet?

Aldo is saying that cruisers are being phased out in favor of the much more effective corvettes.


Assuming that it isn't armed with a Maxim (which I doubt is standard issue), an Aeolus can shred a wing of Myrmidons.
There's no way a single fighter can take out a cruiser (except if its Alpha 1).

A Myrmidon has a pretty good chance against a Fenris, Aten, or Mentu; although I agree, probably a Myrmidon won't cut it, but I don't think that was Aldo's point.

About the cost, I think that a Aelous (being the most expensive cruiser) would cost half the price of a corvette.

Maybe every cruiser is half the cost of a corvette, but you need more cruisers to do the same things as effectively.

For a escort role, a cruiser with good speed like the Fenris would be perfect (taking in to account just its speed).

The Fenris has a speed of 20ms, that's half the speed of an Elysium, if a warship were to escort a convoy, the Aeolus would be the best choice because of it's 30ms speed, but in the end, Aldo is right, you don't need warships to escort convoys when you have fighters and bombers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 14, 2006, 01:55:07 pm
While I agree with the whole fighter protection/escort thing we cant ignore the fact that at some point you may need some aditional protection or firepower and the only cruiser that is eficient wnough would be the Aeoli...!

Oh and regarding the whole frigate thing Romania has 2 of them they just bought them from the UK..upgraded theyr sistems and put them into the fleet.

Oh and i dont really think that the GTVA will discard of its cruisers t least not for a while. Perhaps they could even design new classes of cruisers who knows. I'm just sayng that the cruisers have proved they value over and over agin across theyr long history and they are very usefull even now.

As for the corvettes I agree they must of increased the speed of thery construction like mad. They proved to be very versatile and very good warships as a whole.

Altough i do see them upgrading the armaments of the corvette with some better beamcannons.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2006, 02:03:28 pm
So if the GTVA has no cruisers (other than those kind of crappy Mentu's and those really crappy Fenris cruisers), doesn't that leave something of a hole in their fleet?

That is the hole the corvette class is intended to fill.

Quote
a Myrmidon can take down a cruiser more or less by itself, after all.

Assuming that it isn't armed with a Maxim (which I doubt is standard issue), an Aeolus can shred a wing of Myrmidons.

Trebuchets.  It would seem common sense that, if you do drop capships for that type of engagement, you'd adopt that type of weapon as standard. 

Or, of course, Helios bombs.

(NB: worth probably noting, that it'd be quite difficult for a cruiser to defend any sort of large or stretched out convoy because it's a big, slow and unwieldy ship and can't really dart about and cover blind spots in the same way as a simple wing of fighters can.

While I agree with the whole fighter protection/escort thing we cant ignore the fact that at some point you may need some aditional protection or firepower and the only cruiser that is eficient wnough would be the Aeoli...!

At some point.  May.  Note those qualifiers.

I doubt, somehow, there are the same number of cruisers are convoys.  And if you're talking about a reserve capship ready to jump in....well, that applies to bomber wings or corvettes.

Oh and i dont really think that the GTVA will discard of its cruisers t least not for a while. Perhaps they could even design new classes of cruisers who knows. I'm just sayng that the cruisers have proved they value over and over agin across theyr long history and they are very usefull even now.

And corvettes are simply a better class and specification of ship.  We've seen the Fenris completely outclassed by fighters, and the Aeolus is canonically considered a failure, plus the Aten and Mentu are rubbish, so....well, you do the math.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 14, 2006, 02:18:04 pm
Well the Aeouli is considered rubbish only because it proved to be more expensive then they thought it would be. and the GTVA was unwilling at that time to invest in the Aeouli.

But the Aeouli is by far one of the best multipourpose ships in the game. It has good AAAF defences and 2 slashers to take on enemy warships. Couple an Aeouly with just 2 wings of Myrmadons and you have a corvette killer force on your hands.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Black Wolf on June 14, 2006, 02:59:12 pm
Perrys ain't of similar age (although armament-wise they pretty much are 1/4 of a Burke). And the Aussie frigates are Perrys too. :p

Um... some of them are, the old ones, but modified somewhat. The new ANZACs were German I think, but also pretty decently modified I think.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 03:25:19 pm
quote from myself:

I think that cruisers will still be around but more on a anti-fighter role but still with a good enough punch that cant be ignored by other ships, they would be more on a defensive role allowing the other ships to focus more on any offensive aspect.

end quote.

How many times on the game have we seen a Aeolus or Leviathan crush wing after wing of fighters and bombers attacking a convoy? Instead of getting a corvette to do this, a cruiser is more effective. Couple it with a wing of fighters and you got a massive wall, you're forgetting that on a convoy there are many different types of ships so they would need to maintain the same speed to concentrate their firepower and not spread out so the speed issue is not that much of a problem (using a Aelous as escort).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2006, 04:03:27 pm
That wing of fighters is probably just as effective alone, though.  Especially as you can hang back assets in reserve, ready to jump in.

And, offhand, the Aeolus is the only cruiser able to keep up with the slowest members of a convoy (as a note, the Vasudan cargo ships & transports are all noticeably faster than the Terran ones); the Argo and Triton are the slowest at 30ms.  Moreso, the sole arguement for cruisers is price, and it's rather implied in the planned replacement of them that this is not a particular key concern (I would wager because of attrition rates; cruisers are mainly cannon fodder).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 04:27:04 pm
Well the Aeouli is considered rubbish only because it proved to be more expensive then they thought it would be. and the GTVA was unwilling at that time to invest in the Aeouli.

But the Aeouli is by far one of the best multipourpose ships in the game. It has good AAAF defences and 2 slashers to take on enemy warships. Couple an Aeouly with just 2 wings of Myrmadons and you have a corvette killer force on your hands.

No one knows for sure why the Aeolus is considered a failure but I have a pretty good guess, it was intended to fufil the role of the Deimos. The Sobek's tech description shows a corvettes job description pretty well, to support destroyers, and take on cruisers, that also happens to be the role of the Fenris during the great war: it was the main runner, "the mainstay" it did things like duke it out with Atens and help Orions fight Typhons, the Fenris got old, so command decided to replace it, but that was after the Sobek had already been deployed. Command looked at the Sobek and realised that the Aeolus, their new mainstay, was under equiped, under gunned, and undersized, so they canceled production and created the Deimos.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 14, 2006, 04:34:56 pm
That could be it. But i dont remember beeing mentioned anywhere that the Aeouli was a failure for a warships point of view. In fact the tech room describes it as a fighter pilots worst nightmare or something like that. but it also says that is very expensive. That may be from a cruisers point of view or something else. Regardless i can rmember how many times I used to draw fighters or bommbers into the Aeouli AAAf screan thus making short work of them. In fact at one point I was pissedoff because the aeouli was taking all the kils faster thn i could take them out.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 04:59:34 pm
I agree that the Aeolus has a good anti-fighter screen, and the demo tech description did praise it highly:

Quote from: Demo Tech Description
The biggest, baddest, and meanest cruiser EVER. The Aeolus will smack you up.

However, the FS2 tech description clearly states that, although it has good anti-fighter armament, it just doesn't cut it:

Quote from: FS2 Tech description
The GTC Aeolus is the first cruiser class ever produced by the RNI shipyards orbiting Laramis II. Only two dozen of these cruisers were put into service in GTVA fleets, with production ending in 2365. Allied Command assigns Aeolus-class ships primarily to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings, as these cruisers are severely out-gunned by most capital ships in service today. Their flak and AAA turrets serve as marvelous deterrents to smaller craft, however.

There is some question whether this is accurate, because the Aeolus never actually turns up in the Tech room, so the only people who see it either know the CTRL-SHIFT-S  thing, or are in the tables. My guess why :Volition: had production end in the game in real life was to limit themselves, for the same reason the Hecate is only seen in the nebula, the original Aeolus model sucked, they didn't want the player to see to many of them when the comparitively pretty Fenris/Leviathan model was available.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 14, 2006, 05:08:38 pm
Aeoluses rule.. I simply don't see cruisers as being dropped out...not any more than smaller vessels today are dropped out for bigger ones..and they are even mroe vulnerable than FS2 ones.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 14, 2006, 05:49:51 pm
To sum it up its pretty clear at least to me that cruisers will be available for quite some time. And since they have prooven temselfs some of them even agins larger warships, its pretty clear that theyr future si somewhat asured.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2006, 05:53:05 pm
"As the Leviathan and Fenris cruisers of the Great War are gradually phased out, these corvettes will become the foundation of tomorrow's fleet."

Seems pretty definitive to me.......
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 05:53:40 pm
Aeoluses rule.. I simply don't see cruisers as being dropped out...not any more than smaller vessels today are dropped out for bigger ones..and they are even mroe vulnerable than FS2 ones.

Except they have been. There were some small ship classes in WWII, we simpey don't have that size of vessel anymore, take the destroyer, the ones in WWII had displacements of ~200 tons, thats 1/42 the size of a modern destroyer.

The point is, they don't need cruisers anymore, cruisers were the old soliders, the ones that you send if fighters alone won't do and destroyers won't either, now there's a new solution, corvettes, that did everything that cruisers did, but better.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 06:49:22 pm
Take a look at the Lilith, its a threath even to a destroyer. The GTVA can easily make a cruiser that is also a threath to anything in battle with the tecnology they have.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 06:56:20 pm
Where is this technology to make a cruiser that's a threat to a destroyer coming from? We haven't seen this. The GTVA ship with the most power per ton is the Deimos, and all it has are TerSlashes.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 07:01:30 pm
Imagine a Aelous with vasudan beam canons or the most powerful terran counterpart.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 07:05:11 pm
You misunderstand me. In order to fire bigger beams, the reactor needs to be able to support bigger beams, we can assume the Aeoulus's reactor cannot support TerSlash beams, because this is not consistant with what we have seen GTVA cruisers capable of. GTVA cruisers are lucky to have one SGreen, to support TerSlash's is beyond their observed capability. In order to be a threat to a destroyer a cruiser would need bigger beams, if it can't even support a TerSlash, there seems little likelyhood of this.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 07:10:03 pm
Using the same vasudan reactor technology used on the Deimos would supply a cruiser with enough energy to support those kind of weapons.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Pnakotus on June 14, 2006, 07:31:01 pm
How do you know?  It's more a matter of volume, and the Deimos has room to stash a pretty huge powerplant in there.  Given that form follows function, I'd be very surprised if a Deimos-yield powerplant could be installed in a cruiser.  Aeolus is even a pretty poor layout for powerplant - if they extended the aft section to fill in the really stupid gap, things would doubtless  be different.

But the techroom thing just says it doesn't have enough to cut it against capships, which is (largely) true.  Clearly the emphasis in the GTVA fleet was shifting to larger, more capable ships.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Polpolion on June 14, 2006, 08:48:48 pm
[random opinion] I think cruisers should be kept to anti-fighter roles, unless they have a lot of armor, like the lilith. [/random opinion]
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 09:54:55 pm
Except that they weren't originally for anti-fighter roles, they were generic capital ships, now the Deimos fufiled this role, displacing the cruisers, therefore, there is no reason why the Deimos could not replace the cruiser.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kosh on June 14, 2006, 09:59:31 pm
Also look at it this way: The long term costs for a corvette are much higher than a cruiser.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 14, 2006, 10:05:23 pm
That's true, however, we don't know how much long term costs in general are, for instance, fuel, Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, so it's likely very cheap. Armor replacement however, is likely much more expensive.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: WeatherOp on June 14, 2006, 10:17:13 pm
The main shortage would be crew, and in a war where you are losing destroyer after destroyer, each with 10,000 people.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 14, 2006, 11:13:01 pm
"As the Leviathan and Fenris cruisers of the Great War are gradually phased out, these corvettes will become the foundation of tomorrow's fleet."

Seems pretty definitive to me.......

Doubtless Capella's going to put a bit of a different spin on that...and, as I've observed before, the GTVA's main bottleneck after suffering the losses they did in Capella is going to be personnel. You can deploy cruisers more quickly, because they have less crew.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 14, 2006, 11:20:42 pm
Using the same vasudan reactor technology used on the Deimos would supply a cruiser with enough energy to support those kind of weapons.

I meant the technology, not the same reactor in use by the Deimos, the GTVA can simply scale down the reactor and install it on a cruiser. Doing that and replacing the beam canons it would make a really deadly ship. A cruiser also needs far less crew and maintenance.


Except that they weren't originally for anti-fighter roles, they were generic capital ships, now the Deimos fufiled this role, displacing the cruisers, therefore, there is no reason why the Deimos could not replace the cruiser.


Now as generic ships, corvettes are good, but on a defensive and anti-fighter roles a cruiser would be the best if just to free the corvette to concentrate on other things like engaging another capital ship.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 02:00:19 am
Technology doesn't often scale down that easily, usually it takes considerable effort, time, and money.

Prehaps your right, preticularly after Capella, maybe the cruiser will make a comback as an anti-fighter warship.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 15, 2006, 03:13:33 am
Using the same vasudan reactor technology used on the Deimos would supply a cruiser with enough energy to support those kind of weapons.

That would seem rather a huge assumption, given the overall inadequacy of Vasudan cruisers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kosh on June 15, 2006, 04:01:07 am
"As the Leviathan and Fenris cruisers of the Great War are gradually phased out, these corvettes will become the foundation of tomorrow's fleet."

Seems pretty definitive to me.......

Doubtless Capella's going to put a bit of a different spin on that...and, as I've observed before, the GTVA's main bottleneck after suffering the losses they did in Capella is going to be personnel. You can deploy cruisers more quickly, because they have less crew.

Not to mention the need for something to take out wing after wing of pirate fighters.

While a corvette takes over the strike and destroyer escort role, there is still a need for an anti-fighter platform. A wing of Myrmidons can only do so much without any kind of support.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 15, 2006, 04:16:54 am
Why do people always assume there will be loads of pirate fighters?  Where would they launch from?  How would they get military grade technology to threaten, say, a simple fighter escort wing?

And on other things, how do we know it's all that quicker to make a cruiser?  Are there still orbital shipyards, or will they not surely now all be setup for the supercedent Deimos (etc) class?   Also, to refer to an earlier comment, why are we comparing cruisers-to-corvette costs on a 1-to-1 basis?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 15, 2006, 04:22:07 am
Good point Aldo, If you could finance the costs of two leviathans and maybe a fenris for one corvette, would it be more eviable in the current economic situation...

I say inance the costs, because you dont exactly saunter down to the nearest warship dealers.


COMMAND:
"Hi i'm command and you wont find a better deal on cruisers anywhere this side of epsilon pegasi,....
Take this little baby for example, Fenris class owned buy one old lady only used to take it out on weekends to shoot Zods, (that was during the TV war so it was ok... Only 40,000 subspace miles, and if you put down a deposit today, you get a free Carl the Shivan toy!!"

ME:
So this is a pre-Great war era Cruiser?


COMMAND:
?? Ummmmmmmmmm
"runs away"
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: ZmaN on June 15, 2006, 09:44:29 am
^^^^^^

LMFAO THAT WAS REALLY FUNNY!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 12:27:04 pm
Using the same vasudan reactor technology used on the Deimos would supply a cruiser with enough energy to support those kind of weapons.

That would seem rather a huge assumption, given the overall inadequacy of Vasudan cruisers.

The problem with vasudan cruisers is the placement of the weapons and the Mentu is a strange case since the techroom states that its a effective ship and ingame it doesnt have beam canons.


Technology doesn't often scale down that easily, usually it takes considerable effort, time, and money.

Prehaps your right, preticularly after Capella, maybe the cruiser will make a comback as an anti-fighter warship.


Even better, just take the reactor from the Mentu install it on the Aeolus and you're done. :P


Why do people always assume there will be loads of pirate fighters?  Where would they launch from?  How would they get military grade technology to threaten, say, a simple fighter escort wing?

And on other things, how do we know it's all that quicker to make a cruiser?  Are there still orbital shipyards, or will they not surely now all be setup for the supercedent Deimos (etc) class?   Also, to refer to an earlier comment, why are we comparing cruisers-to-corvette costs on a 1-to-1 basis?

After the second great war, with the meager GTVA forces spread thin trying to cover all of its territory and with the economy already beginning to slide, its a perfect opportunity for piracy. Since a cruiser is smaller, requires less resources and crew its pretty clear its faster to be built. On the cost, I guess that you can make 2 Aelous with the price of a Deimos.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 12:30:47 pm
There's no canon evidence that the Mentu has a good reactor. Just cause it's Vasudan, doesn't mean that it has a good reactor, just like the Orion, just cause it's Terran doesn't mean it has a good anti-fighter screen. On the piracy, how exactly do these pirates get the technology to be any kind of threat to the GTVA?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 12:55:36 pm
Even a old Herc can be a threat if the pilot is good. ;)

Now, really, they can raid a military depot or anything to steal weapons, ships and supplies, they wouldnt get nothing top of the line but they would still get something.

On the vasudan reactors, you're right, but a combined effort by the GTVA could turn out a more deadly Aelous, something like a Aelous MK2.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 15, 2006, 01:04:07 pm
Using the same vasudan reactor technology used on the Deimos would supply a cruiser with enough energy to support those kind of weapons.

That would seem rather a huge assumption, given the overall inadequacy of Vasudan cruisers.

The problem with vasudan cruisers is the placement of the weapons and the Mentu is a strange case since the techroom states that its a effective ship and ingame it doesnt have beam canons.

Well, ingame also makes it clear the GTVA intends to discontinue the cruiser class, in turn implying that it is financially and militarily preferable, in favour of the corvette.  Ergo, if you make the Mentu canonically effective, then logic indicates that it is advantageous to replace cruisers with corvettes.


Why do people always assume there will be loads of pirate fighters?  Where would they launch from?  How would they get military grade technology to threaten, say, a simple fighter escort wing?

And on other things, how do we know it's all that quicker to make a cruiser?  Are there still orbital shipyards, or will they not surely now all be setup for the supercedent Deimos (etc) class?   Also, to refer to an earlier comment, why are we comparing cruisers-to-corvette costs on a 1-to-1 basis?

After the second great war, with the meager GTVA forces spread thin trying to cover all of its territory and with the economy already beginning to slide, its a perfect opportunity for piracy. Since a cruiser is smaller, requires less resources and crew its pretty clear its faster to be built. On the cost, I guess that you can make 2 Aelous with the price of a Deimos.
[/quote]

How many pirates are likely to have military grade warships?  How many do, ooh, in Somalia (the worlds hotspot).  None; they all use rubber dinghies.  Where do all these pirate ships come from?  What makes them a threat any more than said Somalian pirates do, to the military?  Is every civillian convoy or ship going to need a cruiser escort?

What makes these supposed pirates so dangerous that, say 4 fighters - the escort seen in the very first mission as adequate within a warzone - can't handle it?  Why do we want to give escort duties to the slowest member of the convoy, anyways?

Even a old Herc can be a threat if the pilot is good. ;)

Now, really, they can raid a military depot or anything to steal weapons, ships and supplies, they wouldnt get nothing top of the line but they would still get something.

On the vasudan reactors, you're right, but a combined effort by the GTVA could turn out a more deadly Aelous, something like a Aelous MK2.

So in the aftermath of a rebellion, the GTVA is going to leave its military supplies wide open for the equivalent of a dinghy to hop into and steal?

And if we're going onto Aeolus Mk.2 or whatever, aren't we entering into the tract of trying to build a corvette-in-all-but dimensions?  R&D isn't free or instant, is it?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 01:26:09 pm
Where does it show ingame that the GTVA intends to retire the cruiser class? Just that phrase that says ''the foundation of tomorrow's fleet'' doesnt mean its going to retire a whole class of cruiser. Canoncally, on the FS2 demo, a Aelous managed to take down a shivan cruiser, a shivan corvette and numerous fighter and bombers wings at the same time that it was protecting a convoy. Just that shows its a incredible warship.

The GTVA took severe losses to its fleets, it cant possibly hope to protect everywhere in an effective  manner and that includes its depots. On a black market, a bigger pirate band with enough money can easily acquire these ships, its not going to be everyone that can get their hands on millitary grade stuff, just the pirates with enough power.

By a Aelous MK.2, I meant to equip it with more better systems not remake it completely to a corvette size vessel.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 01:36:53 pm
It doesn't just say foundation of tomarrows fleet, it also says

Quote from: Deimos Tech Room
"As the Leviathan and Fenris cruisers of the Great War are gradually phased out, these corvettes will become the foundation of tomorrow's fleet."

also throughout the game, cruisers were mentioned continually as being inferior, shown to be easily destroyed, the Oberon is mentioned as being a decommissioned cruiser, and at the same time are mentioned as fufiling about the same position in the fleet:

Quote from: The Place of Chariots
...it can be just as vital as taking down a cruiser or corvette...

also they are shown in game as fufilling the same role, nearly every cruiser in the game (most of which a good player will never see because they jump in when a corvette is destroyed) is there to provide beam support.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 01:46:48 pm
It doesn't just say foundation of tomarrows fleet, it also says

Quote from: Deimos Tech Room
"As the Leviathan and Fenris cruisers of the Great War are gradually phased out, these corvettes will become the foundation of tomorrow's fleet."

also throughout the game, cruisers were mentioned continually as being inferior, shown to be easily destroyed, the Oberon is mentioned as being a decommissioned cruiser, and at the same time are mentioned as fufiling about the same position in the fleet:

Quote from: The Place of Chariots
...it can be just as vital as taking down a cruiser or corvette...

also they are shown in game as fufilling the same role, nearly every cruiser in the game (most of which a good player will never see because they jump in when a corvette is destroyed) is there to provide beam support.


...it can be just as vital as taking down a cruiser or corvette..., this also means a cruiser is a vital part of the fleet even now. The Leviathan and Fenris are being retired, the Oberon is a good example of this, but because every newer ships is better than they are and there is the newer cruisers to replace them.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 01:49:29 pm
No, all it means are that cruisers are still being used, not that they are making new ones
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 15, 2006, 01:55:29 pm
It would be even a greater burden for the GTVA to try and replace all of its cruisers (the remaining ones at least with corvettes. Why simpli because you must consider the value of the ship its crew and they wages the cost of suplying that ship with fuel food and whatever that thing needs. And when you think about such a ship guarding a meager remote depot or patroling some backwater sistem its pretty bad. This is a good way to bleed money from an already limited fund.

Instead you want cruisers for this job. Also when you have some very important transports gooing through a hot spot like Polaris or Regulus you dont just escort them with a single fighter wing.

Also when are they suposed to build at least 2 dozen corvettes?? remember they need a fas mobile weapons platform which is cheap versatile and deadly. And while the Deimos is pretty much all of these and more you must consider the costs of building them and building them fast enough and the actual crew complements which we all agree are rather limited. It simpli is not fesable especialy in the foloing year or so after Capella when you have your hands full with relocating refugees and improving the infrastructure etc to handle an adtitional 200+ milion refugees. These are the figures the majority of the people over here agreed that were evactuated.

So from mi pojnt of view Cruisers will be around for a long long while. And new classes will most definetly be introduced to replace the aging Fenathan.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 02:02:19 pm
I would assume there are already quite a number of Deimos corvettes completed or in the making (more than 2 dozen). It seems unlikely there are many shipyards equiped to make cruisers anymore, so realise that that is a likely cost for the cruisers as well. I'm not saying that the GTVA isn't going to keep using cruisers for a while, I'm saying that they are going to stop using cruisers as soon as they possibley can.

As for the crew, a cruiser probably has about 3,000 crew members whereas a corvette has 6,000, it seems like the cruiser would be cheaper, but the difference is the cruiser has 3,000 people who are likely going to die, along with their ship, and the corvette has 6,000 people who have a good chance of coming back in one peice

Where is your proof that they intend to introduce another cruiser to replace Fenathans, I see no evidence of that in your post.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 02:03:14 pm
No, all it means are that cruisers are still being used, not that they are making new ones

They're not making any new Leviathan, Fenris or Aten, because they have corvettes and they're now producing the Mentus and Aelous, the Aelous is a somewhat of a guess, even if the techroom describes it as a failure, ingame you can see that its used by the NTF and GTVA making it clear that there are more then 24 ships wich shows there must have been a second or even third production run.

3.000 people on a cruiser? No way, really, theres no such space on a cruiser to fit so many people.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 02:17:05 pm
Those cruisers are slightly smaller than a Nimitz class carrier which has a crew complement of 5,680

The tech room description makes it clear that 24 Aeolus's were made, not that they were all owned by the GTVA. So yeah, there were 24 Aeoli, and now there are, what 3?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 15, 2006, 02:19:16 pm
Actualy it says that by the time the NTF rebelion started there were 24 of them in service with production beeing halted about 1 year before if i remember corectly.

I fail to see the mortal danger in guarding a backwater station or sistem or a supply depot. Also how many times have we seen what underestimating the power of a warship does to you. the Aeouli is aside from its shivan counterpart by far the bet cruiser ever seen in the game.

I still dont get it why it is described as a failure?? Also how may times did corvettes had to have theyr arses bailed out by cruisers. Just because we see more cruisers taken down its because the enemy would tend to pick off the smaller targets in order to exploit weakneses or tactical advantages.

But the cruisers performed admirably. And lets not forget that wuite a few corvettes were lost in the NTF and GTVA-Shivan war. So i dont believe there are that many around. But i do agree that at least 6-12 of them would of been completed in most regards just not readdy to roll out of the production lines.

To produce some new class of cruiser would seem anly logical or at least improve on the existing Aeouli design.

also i dont believe that a shipyard is not able to switch production from one ship class to another in arelative short amount of time.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 02:23:35 pm
Those cruisers are slightly smaller than a Nimitz class carrier which has a crew complement of 5,680

The tech room description makes it clear that 24 Aeolus's were made, not that they were all owned by the GTVA. So yeah, there were 24 Aeoli, and now there are, what 3?

The GTVA must have (or already has) enough technology to allow far much less people to operate a cruiser, 3.000 are just way too much. Like AlphaOne said, with the losses on both wars, how many Deimos there were before and how many do you think there are now?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 02:34:37 pm
Actualy it says that by the time the NTF rebelion started there were 24 of them in service with production beeing halted about 1 year before if i remember corectly.

Quote from: Aeolus tech description
The GTC Aeolus is the first cruiser class ever produced by the RNI shipyards orbiting Laramis II. Only two dozen of these cruisers were put into service in GTVA fleets, with production ending in 2365. Allied Command assigns Aeolus-class ships primarily to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings, as these cruisers are severely out-gunned by most capital ships in service today. Their flak and AAA turrets serve as marvelous deterrents to smaller craft, however.

Which still leaves room for the NTF to have capture a number of them.


I fail to see the mortal danger in guarding a backwater station or sistem or a supply depot. Also how many times have we seen what underestimating the power of a warship does to you. the Aeouli is aside from its shivan counterpart by far the bet cruiser ever seen in the game.

The mortal danger apparently comes from these pirate wings you keep talking about: although my thought is that it wouldn't be a problem, and the GTVA just wants warships to fight Shivans again. Just because it is one of the best cruisers in the game doesn't make it worth it, because, as stated already, cruisers are being abadoned in favor of corvettes, thats why it's a failure, because it's a cruiser.

I still dont get it why it is described as a failure?? Also how may times did corvettes had to have theyr arses bailed out by cruisers. Just because we see more cruisers taken down its because the enemy would tend to pick off the smaller targets in order to exploit weakneses or tactical advantages.

Because it's a cruiser, and cruisers aren't that good anymore. How many times did corvettes get bailed by cruisers? None that I saw in the main camapgin, maybe you could reference a specific mission?

But the cruisers performed admirably. And lets not forget that wuite a few corvettes were lost in the NTF and GTVA-Shivan war. So i dont believe there are that many around. But i do agree that at least 6-12 of them would of been completed in most regards just not readdy to roll out of the production lines.

Cruisers are far easier to destroy than corvettes, even an Aeolus could fall prey to a few wings of bombers, whereas a corvette could shrug them off. Considering that 24 is considered a small production run I'd say there are far more corvettes than that left.

To produce some new class of cruiser would seem anly logical or at least improve on the existing Aeouli design.

Tell me WHY it's logical, your not backing any of this up.

also i dont believe that a shipyard is not able to switch production from one ship class to another in arelative short amount of time.

I agree, that's why I'm saying that cruisers would be more expensive than they're worth, because there'd be a need to refit all the shipyards to produce them.

The GTVA must have (or already has) enough technology to allow far much less people to operate a cruiser, 3.000 are just way too much. Like AlphaOne said, with the losses on both wars, how many Deimos there were before and how many do you think there are now?

So tell me why you think that, and while your at it tell me why it takes 10,000 people to operate a destroyer, or 30,000 to operate the Colossus. It is also canonical that t takes 6,000 to operate a corvette (from A Lion at the Door), I don't have a problem with it taking 3,000 people to operate a cruiser.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 15, 2006, 02:44:55 pm
TBH 3000 people in a cruiser seems a bit much... 1500-2000 would be my estimate.

The only cruiser who I can see carrying that kind of crew is the mentu. It seems to have more volume than any other cruiser.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 02:46:44 pm
You need 10.000 people on a destroyer because it serves not just as the main ship of a fleet but it has numerous fighter wings so a good part (at the very least a 1/3) of those people are pilots and personnel to support the fighters (technicians, etc).
 

quote from Mars:
Because it's a cruiser, and cruisers aren't that good anymore. How many times did corvettes get bailed by cruisers? None that I saw in the main camapgin, maybe you could reference a specific mission?
end quote.

quote from myself:
 Canoncally, on the FS2 demo, a Aelous managed to take down a shivan cruiser, a shivan corvette and numerous fighter and bombers wings at the same time that it was protecting a convoy. Just that shows its a incredible warship.
end quote.

Who says all GTVA shipyards are producing just corvettes? Theres no evidence to that.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 15, 2006, 02:47:10 pm
I nevre said anything about mortal danger from the pirates as far as i can remember.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 02:54:16 pm
TBH 3000 people in a cruiser seems a bit much... 1500-2000 would be my estimate.

The only cruiser who I can see carrying that kind of crew is the mentu. It seems to have more volume than any other cruiser.

I'm willing to go with that, although remember, Zods are bigger than humans, if only slightly, so that might factor into the Mentu's crew capacity

You need 10.000 people on a destroyer because it serves not just as the main ship of a fleet but it has numerous fighter wings so a good part (at the very least a 1/3) of those people are pilots and personnel to support the fighters (technicians, etc).

Yeah, but the Sobek has more people per meter in length preportionantly

Canoncally, on the FS2 demo, a Aelous managed to take down a shivan cruiser, a shivan corvette and numerous fighter and bombers wings at the same time that it was protecting a convoy. Just that shows its a incredible warship.

It took out a Rakshasa, not a corvette, every time I've played the demo, the Moloch nails the Adament. Actually I've saved it before, but that's cause I'm Alpha 1

Who says all GTVA shipyards are producing just corvettes? Theres no evidence to that.

Becase there is canon evidence the GTN is mothballing their cruisers.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 03:02:54 pm
Most of the time when I played the Aelous always took out both ships, really (actually this is one of my favorite missions and one of the best I've seen). The GTN is only mothballing its older cruisers. I didnt understand what you said with the Sobek.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 03:09:02 pm
Most of the time when I played the Aelous always took out both ships, really (actually this is one of my favorite missions and one of the best I've seen). The GTN is only mothballing its older cruisers.

Did you play the original demo or the port that was released a while ago? The port had a few changes, and I noticed the Adament survived much more often. That's one of my all time favorite missions too, I just always wished it was a little longer / more detailed.

I didnt understand what you said with the Sobek.

My point was the Sobek has a much denser crew size than either the Orion or Hecate or Colossus, and that that wasn't consistant with your theory the size of the crew for the Orion had to do with its fighterbay.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 03:18:06 pm
I played the original, wich port do you mean?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 03:20:27 pm
There was a capagin that let you play the demo in FSO. It's somwhere on the HLP forums still

Are you sure you didn't disable the beam cannons on the Moloch? Every time I played it the Aeolus was owned by the Moloch, it simpley doesn't have the armor or the firepower the Moloch does.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 03:27:19 pm
I've still have the original on a cd around here. A couple of times the Aelous did died but on most of them it killed the Moloch.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 03:46:36 pm
That never happened with me... somone else, did this happen to anyone else? The mission was made for the Aeolus to be destroyed so that the Psamtik could jump in and oblitherate the Moloch, and be very impressive doing it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Black Wolf on June 15, 2006, 04:19:42 pm
So tell me why you think that, and while your at it tell me why it takes 10,000 people to operate a destroyer, or 30,000 to operate the Colossus. It is also canonical that t takes 6,000 to operate a corvette (from A Lion at the Door), I don't have a problem with it taking 3,000 people to operate a cruiser.

It takes 10,000 Terrans to operate a Terran Destroyer and 6,000 vasudans to operate a Vasudan corvette. You could well be comparing Apples with Oranges here and not know it. The only semi consistent estimate we have is a vague length:Crew size ratio (From the Collossus Crew/Length being 3x the Hecate Crew/length. From that ration, at a cruiser size of approx 1/8th Destroyer length, it should have 1250 crewers, and a Deimos should have in the region of 3500 or so, which seems about right to me, especially as neither of these ships need to support fighters.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 15, 2006, 04:21:51 pm
I bet if you did that using turret numbers or something it'd turn out totally different, though........
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 15, 2006, 04:25:30 pm
3.500 for a corvette seems an appropiate number for the crew but I still guess more then a 1.000 is still a bit too much for a cruiser.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 04:38:16 pm
Naw 1,000 is fine for a cruiser, if it makes you any happier the only canon number I've heard was from the FS1 demo, (I think) and said that several DOZEN crewmembers died when the Orff went up. I doubt that number very much.

Anyway, this was taken immediately before the Adament was destroyed:
(http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3457/ohnevermind2nv.jpg)

It's just plain outgunned.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 15, 2006, 04:40:13 pm
well the numbers beeing vehiculated around here do look somewhat large. I mean i dont believe it takes 3000 crewmembers to operate a cruiser it seems rather much considering the level of advancement!

even of you have say 5 crewmen per turret which i dount to be the case since i dont really know what 5 cremen will be dooing there it still leaves a rather large amount of unacounted personell.

Lets asume 500 of them are maintenence personell while another 500 do whaever it is theyr dooing around a ship it still leaves a rather large amount of people just hanging around there for no good reason.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 15, 2006, 04:50:49 pm
well the numbers beeing vehiculated around here do look somewhat large. I mean i dont believe it takes 3000 crewmembers to operate a cruiser it seems rather much considering the level of advancement!

even of you have say 5 crewmen per turret which i dount to be the case since i dont really know what 5 cremen will be dooing there it still leaves a rather large amount of unacounted personell.

Lets asume 500 of them are maintenence personell while another 500 do whaever it is theyr dooing around a ship it still leaves a rather large amount of people just hanging around there for no good reason.

Then explain what are 6000 vasudans doing in a corvette.

Black Wolf, regarding Terran and Vasudan diferences, they are likely to be small.
And after all you compared the GTVA Colossus with an Hecate, not a GTA Colossus. :p
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 15, 2006, 04:56:53 pm
Umm where is it stated that 6000 crewmen are based in a vasudan corvette?

and if that is the the case :wtf: hat are they dooing around there bringig they families for fishing contests..??? I guess they would have a rather latge tank full of fish which would be theyr favorite past time...fishing...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 15, 2006, 04:58:26 pm
Umm where is it stated that 6000 crewmen are based in a vasudan corvette?

In the campaign, in "A Lion at the Door".
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 05:03:08 pm
I stated that back a while ago Alpha. If you lose the Dashor (I don't know how you could) then you get a debreifing talking about what a tradegy it is and how 6,000 people died.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 15, 2006, 05:37:16 pm
I still think someone at [V]was drunk or made a typo writing that debrief....

What the hell can 600 people be doing on that ship? It has 28 turrets (assuming 10 people per turret) = 280 personell
4 shifts of 500 people each = 2000.

What the hell can they possibly be doing in there? The only reason for that many people I can think of is that hte Dashor was evacuating some personell or for some reason was full (scientists and technical staff that built the meson bomb wanted to look at hte live test?)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 05:43:31 pm
However it is one of the ONLY canon numbers on ship crew size, and the only one on Vasudan crew size, therefore we must accept it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 15, 2006, 06:29:54 pm
Why do people always assume there will be loads of pirate fighters?  Where would they launch from?  How would they get military grade technology to threaten, say, a simple fighter escort wing?

And on other things, how do we know it's all that quicker to make a cruiser?  Are there still orbital shipyards, or will they not surely now all be setup for the supercedent Deimos (etc) class?   Also, to refer to an earlier comment, why are we comparing cruisers-to-corvette costs on a 1-to-1 basis?

I'm not. Dunno about everyone else. Basically, my answer invalidates the remainder of the questions. In the first paragraph. The GTVA's military, since its inception, has been designed for the purpose of combating the Shivans. There is no reason whatsoever to assume they're going to change that focus now.

Pure size dictates that it must be faster to build an Aeolus then a Deimos. An Aeolus consumes slightly less then half the space of a Demios. Less ship means less to assemble. Indeed, if you're trying to argue that the shipyards are all set up for the Deimos, well, that's actually a plus. You could fit a pair of Aeolus hulls into a slipway of Deimos dimensions. Shipyards aren't like assembly lines that need to be retooled. The basic limit on what a shipyard could build is the size of its slipways. Anything that can fit on the slipway can be built; you could build different ships back to back on the same slipway without a noticible loss of time.

The 1-to-1 cost comparison is perhaps silly, but the 1-to-1 time-to-service comparison I've made is not.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 15, 2006, 06:57:02 pm
However it is one of the ONLY canon numbers on ship crew size, and the only one on Vasudan crew size, therefore we must accept it.

No, I don't HAVE to accept anything mind you.... :D

There's canon and there's canon (questionable material). And while there's no denying that it was in the game I'm free to accept it with any degree of questionaing and reliability I want...especially this particular piece of data.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 15, 2006, 07:18:14 pm
Figured as much. Nice to see someone agrees that you can build diferent tipes of ships in the same shypyard without undegooing any sort of retooling at least not any major ones. I would imagine ina shipyard you have something like a universal toolhead wich is custom fitted with diferent tipes of stuff depending on the ship requirements.

Also I'm under the same impression either it must of been a tipo mistake or someone at V was absoluteli drunkwhen it wrote that number but still since its the only canon number given we have to take it into acount.

And yet e might not have to. Let me explain why:

1-st of all that ship must of been full packed with all sorts of milatary personell
2-nd if the numbers of people preasent on a single corvette is that large then we have ships like the Aquitane who should have at least 30.000 people.
3-rd I believe we all learned by know that V didnt really pay much atention to these kind of details unless they had some good reason to do so.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 07:30:40 pm
No, the ship would not be packed, if you put 6,000 scale Vasudan models next to the Sobek, they would take up very little space.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 15, 2006, 07:34:01 pm
Why would the Hecate have 30.000 people because a Corvette has 6000 people? By that logic, the Colossus "with enough space to house 12 lucifer class hulls" would need 120.000 (12*10.000) people because the Orion has 10.000.

Also if a Nimitz can house over 6000 people I'm pretty sure a vessel over double in length (not to mention width and height) could house 6000 people.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 15, 2006, 08:20:18 pm
Yes but we are talking about huge discrepanties in the number of people neded by each ship class.

I mean look at the Hecate several time larger wide taller etc. and it has a crew of just 10.000 ! I mean come on that thing has 150 spacecrafts those spacecrafts need engineers mechanics the works not to mention the rest of the personell. Also look at the sheer number of turrets that a destroyer has. I mean that thing would have to have something like at laest 5 times the numbers of a Sobek. something is of in these whole crew members numbers.

I mean even the colossus wich as you pointed out is huge compared to any oher GTVa vessel only uses what 3 times the number of crewmwmbers of a destroyer. And that thing is just packed full with turrets and fighters.

The number of crewmen on the Sobek is at lea in mi opinion way off. if it would of been something like 2000 or at a maximum of 3000 people then i would understand but this is just ridiculous.

Consider the level of sophistication on those things the automated sistems and stuff i do not blelieve they would just switch back to the old way like WW1 era warships where we have muh more crewmen on board the same classes of ships then we have during WW2 and afterwards.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 15, 2006, 08:52:11 pm
Yes but we are talking about huge discrepanties in the number of people neded by each ship class.

I mean look at the Hecate several time larger wide taller etc. and it has a crew of just 10.000 ! I mean come on that thing has 150 spacecrafts those spacecrafts need engineers mechanics the works not to mention the rest of the personell. Also look at the sheer number of turrets that a destroyer has. I mean that thing would have to have something like at laest 5 times the numbers of a Sobek. something is of in these whole crew members numbers.

I mean even the colossus wich as you pointed out is huge compared to any oher GTVa vessel only uses what 3 times the number of crewmwmbers of a destroyer. And that thing is just packed full with turrets and fighters.

The number of crewmen on the Sobek is at lea in mi opinion way off. if it would of been something like 2000 or at a maximum of 3000 people then i would understand but this is just ridiculous.

Consider the level of sophistication on those things the automated sistems and stuff i do not blelieve they would just switch back to the old way like WW1 era warships where we have muh more crewmen on board the same classes of ships then we have during WW2 and afterwards.

You miss the point. If the Colossus has 30.000 crew and the Orion 10.000 crew and nobody hardly disputes those facts, why should anyone dispute the Sobek of having 6000 crew (hell, its as canon as both of those previous numbers)? The crew numbers are not linear and seem to decrease in crew/volume as the size of the vessel increases.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 09:06:39 pm
Yeah, considering how empty the Orion is with 10,000, the Colossus must be really sparsely populated.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Polpolion on June 15, 2006, 09:19:50 pm
I'd say let's not get into the crew size debate again, but it looks like it's too late.

So I guess I'll join the fray too.


Keep in mind that we don't know how much people are required to man the power plant, all of the subsystems, cooks, and janitors. A ship is usually operating 24/7 for probably weeks at a time in between leaves, and assuming you only need 500 people for subsystems, 280 for turrets, say 10 for the bridge, 40 for cooks/ janitor type stuff. Three eight hour shifts a day, so, that is 2490 people. Crap. I pulled those numbers out of my butt too.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Pnakotus on June 15, 2006, 09:52:44 pm
While the Colossus is underpopulated, the habitable volume is significantly smaller than the full volume.  This is probably true of other ships too: there's no reason to think they're like Star Trek ships, where they've got windows in warp pylons and rooms inside fins.  This makes the low crew estimates a little easier to swallow, I think.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 10:01:06 pm
That's quite true, it hadn't even occured to me.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Polpolion on June 15, 2006, 11:06:05 pm
However it is one of the ONLY canon numbers on ship crew size, and the only one on Vasudan crew size, therefore we must accept it.

No, I don't HAVE to accept anything mind you.... :D

There's canon and there's canon (questionable material). And while there's no denying that it was in the game I'm free to accept it with any degree of questionaing and reliability I want...especially this particular piece of data.

Like the Maxims? :p

If :v: wrote it in and it got past all the testing and editing, then it is canon. No question about it. What you're doing is like saying Han Solo didn't get frozen in carbonite in The Empire Strikes Back

Everyone should just face the facts; there are approxamatly 6,000 Vasudans on a Sobek, 10,000 on an Orion, 30,000 on the Colossus, and so on. What does it matter that there are a few hundred/thousand less/more people on a ship than it seems?

Anyway, you all saw the collosuss cutscene, there was a scene with part of it was green. That was probably the fighter bay area and habitable crew area! those windows... are... umm...decorations
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 15, 2006, 11:15:24 pm
No there was a part where it showed the habitable area, it was aproximently 60% of the ship.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Pnakotus on June 16, 2006, 01:27:27 am
Looking at the Colossus and it's habitable area, it suggests there is litte or no access to the rear third, with engines and powerplants.  The middle third is the 'flight deck', housing it's x fighter wings and ground crew etc.  The lower engine seems to be just that, and there's a sizable habitable area in the 'head'.  The bits with the textured on gantries/girders seem to be Event Horizon style passageways.  It looks like the Vasudans just built the biggest powerplant they could, attached a huge fighterbay and support systems, and slapped a bridge on.  :)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 16, 2006, 01:22:42 pm
Easiest way to build I iship if you ask me. No more designing and preasebly testing fesabilaty of this and that just slap on a powerplant add a fighterbay and hull then atack a couple of weapons.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 16, 2006, 02:20:47 pm
And then act surprised when the ship blows up when hit by a dead fly who happened to take the nearest airvent.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 16, 2006, 02:47:52 pm
Now that would be.....umm nevermind. So in the end what would be the result of the questions regarding cruisers and theyr use and future existence in FS universe.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 16, 2006, 04:43:41 pm
You miss the point. If the Colossus has 30.000 crew and the Orion 10.000 crew and nobody hardly disputes those facts, why should anyone dispute the Sobek of having 6000 crew (hell, its as canon as both of those previous numbers)? The crew numbers are not linear and seem to decrease in crew/volume as the size of the vessel increases.

Becouse those numbers make more-or-less sense and have appeared SEVERAL times, thus meaning that the probability of mistake is nearly non-existant.



Quote
The sizzler
If [V] wrote it in and it got past all the testing and editing, then it is canon. No question about it. What you're doing is like saying Han Solo didn't get frozen in carbonite in The Empire Strikes Back

So if [V] wrote in one of the briefings that you have to rescue 4 transports, but only 3 appear in a mission that would not be a mistake but a cannon fact?

While the number 6000 has it's weight simply becouse it appears in a SINGLE debriefing (one that you're HIGHLY unlikely to see), you cannot deny that the number is strange to say the least. I have no proof that this is a mistake, but then again, to form a oppinion I don't need rock solid proof, just a strong indication of something.


Oh - people keep pulling out some carrier numbers. Here are a few exact one:
Carriers usualyl have 5000-6000 people on board and htey carry 80 fighters:

USS FORRESTAL  2900+2279 fligh crew
USS ENTERPRISE  3215+2480 flight crew
USS NIMITZ  3184+2800 flight crew

As you can see, the flight crew is pretty big. 10000 for a destroyer sounds acceptable - 150 craft compared to 80 of normal carrier would give you a number of 5000 fligh crew for a destroyer. The rest are tending the ship.*

So if a destroyer needs 5000 pople for the ship alone (not fighters) how the hell can a corvette require more?


*assumption made that the number of personell per craft remins the same, which highly likely.
 
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 16, 2006, 04:52:42 pm
Quote
The sizzler
If [V] wrote it in and it got past all the testing and editing, then it is canon. No question about it. What you're doing is like saying Han Solo didn't get frozen in carbonite in The Empire Strikes Back

So if [V] wrote in one of the briefings that you have to rescue 4 transports, but only 3 appear in a mission that would not be a mistake but a cannon fact?

No, but only because it is contradicted by explicit game events.

In the absence of a game event -such as a message (although even that is arguable) - contradicting the 6000 value, it remains firm canon.  You can't just chalk up everything you disagree with as non-canon by claiming 'oh, it could be a mistake'.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Polpolion on June 16, 2006, 05:20:18 pm
Quote
So if [V] wrote in one of the briefings that you have to rescue 4 transports, but only 3 appear in a mission that would not be a mistake but a cannon fact?

No, that would be a bug. And I don't think 6,000 Vasudens on a corvette is a bug.

EDIT: woop! Aldo_14 beat me. In fancier words, too!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 16, 2006, 06:26:25 pm
In the absence of a game event -such as a message (although even that is arguable) - contradicting the 6000 value, it remains firm canon.  You can't just chalk up everything you disagree with as non-canon by claiming 'oh, it could be a mistake'.

It's the probability of a mistake that bothers me here......
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Pnakotus on June 16, 2006, 09:09:46 pm
I think cruisers will continue to exist, because it'll always be cheaper and more efficient to built a warship without 120 fighters.  The corvettes are really just upsized cruisers, to fit a powerplant to run the beams they need to stay compeditive - if you wanted to make them carriers, you'd probably end up with something more destroyer size.  So there will always be ships that simply have big guns.  The Aeolus/Deimos example is informative, since they were built on similar tech bases.  The Aeolus isn't good enough and the Deimos is, so clearly fitting a cruiser with enough beams to be effective is beyond their powerplant tech.  I doubt they'll scrap the old cruisers, since they're pretty useful, and I think they'll have to design a Fenris-replacement (ie, 2-4AAA, 1 capbeam, a few guns) for picket work etc, but the Deimos is the standard 'warship' of the fleet.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 16, 2006, 09:26:40 pm
Well since we just get the 6000 figure only once and that only if you manage to somehow screw up the entire mission and fail it would be somewhat questionable. I can not say that it is a mistake but something seem off.

I mean come on a destroyer which is several times the volume of a corvette and has 150 spacecrafts in its hangars only needs a crew of 10.000 yet a corvette some 600 metteres long requires more then half that number. Come on. This is getting ridiculous. the numbers dont make any sence. Common logic ditates that something is not necesaryli right regarding that figure and to take it cannon simpli because its there is somewhat well.....idiotic from mi POW.

Sure people might say hey then lets start tearring FS apart because of all the things that dont make sence but i dont believe that is the case here.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 16, 2006, 09:33:24 pm
It may not make sense, it may well be a mistake, it way may well be simply ludicrous to abide by that piece of information. But it's what we're given, so we've got to adhere to it. If we just assumed that bit was just a 'mistake', then maybe the Sathani jumping out after Capella goes supernova was a mistake too, just a little bit of coolness added by the animators that [V] didn't want in there. It's only seen once and never mentioned in gameplay, so what's the problem with admitting it's simply a drunken mistake? What? That makes just as much sense as what you're proposing... :rolleyes:

Just live with it for chrissakes, it's not that big an issue!
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 16, 2006, 09:37:58 pm
Actuali it is because were talking about man power here and the need or rather lack of it in a post Capella era. See where i'm tring to go with this. If that number is corect and the debriefing which sais that 3 years worth of salaries from the crew of an Orion would actualy buy you one of those things.(well basicly thats what it sais the debriefing is diferent) Then it would be much cheaper economicly to just build larger warships like the colossus cuz in the long run it will be more economicly fesable. At least from a salary expence point of view.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 17, 2006, 06:01:42 am
And how much do pilots get paid compared to other crew members? 4000 people is still significant over 3 years.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mehrpack on June 17, 2006, 09:51:16 am
It may not make sense, it may well be a mistake, it way may well be simply ludicrous to abide by that piece of information. But it's what we're given, so we've got to adhere to it. If we just assumed that bit was just a 'mistake', then maybe the Sathani jumping out after Capella goes supernova was a mistake too, just a little bit of coolness added by the animators that [V] didn't want in there. It's only seen once and never mentioned in gameplay, so what's the problem with admitting it's simply a drunken mistake? What? That makes just as much sense as what you're proposing... :rolleyes:

Just live with it for chrissakes, it's not that big an issue!

hi,
i doesnt will yes or no over the 6000 crewmember on the sobek.
but thats can be a typo error.
there are nothing other informations and you can fast make a typing error.
if you take the numberpad for the number maybe he would hit the 3, but instead hit the 6.

i have often so errors too, and i dont see this errors sometimes.

what i will say it: its possible that the number is a typing error and he hit the wrong key, the 6 instead the 3.
but we will it never know.

Mehrpack
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 17, 2006, 01:21:00 pm
Yep! Could not of said it better mi self. Il stick to mi personal opinion that it is a mistake of some sort and that the number must be significantly lower then that.

Oh and so that i dont forget I have a question: Would it be fesable to mount a mixture of Kaisers and/or Maxims on a warship for pointdefense duties? I'm asking this because I believe that it may be a good adition to the AAAf defence screans on cruisers and larger warships not to mention freighters, gas miners, etc.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 01:43:43 pm
hi,
i doesnt will yes or no over the 6000 crewmember on the sobek.
but thats can be a typo error.
there are nothing other informations and you can fast make a typing error.
if you take the numberpad for the number maybe he would hit the 3, but instead hit the 6.

i have often so errors too, and i dont see this errors sometimes.

what i will say it: its possible that the number is a typing error and he hit the wrong key, the 6 instead the 3.
but we will it never know.

Mehrpack

Now why? If an Orion is so empty to have 10,000 (a number continuosly supported by canon fact) why is 6,000 so hard to belive, how do we know the larger part of the crew on an Orion works with fighters? Considering how many more fighters a Hecate has in comparision, if that were true that the majority of the crew works with fighters, the Hecate would have a bigger crew, but it doesn't

Yep! Could not of said it better mi self. Il stick to mi personal opinion that it is a mistake of some sort and that the number must be significantly lower then that.

Oh and so that i dont forget I have a question: Would it be fesable to mount a mixture of Kaisers and/or Maxims on a warship for pointdefense duties? I'm asking this because I believe that it may be a good adition to the AAAf defence screans on cruisers and larger warships not to mention freighters, gas miners, etc.

It may be feasible but it's rarely done, the Aten has two Subach turrets, the Mentu has one Subach turret, but other than that most warships mount warship cannons, however comparitively weak they may be.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 17, 2006, 02:06:20 pm
In the absence of a game event -such as a message (although even that is arguable) - contradicting the 6000 value, it remains firm canon.  You can't just chalk up everything you disagree with as non-canon by claiming 'oh, it could be a mistake'.

It's the probability of a mistake that bothers me here......

A probability you're inventing to satisfy yourself, it would seem.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 04:05:46 pm
Yep! Could not of said it better mi self. Il stick to mi personal opinion that it is a mistake of some sort and that the number must be significantly lower then that.

Oh and so that i dont forget I have a question: Would it be fesable to mount a mixture of Kaisers and/or Maxims on a warship for pointdefense duties? I'm asking this because I believe that it may be a good adition to the AAAf defence screans on cruisers and larger warships not to mention freighters, gas miners, etc.

Instead of that, the easiest way to add to the defence of warships would be to increase the rate of fire of those laser turrets, just look at that Revenge campaign, those things make your life hell if you try to strike a warship.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 17, 2006, 04:52:38 pm
It may not make sense, it may well be a mistake, it way may well be simply ludicrous to abide by that piece of information. But it's what we're given, so we've got to adhere to it. If we just assumed that bit was just a 'mistake', then maybe the Sathani jumping out after Capella goes supernova was a mistake too, just a little bit of coolness added by the animators that [V] didn't want in there. It's only seen once and never mentioned in gameplay, so what's the problem with admitting it's simply a drunken mistake? What? That makes just as much sense as what you're proposing... :rolleyes:

There's a big difference tehre. Tehre's nothing solid to go against the Sath part, but with crew numbers there is.

I want ot ask you something.. What if in hte debrief the number was 6000000? Would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 17, 2006, 04:57:54 pm
Now why? If an Orion is so empty to have 10,000 (a number continuosly supported by canon fact) why is 6,000 so hard to belive, how do we know the larger part of the crew on an Orion works with fighters? Considering how many more fighters a Hecate has in comparision, if that were true that the majority of the crew works with fighters, the Hecate would have a bigger crew, but it doesn't

Well, the Orion is a front-line destroyer that is more of a up-close and personal. Could be that becouse of it it has more repair crew (as it's more likely to get damaged than a Hecate). I really don't think [V] spared any thoughs on hte logic of ship crews and just typed in some numbers.

Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kosh on June 17, 2006, 05:00:42 pm
I can't believe this thread is still going.......
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mehrpack on June 17, 2006, 05:32:56 pm
Now why? If an Orion is so empty to have 10,000 (a number continuosly supported by canon fact) why is 6,000 so hard to belive, how do we know the larger part of the crew on an Orion works with fighters? Considering how many more fighters a Hecate has in comparision, if that were true that the majority of the crew works with fighters, the Hecate would have a bigger crew, but it doesn't
[...]

hi,
i doesnt say thats it hard to believe or that i believe the number.

the only thing that i say, thats possible this is maybe a typo.
not more and not less.

i think, if you make a discussion over so a number, you have to take a look to the fallibility of humans.

but if you ask me if i believe it?
dont know, i mean to say how many crewman a ship needed, we doesnt have really enought informations about the ships internals.
how big are the weapons, magazins, reactors, cooling system, tanks for fuel - water, store for food, quarters, stores for repairparts and so on.
maybe theres enaught room for 6000 people, maybe they need 6000, maybe not.
dont know it.

Mehrpack
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 05:59:51 pm
There's a big difference tehre. Tehre's nothing solid to go against the Sath part, but with crew numbers there is.

I want ot ask you something.. What if in hte debrief the number was 6000000? Would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?

But that's hardley belivable, whereas 6,000 if slightly higher or lower than expected, is well within reason

I can't believe this thread is still going.......

I can't either to be honest.

Now why? If an Orion is so empty to have 10,000 (a number continuosly supported by canon fact) why is 6,000 so hard to belive, how do we know the larger part of the crew on an Orion works with fighters? Considering how many more fighters a Hecate has in comparision, if that were true that the majority of the crew works with fighters, the Hecate would have a bigger crew, but it doesn't
[...]

hi,
i doesnt say thats it hard to believe or that i believe the number.

the only thing that i say, thats possible this is maybe a typo.
not more and not less.

i think, if you make a discussion over so a number, you have to take a look to the fallibility of humans.

but if you ask me if i believe it?
dont know, i mean to say how many crewman a ship needed, we doesnt have really enought informations about the ships internals.
how big are the weapons, magazins, reactors, cooling system, tanks for fuel - water, store for food, quarters, stores for repairparts and so on.
maybe theres enaught room for 6000 people, maybe they need 6000, maybe not.
dont know it.

Mehrpack

Yes, and considering that 6,000 is the canon number, I think we should go with that.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 17, 2006, 06:21:01 pm
But that's hardley belivable, whereas 6,000 if slightly higher or lower than expected, is well within reason

For you maby.. I find it on the very outmost possible edge of being within reason. 
When looking at a 700m ship and 6000 crew it is within reason, but wehn compared to other Fs2 ship it stands out painfully.

Quote
Yes, and considering that 6,000 is the canon number, I think we should go with that.

So you go boy. Nobody is stoping you. I'm taking the right not to.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 17, 2006, 06:21:25 pm
It may not make sense, it may well be a mistake, it way may well be simply ludicrous to abide by that piece of information. But it's what we're given, so we've got to adhere to it. If we just assumed that bit was just a 'mistake', then maybe the Sathani jumping out after Capella goes supernova was a mistake too, just a little bit of coolness added by the animators that [V] didn't want in there. It's only seen once and never mentioned in gameplay, so what's the problem with admitting it's simply a drunken mistake? What? That makes just as much sense as what you're proposing... :rolleyes:

There's a big difference tehre. Tehre's nothing solid to go against the Sath part, but with crew numbers there is.

I want ot ask you something.. What if in hte debrief the number was 6000000? Would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?

What if it was 1000, would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 06:26:39 pm
Trashman, why don't you just make your own Freespace game where all of the ships have giant beam cannons 50 crewmembers? I personally like the game the way it is, and if I ever manage to FRED decently, I plan to stick, as much as possible, to canon information. You can do whatever you want, however, it is a FACT, that 6,000 is the canon number for the number of Vasudans on a Sobek, deal with it however you like.

(I'm not kidding BTW, we need more total conversions.)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 17, 2006, 06:40:28 pm
What if it was 1000, would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?

Nope. A good debate never hurts and all the prons and cons could be weighed and the possibiltiy of a mistake asessed. 1000 also sound a bit off, alltough I find it more probable than 6000.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 17, 2006, 06:45:33 pm
What if it was 1000, would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?

Nope. A good debate never hurts and all the prons and cons could be weighed and the possibiltiy of a mistake asessed. 1000 also sound a bit off, alltough I find it more probable than 6000.

I don't, ergo it must be a mistake.

Que pas?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: CP5670 on June 17, 2006, 06:47:24 pm
This thread is awesome. I should have looked in here much earlier. :D

Is this about the Sobek 6000 thing? One of my missions actually requires this number to make sense and after thinking about it for a while, I eventually decided to go with 1000 in that. If anyone objects, I can make up some reason why that particular Sobek has fewer zods than all the others. It all works out nicely. :D
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 06:53:17 pm
Just explain to me why 6,000 doesn't make sense. It shouldn't need that many in FS2's day and age? Maybe the systems are more complex. It isn't consistant with other crew numbers. Well of course not it's a Vasudan ship. I see no possible reason why it shouldn't make sense.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 17, 2006, 06:57:39 pm
Just explain to me why 6,000 doesn't make sense. It shouldn't need that many in FS2's day and age? Maybe the systems are more complex. It isn't consistant with other crew numbers. Well of course not it's a Vasudan ship. I see no possible reason why it shouldn't make sense.

Because it'd strongly indicate that destroyers don't have vastly large crews due to fighter support, and that'd royally screw up Trashmans entire justification (no fighters, no crew, can be loaded with stuff) for the uber-battleship class he usually punts in these types of discussion.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 17, 2006, 06:59:02 pm
Well like the guis said its your mission and posibly your campaign so you can do whatever you want with it. You can even have zods and sjivans having a picnic with the main course beeing fish and human brains . Also I alwais considered that the AAAF defences were centered too much around large powerfull weapons. I mean if missile launchers are that hungry for space then by all means just go with a maxim and a circe or dual kaisers. I'm actualy tring to work on a ship about 1,6 km long . It uses around 15 dual turrets. (maxims coupled with some good shield depleting weapong). they ae used for keeping fighters at bay and for protection against bommbers. But it also has 5 AAAf beams 6 flack's and 8 misile launchers. Coupled this with 3 beam cannons and a 90 spacecraft fighterbay.

At least that is what I inted to do but then agin i bareli managed to get a rough shape of it's frons portion let alone the whole ship.

Yeah I know its offtopic just wanted to brag. :D

Man i really must be more carefull this post is for CP5670
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 07:03:27 pm
Because it'd strongly indicate that destroyers don't have vastly large crews due to fighter support, and that'd royally screw up Trashmans entire justification (no fighters, no crew, can be loaded with stuff) for the uber-battleship class he usually punts in these types of discussion.

Ah, I knew it was somthing like that.

Well like the guis said its your mission and posibly your campaign so you can do whatever you want with it. You can even have zods and sjivans having a picnic with the main course beeing fish and human brains . Also I alwais considered that the AAAF defences were centered too much around large powerfull weapons. I mean if missile launchers are that hungry for space then by all means just go with a maxim and a circe or dual kaisers. I'm actualy tring to work on a ship about 1,6 km long . It uses around 15 dual turrets. (maxims coupled with some good shield depleting weapong). they ae used for keeping fighters at bay and for protection against bommbers. But it also has 5 AAAf beams 6 flack's and 8 misile launchers. Coupled this with 3 beam cannons and a 90 spacecraft fighterbay.

At least that is what I inted to do but then agin i bareli managed to get a rough shape of it's frons portion let alone the whole ship.

Yeah I know its offtopic just wanted to brag. :D

Man i really must be more carefull this post is for CP5670

You can do whatever you want in your mission, as long as you don't expect it to be taken as gosple as the saying goes.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: CP5670 on June 17, 2006, 07:14:06 pm
Exactly. It is a fanmade mission after all, which can't be considered canon anyway.

Without giving away too many details, I basically need a certain percentage of them to die in a short amount of time, and unless some of them are using wallhacks, the casualty numbers come out looking much more believable with 1000.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Black Wolf on June 17, 2006, 07:17:57 pm
Exactly. It is a fanmade mission after all, which can't be considered canon anyway.

Without giving away too many details, I basically need a certain percentage of them to die in a short amount of time, and unless some of them are using wallhacks, the casualty numbers come out looking much more believable with 1000.

50% Chance Radiation, 30% Chance Virus, 10% chance Vasudan Halflife
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 17, 2006, 07:38:16 pm
I want ot ask you something.. What if in hte debrief the number was 6000000? Would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?

Yes.

It's canonical. Canon trumps all. it really is that simple, if you're making something claiming to be Freespace.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 08:14:27 pm
Well like the guis said its your mission and posibly your campaign so you can do whatever you want with it. You can even have zods and sjivans having a picnic with the main course beeing fish and human brains . Also I alwais considered that the AAAF defences were centered too much around large powerfull weapons. I mean if missile launchers are that hungry for space then by all means just go with a maxim and a circe or dual kaisers. I'm actualy tring to work on a ship about 1,6 km long . It uses around 15 dual turrets. (maxims coupled with some good shield depleting weapong). they ae used for keeping fighters at bay and for protection against bommbers. But it also has 5 AAAf beams 6 flack's and 8 misile launchers. Coupled this with 3 beam cannons and a 90 spacecraft fighterbay.

At least that is what I inted to do but then agin i bareli managed to get a rough shape of it's frons portion let alone the whole ship.

Yeah I know its offtopic just wanted to brag. :D

Man i really must be more carefull this post is for CP5670


AlphaOne, what kind of ship is that? A destroyer?

Well, about that 6000 number, everyone can chose to believe if its canon or not, I personally believe its not but if I saw a good explanation to it I would change my mind, in the end its you who's going to choose. ::) Now can we just go back to talking about cruisers? :P

I think they're going to be around and that the GTVA wont even retire the class because its still the basis of it fleets and higly useful.

Really didnt meant to offend anyone.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 08:18:38 pm
I don't think anyone was offended, I was just getting tired of arguing over somthing so... pointless.

Haven't we been over the cruiser thing?  I personally think they're being phased out (at least for now) but that they might make a comback  later.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 08:27:31 pm
I don't think anyone was offended, I was just getting tired of arguing over somthing so... pointless.

Haven't we been over the cruiser thing?  I personally think they're being phased out (at least for now) but that they might make a comback  later.

Comeback later as what?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 08:35:04 pm
As in they'll find a new use for the form factor, later on, maybe when they have better reactors.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Polpolion on June 17, 2006, 08:37:24 pm
It may not make sense, it may well be a mistake, it way may well be simply ludicrous to abide by that piece of information. But it's what we're given, so we've got to adhere to it. If we just assumed that bit was just a 'mistake', then maybe the Sathani jumping out after Capella goes supernova was a mistake too, just a little bit of coolness added by the animators that [V] didn't want in there. It's only seen once and never mentioned in gameplay, so what's the problem with admitting it's simply a drunken mistake? What? That makes just as much sense as what you're proposing... :rolleyes:

There's a big difference tehre. Tehre's nothing solid to go against the Sath part, but with crew numbers there is.

I want ot ask you something.. What if in hte debrief the number was 6000000? Would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?


You're playing the 'what if' game. I can do that to. What if you didn't try changing canon facts into something completely different, just because you didn't like them. If you don't like canon FS2 things then don't play FS2.

Anyway, state the SOLID EVIDINCE that there is not approxamatly 6000 zods on a Sobek. I'm curious.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Pnakotus on June 17, 2006, 08:46:33 pm
I want ot ask you something.. What if in hte debrief the number was 6000000? Would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?

Yes.

It's canonical. Canon trumps all. it really is that simple, if you're making something claiming to be Freespace.

This is inane.  If the canon says Earth is red or the Orion is the biggest ship in the game, it's WRONG.  Of course, in this case we have only speculation and I have no problem with accepting the number.  Simply saying 'lolz canon is teh rightzor allah time' is bollocks.

Really, I think the issue is size and not capability.  Corvettes are nearly destroyers-without-fighterbays, but are much, much smaller.  4,000 extra guys isn't too strange for the destroyer fighterwing, but it seems wrong to us because an Orion is many times larger than a corvette.  The Sobek is pretty damn small, but without contrary evidence we can't really just ignore it.  Unless someone wants to scale it and reveal it would be physically impossible to fit 6000 men in there or something.  :)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 08:49:26 pm
I think that from now (post Capella) cruisers will have these 4 roles: Anti-fighter plataform, strategic assault, guerrilha warfare and guard duties.


I want ot ask you something.. What if in hte debrief the number was 6000000? Would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?

Yes.

It's canonical. Canon trumps all. it really is that simple, if you're making something claiming to be Freespace.

This is inane.  If the canon says Earth is red or the Orion is the biggest ship in the game, it's WRONG.  Of course, in this case we have only speculation and I have no problem with accepting the number.  Simply saying 'lolz canon is teh rightzor allah time' is bollocks.

Really, I think the issue is size and not capability.  Corvettes are nearly destroyers-without-fighterbays, but are much, much smaller.  4,000 extra guys isn't too strange for the destroyer fighterwing, but it seems wrong to us because an Orion is many times larger than a corvette.  The Sobek is pretty damn small, but without contrary evidence we can't really just ignore it.  Unless someone wants to scale it and reveal it would be physically impossible to fit 6000 men in there or something.  :)

Actually just take a existing ship (navy or anything) that is about the same size of a Sobek and see if it fits so many people.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 08:53:02 pm
This is inane.  If the canon says Earth is red or the Orion is the biggest ship in the game, it's WRONG.  Of course, in this case we have only speculation and I have no problem with accepting the number.  Simply saying 'lolz canon is teh rightzor allah time' is bollocks.

Really, I think the issue is size and not capability.  Corvettes are nearly destroyers-without-fighterbays, but are much, much smaller.  4,000 extra guys isn't too strange for the destroyer fighterwing, but it seems wrong to us because an Orion is many times larger than a corvette.  The Sobek is pretty damn small, but without contrary evidence we can't really just ignore it.  Unless someone wants to scale it and reveal it would be physically impossible to fit 6000 men in there or something.  :)

First of all, canon is not inane, because if it isn't canon, it can't be considered part of the Freespace universe. Also, like I've said previously, if 5,000 people can fit on a Nimitz, surely 6,000 Vasudans will be able to fit on somthing more than 2X its size.

I think that from now (post Capella) cruisers will have these 4 roles: Anti-fighter plataform, strategic assault, guerrilha warfare and guard duties.

Right after Capella cruisers are largely useless, there's probably few of them left (considering the majority have been through 3 wars by now) and the corvette  has displaced them in all of those abilities. Probably the cruisers will stick around until the FS economy has recovered, and then will be scrapped soon therafter. I think they will come back, and do somthing, but not as things are post Capella. I think in the post Capella era light cruiser or gunboat type ships might come into play, warships with absolutely no anti-capital armament, making them cheaper, but with flak guns and AAA.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mefustae on June 17, 2006, 09:04:13 pm
This is inane.  If the canon says Earth is red or the Orion is the biggest ship in the game, it's WRONG.  Of course, in this case we have only speculation and I have no problem with accepting the number.  Simply saying 'lolz canon is teh rightzor allah time' is bollocks.
Irrelevant. While you seem to think a corvette staffed by 6000 is as outlandish as 'The Earth is Red' or some such crap, go right ahead. But we're not talking about something that is contradicted by ingame event or common fact. Hell, it's not even contradicted at all! Why you compare it to easily contradicted facts i'll never know, but doing so is and forever shall be completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Really, I think the issue is size and not capability.  Corvettes are nearly destroyers-without-fighterbays, but are much, much smaller.  4,000 extra guys isn't too strange for the destroyer fighterwing, but it seems wrong to us because an Orion is many times larger than a corvette.  The Sobek is pretty damn small, but without contrary evidence we can't really just ignore it.  Unless someone wants to scale it and reveal it would be physically impossible to fit 6000 men in there or something.  :)
If you seem so sure of yourself, get 6000 scale-model Vasudans and whack 'em into the Sobek to see if they fit. Go on, do it. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

On a side note, are we told how many Vasudans are present in a Hatshepsut? I only ask as it seems rather off to compare a 10,000-strong Orion compliment, a completely Terran vessel, to a completely Vasudan vessel that may be constructed in an utterly different manner. I mean, we've seen Shivan architecture to be decidedly alien, so is it such a stretch to assume that Vasudan architecture may be sufficiently different from Terran architecture as we know it that it could explain what some would deem a ludicrous compliment figure?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 09:09:58 pm
Yeah, I thought of that, the problem is, there's no canon data on any Vasudan warship besides the Sobek and the Colossus, which is only part Vasudan and we don't even know if there are any Vasudans in it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 09:10:41 pm
Well, a light cruiser with 5 anti-fighter beams, 5 flak turrets and 2 or 3 missile launchers would be something deadly to small craft, there was this campaign, the Titan Rebellion, I think, that it had 2 Aelous completely armed with anti-fighter beams and the other with flaks, I never saw something crush two wings of fighters so fast.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 09:15:04 pm
I'm thinking of somthing maybe 150m long and maybe 2 AAA turrets and 4 flak guns, maybe with a rockeye launcher thrown in
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 09:23:38 pm
I think that a ship for this role would have to be able to cover most directions, a good example its the 4 AAA beams of the Leviathan, so were would those turrets be?Although I would add another AAA beam and 150m seems a good size.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 09:25:07 pm
I was thinking a pretty flat design with the turrets spread evenly along the sides.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 09:28:19 pm
Something flat like the Mentu so to speak?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 09:32:29 pm
Yeah, but with better turret placement / weapons choice.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 09:34:34 pm
Its terran, vasudan or both?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 09:37:54 pm
I think the Terrans were the ones to take the biggest economic hit, so I'll give it to them.

Not that I know how I'm gonna make this, but it's summer, I'll give it a shot.

Funny how this went from a possible future of cruisers disscussion to a hypothetical mod, oh well, maybe it's time to officially retire this thread.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 09:49:22 pm
Well, I think there's nothing more to discuss so I agree.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Kernal on June 17, 2006, 10:03:06 pm
Before we close this one. Going back to how many crewmembers on a freespace ship. Didn`t the stargate ship.... I want to say Pegusos, Have only about 30 crew members? Wasn`t it the size of a cruiser? I find it a little strange a freespace cruiser with a Thousand crew.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 17, 2006, 10:08:53 pm
The Prometheus or X-303 had a crew compliment of over 115, but could be piloted by one, so I don't really think that that's a valid argument. It was from a completely different universe, and I wouldn't take anything from one to another, don't try comparing a Sathanas and a Star Destroyer, it's like comparing apples and artichokes.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Polpolion on June 17, 2006, 10:29:43 pm
Slap twin AAAs, some engiens, and a remote control/robotics thingomabober and you've got an easily mass producable anti-fighter crap wagon. I'm not sure if these would cost more than a fighter, but you could certanly build them faster (no need to train/hire piolts, but it dosen't look like the GTVA has a shortage of those.).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 17, 2006, 11:58:14 pm
Slap twin AAAs, some engiens, and a remote control/robotics thingomabober and you've got an easily mass producable anti-fighter crap wagon. I'm not sure if these would cost more than a fighter, but you could certanly build them faster (no need to train/hire piolts, but it dosen't look like the GTVA has a shortage of those.).

Even better, built a fighter with twin AAAs, some good armor and real speed because the real strength of the GTVA is its fighter pilots.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 18, 2006, 01:21:22 am
This is inane.  If the canon says Earth is red or the Orion is the biggest ship in the game, it's WRONG.  Of course, in this case we have only speculation and I have no problem with accepting the number.  Simply saying 'lolz canon is teh rightzor allah time' is bollocks.

Hardly. It's canonical. There's a reason why it's called canon, you know. For better or worse that's God's (or :V:'s) truth so far as FS is concerned. Anything else, even if widely accepted, doesn't carry the same weight. They could say Earth was red, and that would mean Earth was red in FS, if they wanted to do that. That's why it's science fiction.

I have this sneaky suspicion that corvettes, intended to be the main offensive platforms of the GTVA (and with their surprising resiliency) are delibrately overcrewed. Extra replacement crew members for combat casualities and extra damage control people.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fragrag on June 18, 2006, 07:19:57 am
I think it's possible to fit 6000 people on a Sobek, but just how many Vasudans are needed to man it? That's the real question I think
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 18, 2006, 08:35:12 am
I think it's possible to fit 6000 people on a Sobek, but just how many Vasudans are needed to man it? That's the real question I think

The game says: it says 6,000 Vasudans man it typically  :D
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mehrpack on June 18, 2006, 08:55:40 am
hi,
to post capella cruisers.

a insane idea: why put not 2 fenris/levitans together use duct tape and you have a new small cruiser for low cost :D.

Mehrpack
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 18, 2006, 08:57:55 am
I want ot ask you something.. What if in hte debrief the number was 6000000? Would you still want us to blindly cling to it WITHOUT QUESTIONING It?

Yes.

It's canonical. Canon trumps all. it really is that simple, if you're making something claiming to be Freespace.

This is inane.  If the canon says Earth is red or the Orion is the biggest ship in the game, it's WRONG.  Of course, in this case we have only speculation and I have no problem with accepting the number.  Simply saying 'lolz canon is teh rightzor allah time' is bollocks.

Really, I think the issue is size and not capability.  Corvettes are nearly destroyers-without-fighterbays, but are much, much smaller.  4,000 extra guys isn't too strange for the destroyer fighterwing, but it seems wrong to us because an Orion is many times larger than a corvette.  The Sobek is pretty damn small, but without contrary evidence we can't really just ignore it.  Unless someone wants to scale it and reveal it would be physically impossible to fit 6000 men in there or something.  :)

Stop picking stawman arguements, you just look inane.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 18, 2006, 01:19:30 pm
hi,
to post capella cruisers.

a insane idea: why put not 2 fenris/levitans together use duct tape and you have a new small cruiser for low cost :D.

Mehrpack

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Black Wolf on June 18, 2006, 01:34:11 pm
I'm thinking of somthing maybe 150m long and maybe 2 AAA turrets and 4 flak guns, maybe with a rockeye launcher thrown in

We have something very similar in TI - the Harpy Gunship. It's about 85m long, 3 AAAf, 2 Flak launchers and a pair of blob turrets (I think they're prometheus S). There are pics of the HTL model on the forum (http://www.sectorgame.com/forum) at the moment.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 18, 2006, 01:38:53 pm
I'm thinking of somthing maybe 150m long and maybe 2 AAA turrets and 4 flak guns, maybe with a rockeye launcher thrown in

We have something very similar in TI - the Harpy Gunship. It's about 85m long, 3 AAAf, 2 Flak launchers and a pair of blob turrets (I think they're prometheus S). There are pics of the HTL model on the forum (http://www.sectorgame.com/forum) at the moment.


Just saw the ship, its impressive  :yes:. A side question, has no one tried to make the laser turrets fire faster on the main campaign, something like on Revenge?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mehrpack on June 18, 2006, 02:23:03 pm

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

hi,
 :D
ok i write it really funny, but that was serious.

i had think about it a few months ago and i remember me that in Star Trek Deep Space 9 the federation use parts of destoryed or old ships and put they together to new recyeled ships.

and i have think: why not a levithan/fenris.

the model is good to put them together and with little modification you have for low coast and low resource a new stronger ship, they can refill the holes in the fleet for keep police action and repacify the sectors of the NTF.

Mehrpack
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Sarafan on June 18, 2006, 02:40:31 pm
It would be better to build more Aelous cruisers since they're overall better, the remaining Fenris and Leviathan could be just on the idea that AlphaOne gave, as modified transports.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 18, 2006, 04:48:27 pm
Just explain to me why 6,000 doesn't make sense. It shouldn't need that many in FS2's day and age? Maybe the systems are more complex. It isn't consistant with other crew numbers. Well of course not it's a Vasudan ship. I see no possible reason why it shouldn't make sense.

Because it'd strongly indicate that destroyers don't have vastly large crews due to fighter support, and that'd royally screw up Trashmans entire justification (no fighters, no crew, can be loaded with stuff) for the uber-battleship class he usually punts in these types of discussion.

Suggest whatever you want. If it doesn't make sense then it doesn't make sense. And all your suggestions won't give a even a microscopic bit more.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 18, 2006, 04:53:18 pm
Suggest whatever you want. If it doesn't make sense then it doesn't make sense. And all your suggestions won't give a even a microscopic bit more.

Give a even a microscopic bit more?

Strangely, you're the one saying 'it doesn't make sense' with absolutely no backup to that.  I, however, can always point out that it's part of the game and written by people who did know what made sense, and that it's more likely their best value for a corvette crew rather than, say, someone having a bizarre fit that resulted in them writing all the FS2 debriefings.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 19, 2006, 02:28:51 am
Well I agree while cruisers are severely outgunned and outperformed as warships by the corvettes they are however at laest for the time an important part in the GTVA fleets. On the Other hand to simply retire such a class would be even more stupid then retiring the Orion or begining to retire the Orion with no ship to fill its shoes. At least not one as powerfull as the Orion.

I think the Aeoulous in one form or another will be around for at least another decade if not replaced by a joint endevour of the GTVA to create a better cruiser class.

As for the whole 6000 crewmne on a Sobek while i still find it very very very hard to accept it even if cannon I do not believe that is the actual number of zods it requires to actuali function. Remember that they work in shifts so you mai have like 3 shifts or something like that.

But still the number is outrageus.

also regarding the ship spec i gave I wanted to make it into sort of a smaller destroyer with a smaller fighterbay obviusly then normal ones but with increased speed manouverabilaty and HP.

If you think its insane just look at the Deimos its less then half the size of a destroyer yet has 80% of a Hecates HP.

Basicly the ship sacrificed some of its beam cannons and fighterbay in order to be able to manouver faster travel faster and have higher HP. I dont know if this cand actualy be one but i'm feeling optimistic. I mean it has to have at least 130.000 HP like the Hatshepsut yet it has about half its fighterbay size yet be more manouverable and faster then a Hatshepsut. I was thinking something like 70% Vasudan 30% terran. A joint endeavour.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 19, 2006, 02:59:16 am
Why is it outrageous?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 19, 2006, 03:24:01 am
Well I simply cant agree with that number it just seems and is huge for the level of sophistication available if FS2. I mean what do all those zods do ther man every hatch valce and nutbolt on that ship??
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 19, 2006, 04:28:49 am
Well I simply cant agree with that number it just seems and is huge for the level of sophistication available if FS2. I mean what do all those zods do ther man every hatch valce and nutbolt on that ship??

The 'level of sophistication'?  We haven't actually seen this, have we?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 19, 2006, 04:36:04 am
Especially considering that modern jet fighters move faster than the fighters in Freespace, as well as the fact that a fighter has to be manually welded together by a person instead of a robot (see FS1 mainhalls). Really I'd have to say that 6,000 is not at all suprising
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 19, 2006, 04:53:32 am
I just gotta jump in here,
This is not a counter arguement to anyone i'm just trying to lay down as many different job roles as i can think of. For a destroyer (arguements sake)

C+C Staff
Admiral
#2
command staff numbering 20-25
say 60 direct subordinates split into teams each dealing with a set role. IE
Flight
Weapons,
Nav
Marine contingent
Catering
Flight Crew
C+C Fighter group contingent
Logistics (quatermaster stores etc)
Normal Grease monkeys
Enoneering
Counsellors
Medical
Fighter Maintenance
Electricians
Software techs
Black Ops
Dispatch Runners (Admirals use em all the time)
Bar Staff (In FS Ref the Repulse had at least one bar)
Officers bar
Junior Officers club
Physio / Gym /Training Hall
Administartion staff
Communications - in/ship
Comms Inter-Ship
Core maintenance (I assume fusion pile generators need specialists)
Trade specific specialists
Training simulator techs?
Gunnery
Ordonance recovery/EOD

Oh yeah pilots  :D
I have no idea how many titles i just put down, but each role would need shift as mentioned earlier. As well as some sort of control structure within that job-tree and a unified structure to co-ordinate them all..
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fragrag on June 19, 2006, 09:02:51 am
I think it's possible to fit 6000 people on a Sobek, but just how many Vasudans are needed to man it? That's the real question I think

The game says: it says 6,000 Vasudans man it typically  :D

Really? Must have skipped it
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 19, 2006, 09:15:32 am
I think it's possible to fit 6000 people on a Sobek, but just how many Vasudans are needed to man it? That's the real question I think

The game says: it says 6,000 Vasudans man it typically  :D

Really? Must have skipped it

It's in a fail debrief if the Sobek is destroyed in Lion at the Door.  It's actually repeated twice (6,000 as the Sobek alone, 16,000 if both it and the Carthage are destroyed).
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 19, 2006, 09:17:16 am
H'wat class is the crathage again?  FS2 vanilla, its been sooooooooooo long...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 19, 2006, 10:03:04 am
I think Deimos.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 19, 2006, 10:06:34 am
I reckon a Deimos could fit ten thousand people on various roles, with alternating shifts.
Although the Mission where the NTD REpulse tries to penetrate rams teh colossussousus. and it <shifty quote>"clears decks eight hundred through twelve undred" is a bit OTT but its canon pure so im in no position to argue.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 19, 2006, 10:18:48 am
GTD Carthage - Orion class.  10,000 for the Orion has multiple confirmations in the game, and I think also in FS1.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 19, 2006, 10:21:39 am
I knew 10k was an orion standard, but as i said Vanilla FS2 and tech entries its been far too long. In any case did anyone notice my earlier post with job roles, how accurate an estimation do you guys think that is, any others to add?

-support ship pilor (suicide squad)
-Media / PR officers
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 19, 2006, 10:24:50 am
Well cant really say what that was all about i mean that is one hell of a loat of decks to clear ina matter of virtualy seconds.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 19, 2006, 10:28:16 am
Orions aint the speediest of ships, and the Repulse probably had a  woman "driver" anyway  ;7
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 19, 2006, 10:40:10 am
Well cant really say what that was all about i mean that is one hell of a loat of decks to clear ina matter of virtualy seconds.

No-one said they cleared them.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 19, 2006, 10:44:07 am
Actualy it was Koth i think was his name that gave the orders on that Orion. Regardless the women driver issues still stands. Hi might of told her "Full spead ahead lets get past them " whyle she was alike "Oh oki full stop guis. Full power to forward thrusters lets stop this wideass lady" While Koth was like "What are you imbecil dooing I said full spaed ahead not full stop" "But sir there that big ass mtf. in front of us..oh wait il try and go under it" "Noooooooooo were gooing to ram that thing" "Oh well might as well go down with a cool line like I'm taking that abomination down or something. Serves me right for picking a women to do the driving" ! :P
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 19, 2006, 10:46:05 am
My wifes the same on the way back from work, "Bloody congestion charge"
I keep telling her, A merc wont beat a double decker bus, but does she listen, NOoooooooooooo.....
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mehrpack on June 19, 2006, 11:15:43 am
It would be better to build more Aelous cruisers since they're overall better, the remaining Fenris and Leviathan could be just on the idea that AlphaOne gave, as modified transports.

hi,
yeah they are better, but they need more resource and more time.

i think so a recyling is alot faster and encumbered not so much the resource of the GTVA.
maybe after a year or so you can send that ship finaly to the scrapyards, but in this time they do maybe a good job.

Mehrpack
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 19, 2006, 11:17:04 am
Actualy it was Koth i think was his name that gave the orders on that Orion. Regardless the women driver issues still stands. Hi might of told her "Full spead ahead lets get past them " whyle she was alike "Oh oki full stop guis. Full power to forward thrusters lets stop this wideass lady" While Koth was like "What are you imbecil dooing I said full spaed ahead not full stop" "But sir there that big ass mtf. in front of us..oh wait il try and go under it" "Noooooooooo were gooing to ram that thing" "Oh well might as well go down with a cool line like I'm taking that abomination down or something. Serves me right for picking a women to do the driving" ! :P

eh?

The Colossus commander orders his crew to clear a number of decks (not Koth in the Repulse); more importantly, that doesn't mean they did evacuate, just that they were trying to.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 19, 2006, 01:50:51 pm
I think Deimos.

No wonder you all think that corvettes are overcrewed.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 19, 2006, 03:41:43 pm
Give a even a microscopic bit more?

Strangely, you're the one saying 'it doesn't make sense' with absolutely no backup to that.  I, however, can always point out that it's part of the game and written by people who did know what made sense, and that it's more likely their best value for a corvette crew rather than, say, someone having a bizarre fit that resulted in them writing all the FS2 debriefings.

I did give a backup - insanely large crew numbers when compared to other FS2 ships. Deimos is 700 meters, a Hecate/Orion is over 2100... that's 3 times the length..

About the same as the difference between the Colossus and a destroyer.. And a Colossus can fit TWELVE Lucifers (destroyers). A ship that's 3 times as long has 12 times the volume.

Thus, a destroyer has 12 times the volume of a corvette, carrier 150 fighters and yet has only 4000 crew more????
Whereas the canon numbers for a cruiser are (as I recall from FS2) around 150 or so.

---------
DoFS  fighters require less crew than today? Probably the same. Even tough the constructio nadn mantainance tech moves forward, so is hte complexity of hte things that neeed mantainance. A couple of years ago every mechanic could have fixed your car -  now every car needs specific equuipment and specialyl trained mechanics. Go figure..
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 19, 2006, 03:51:40 pm

I did give a backup - insanely large crew numbers when compared to other FS2 ships. Deimos is 700 meters, a Hecate/Orion is over 2100... that's 3 times the length..

About the same as the difference between the Colossus and a destroyer.. And a Colossus can fit TWELVE Lucifers (destroyers). A ship that's 3 times as long has 12 times the volume.

Thus, a destroyer has 12 times the volume of a corvette, carrier 150 fighters and yet has only 4000 crew more????
Whereas the canon numbers for a cruiser are (as I recall from FS2) around 150 or so.

---------
Random rethoric

Yes, but even though the Colossus has more than 12X the voleume of an Orion, but only three times the crew, the density goes way down, you could argue that that doesn't make any sense, and in a way it doesn't, however it shows that crew density varies widely in the FS universe.

There are no canon cruiser crew numbers, you can check, there aren't any

If fighters take so many people, why is it all of the extra wings on a Hecate don't up its crew number compared to an Orion?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: TrashMan on June 19, 2006, 04:02:26 pm
but shouldn't then the Destroyer have 3 times as much crew as a deimos?
Especially since it's not only bigger, but allso has fighters?

Why does the Orion have 10000?
Dunno..maby [V] gave us average numbers, not exact (similar to when you say that a Nimitz carrier has 6000 crew, alltough that number varries from one ship of that class to another, and it's actually 5874 or something like that)
Or maby the Orion has more repair crew since it's a front-line bruiser.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 19, 2006, 04:18:08 pm
but shouldn't then the Destroyer have 3 times as much crew as a deimos?

Not nessesarially, I was just showing that crew size depends on more than just size, otherwise the Collie should have 120,000 crewmembers by all rights

Especially since it's not only bigger, but allso has fighters?

This is where I ask, with all due respect, did you even read my post?

Why does the Orion have 10000?

Cause it was :Volition:'s game, and :Volition: could do whatever the hell they wanted to do?

Dunno..maby [V] gave us average numbers, not exact (similar to when you say that a Nimitz carrier has 6000 crew, alltough that number varries from one ship of that class to another, and it's actually 5874 or something like that)

Well we can assume that, but that still suggests that the crew size of all ships is very close to where the number is, for instance, with the Sobek, we can assume that the number is not 6,000, it's 5,890, or 6,125, or somthing like that, it doesn't mean there are actually 600.

Or maby the Orion has more repair crew since it's a front-line bruiser.

Why would it need more repair crew? As far as I can tell it's the Hecates that are routinely taken down to 3% hull.

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

As far as cruisers go, I'm going to make an about face. After more carefully considering it, I agree, cruisers such as the Leviathan and Aeolus are a benifit to tha allience, but not the way they're typically used in the game. As long as they're used for point defense, the GTVA should continue production of the Aeolus. I seriously think the "only 2 dozen produced" thing was :Volition:'s attempt to self-limit their usage in the main campagin.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: aldo_14 on June 19, 2006, 05:44:46 pm
Give a even a microscopic bit more?

Strangely, you're the one saying 'it doesn't make sense' with absolutely no backup to that.  I, however, can always point out that it's part of the game and written by people who did know what made sense, and that it's more likely their best value for a corvette crew rather than, say, someone having a bizarre fit that resulted in them writing all the FS2 debriefings.

I did give a backup - insanely large crew numbers when compared to other FS2 ships. Deimos is 700 meters, a Hecate/Orion is over 2100... that's 3 times the length..

About the same as the difference between the Colossus and a destroyer.. And a Colossus can fit TWELVE Lucifers (destroyers). A ship that's 3 times as long has 12 times the volume.

Thus, a destroyer has 12 times the volume of a corvette, carrier 150 fighters and yet has only 4000 crew more????
Whereas the canon numbers for a cruiser are (as I recall from FS2) around 150 or so.

---------
DoFS  fighters require less crew than today? Probably the same. Even tough the constructio nadn mantainance tech moves forward, so is hte complexity of hte things that neeed mantainance. A couple of years ago every mechanic could have fixed your car -  now every car needs specific equuipment and specialyl trained mechanics. Go figure..

I'd like you to point out the canon source for cruiser crew numbers, because I have never seen anything of that nature.

Furthermore, who's saying fighters can't have automatic maintenance?  Just because we see a human welding on the flight deck doesn't mean automatic repairs are impossible 'behind the scenes'.

Anyways, with all the vast space I remember you saying fighters, etc, took up, maybe there's not room for more than 4000 extra?
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: kv1at3485 on June 19, 2006, 06:08:48 pm
It would be interesting if somebody could take the models and measure how much volume each one takes up.  (I wonder if 12 Lucifers really can fit inside a Colossus...)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 19, 2006, 08:07:22 pm
I think it could, but I don't know for sure, put them next to each other in FRED somtime, the Colossus is to the Orion as the Orion is to the Fenris
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 19, 2006, 11:30:52 pm
wow, 5 days gone and this baby blew up since page 17. People really need to learn how to use the word "than" in correct placement of "then". You use the word "than" in a sentence such as, "i would rather do that, than this", not to be as many say"i would rather do than then this" The word "than" exists for a reason, and the hlpbb makes me almost cry because of it, well that's ok because up at my university it makes me almost want to cry for the same reason to(uaf should try hiring people who can spell to make flyers, or i should really think about transfering :lol:)
Well, from the great war, zods and terrans learned some great things. Antifighter roles is highly prized among the gtva and should never go away(pat on gtva back), corvettes are definitely covetted by cruiser crews(pat on gtva back), superior capship weapons like beams flak and subach turrets(gtva has only upwards to go if more fightermounted weapons replace blob turrets(besides prometheus blobs)), and the gtva has definitely seen the opeval of a frigate :lol:
The fenris needs to go the way of the ****ter(flush). I mean, having a wing of bombers against an orion, is like having a myrmidon against a fenris. The shivans really should get a hold of an orion some time, and remove all but two of the AAA beams, and replace all the normal beams with shivan ones. I don't really see very well at all how cruisers are supposed to have capship abilities anyway. The fenris just sucks. The leviathen is very deadly to fighters and very longlasting ;) The aeolus is very deadly to fighters and pretty and has like fenris armor, the aeolus is a great replacement for the fenris in a flakked up sort of sense :lol:
I think gtva would get rid of fenrises first, leviathens are very effective. But, cruisers shouldn't go for capship roles, it just doesn't work, the beams mounted on cruisers aren't that strong, and are really only good for cruiser-cruiser combat. Anyway, that's why gtva is probably going to go the corvette route, it does what an aeolus and leviathen does very good, and it can go up against bigger ships too. Cruisers are only really good for antifighter roles and that's about it, but that doesn't mean do away with them completely. I can see a couple of leviathens and aeoli escorting an orion or a convoy effectively, as long as bigger capships don't warp in, the leviathen would last a lot longer than an aeolus or fenris in that situation, losing battle for the leviathen anyway. But cruisers are supposed to be complimented with fighters and such, so not a losing battle in that situation :) I really don't know what i'd do if i were the gtva, i like the cruisers a lot, except for fenris and aten, the corvettes are great too, and a lot better, i'd have to go with corvettes until pre-capella recovers, and then jump in cruisers again :) Cruisers are very useful, it would be a loss for the gtva's flexibility if it didn't have them at all.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 19, 2006, 11:42:18 pm
wow, 5 days gone and this baby blew up since page 17. People really need to learn how to use the word "than" in correct placement of "then". You use the word "than" in a sentence such as, "i would rather do that, than this", not to be as many say"i would rather do than then this" The word "than" exists for a reason, and the hlpbb makes me almost cry because of it, well that's ok because up at my university it makes me almost want to cry for the same reason to(uaf should try hiring people who can spell to make flyers, or i should really think about transfering :lol:)

I think I use then and than correctly

Well, from the great war, zods and terrans learned some great things. Antifighter roles is highly prized among the gtva and should never go away(pat on gtva back), corvettes are definitely covetted by cruiser crews(pat on gtva back), superior capship weapons like beams flak and subach turrets(gtva has only upwards to go if more fightermounted weapons replace blob turrets(besides prometheus blobs)), and the gtva has definitely seen the opeval of a frigate :lol:

The green blobs are actually less powerful than the orange blobs, you know that, right?

The fenris needs to go the way of the ****ter(flush). I mean, having a wing of bombers against an orion, is like having a myrmidon against a fenris. The shivans really should get a hold of an orion some time, and remove all but two of the AAA beams, and replace all the normal beams with shivan ones. I don't really see very well at all how cruisers are supposed to have capship abilities anyway. The fenris just sucks. The leviathen is very deadly to fighters and very longlasting ;) The aeolus is very deadly to fighters and pretty and has like fenris armor, the aeolus is a great replacement for the fenris in a flakked up sort of sense :lol:

It is actually stronger in FS2, it has come to my attention that it actually has 10,000 hitpoints, as opposed to 8,000. This means it takes 5 cyclopse torpedos to take it down, rather than 4.

I can see a couple of leviathens and aeoli escorting an orion or a convoy effectively, as long as bigger capships don't warp in, the leviathen would last a lot longer than an aeolus or fenris in that situation,

No it wouldn't, the Aeolus has more hitpoints than a Leviathan
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Solatar on June 19, 2006, 11:54:54 pm
I'll second the fact that the Fenris has less hitpoints in fs1 'cause it always made me laugh when the Chronos had more armor than the mainstay cruiser...

Speaking of which. Cruisers were kickass in their heyday during the Vasudan War (8 blobs were actually really effective). After ships got shields, they became less and less effective as fighters became more and more advanced. Sure, the firepower from an unshielded Anubis could whittle down a Fenris pretty quickly (mostly because of all the Furies/Fangs it can carry), but the turrets would blow it to shreds (bar a human player possibly). The difference in FS2 is more than just higher fighter firepower. It's the fact that a fighter has the firepower to bring down a cruiser faster than the cruiser can bring the fighter down. During the T-V War, an 8,000 hitpoint cruiser wouldn't be extremely hard to down, but it shoots back. In FS2 the cruisers can't shoot back fast enough (except maybe the Aeolus). The Aeolus has the right idea, but it needs a bit more of it.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 20, 2006, 12:09:23 am
Have you ever played the main campagin on insane? The cruisers can usually fend for themselves, except  where Alpha 1 and the Maxim are concerned.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Solatar on June 20, 2006, 11:18:57 am
I was more referring to people's comments on how Myrmidons and such could take down Fenris's. Sorry for not clarifying.

What I meant about the Aeolus (which does "smack you up") is that it has very little capital ship power (compared to other, larger ships). It's focus is more on weapons that attempt to shred fighters pretty fast. This is the evolution of the cruiser. Originally designed to be a jack of all trades ship, now it's resigned to anti-fighter roles, or at least starting to be. Future generations of cruisers will be meaner to fighters and leave the warship combat to corvettes.

And admittedly, I've been playing the Port and FS1/Restoration era stuff for so long I haven't played the main campaign in a very long time, so there is a possibility I might be mistaken about some stuff. Kindly correct me if I am (as Mars has done). I like my blob turrets too much...
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 20, 2006, 11:22:34 am
Aeoulus has two Greeny beams AFAIK Fenithans have one.

Not sure about types of beam in qquestion but hardpoints are there /can be modified at later date as tech increases for either class.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 20, 2006, 11:51:09 am
The Aeolus has two SGreens and the Fenris has 1 LTerSlash, and there's no reason not to look it up in the wiki, under Freespace 2 > Ships.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 20, 2006, 01:37:32 pm
So the Fenris has more anti-cap firepower than the Aeolus or the Leviathan?

 :wtf:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 20, 2006, 01:41:43 pm
Yes, LTerSlash has more than twice as much sustained damage / second than an SGreen, so the Fenris has more firepower than the Levi or Aeolus but it's a slashing beam thus it isn't really more effective, just more powerful

Weapon Comparison (FS2) (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Weapon_Comparison_%28FS2%29)

You also have to figure that every flak gun on the Aeolus does more damage than either the SGreen or LTerSlash at 200 damage / second, compared to 62 sustained damage / second with the SGreen and 149 / s for the LTerSlash. So... really, it depends on what you mean anti-capital (the Aeolus tends to make its anti-capital kills with flak)
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 20, 2006, 02:07:24 pm
Anti-Cap = weapons that have Huge flag. Flak doesn't.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 20, 2006, 02:13:08 pm
Even weapons without the huge flag can damage "huge" ships and destroy cruisers. The only reason the Aeolus is one of the better cruisers in a criser to cruiser duel is because of its flak guns.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Ghostavo on June 20, 2006, 02:14:17 pm
Cruiser != (is not equal to) Capital ship
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 20, 2006, 02:14:57 pm
You mean cruiser =/= capital ship, or cruiser = capital ship
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Black Wolf on June 20, 2006, 05:06:08 pm
You also have to figure that every flak gun on the Aeolus does more damage than either the SGreen or LTerSlash at 200 damage / second, compared to 62 sustained damage / second with the SGreen and 149 / s for the LTerSlash. So... really, it depends on what you mean anti-capital (the Aeolus tends to make its anti-capital kills with flak)

Not according to the tables...
Quote from: LTerSlash Table entry (and any other beam entry)
$Damage:                        150

;; NOTE: for beam weapons this is kind of a "continuous" damage applied every few fractions of a second that the beam is on.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Pnakotus on June 20, 2006, 09:35:31 pm
Is there any reason to take ingame nonsense like 'this beam can only slash, a worthless attack' and 'this beam can only poke, an effective attack'?  Seriously, firing a beam weapon and tracking it is a poor idea, but tracking it as fast as they do in FS2 is just retarded.  They often swipe it so fast it starts early and finishes late, having tracked TWO KILOMETERS along the target, doing JACK **** damage.  Is there any reason to think slashers and pokers are really, physically different weapons?  I can't see why this would be the case.  I also can't see why anyone would ever slash ever (unless it's to try and swat fast targets, chip off turrets etc) so maybe I'm biased.  The Aeolus guns are crappy, but like the Deimos (that'd be FAR more effective if they stopped waving the beams around) it's set to 'worthless swipe'.  I put it in the same basket as [V]s 'lol all beams turned off lol' philosophy in the retail missions.  Their Finest Hour, fighting to save all mankind... but don't use your beams dudes.  Think of the warranty!  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Mars on June 20, 2006, 10:01:19 pm
You also have to figure that every flak gun on the Aeolus does more damage than either the SGreen or LTerSlash at 200 damage / second, compared to 62 sustained damage / second with the SGreen and 149 / s for the LTerSlash. So... really, it depends on what you mean anti-capital (the Aeolus tends to make its anti-capital kills with flak)

Not according to the tables...
Quote from: LTerSlash Table entry (and any other beam entry)
$Damage:                        150

;; NOTE: for beam weapons this is kind of a "continuous" damage applied every few fractions of a second that the beam is on.

Yes, the sustained damage / second in the weapon comparison table takes this into account
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: S-99 on June 21, 2006, 01:31:20 am
As i recall, it always seems to me that the turrets on cruisers and capships had faster moving lasers and were still a ***** to deal with even when having shields in fs1. In fs2 they have yet a much different nature of never hitting their target as much as they do in fs1. I mean, when i last captured the taranis, that cain had a ton of lasers pouring out at me, i had to get in real close to shoot my stilleto's so they wouldn't get shot down every time. In fs2, the lasers don't seem to be as blistering as they used to be, or do the beam upgraded ships like the cain have less laser turrets or something? That's one reason i like fs1, the lasers go flying all around the place like in star wars, but not quite in fs2.
On another note, cruisers have evolved. I mean, fighters are are antifighter themselves, and extremely tactical after that when in numbers. It seems that cruisers in fs2 are like really honking huge ass fighters since mostly there great at taking out fighters. Cruisers can take out other cruisers. And after that cruisers are great for tactics and surgical strikes like fighters are. Cruisers just cant maneuver like fighters do :p Which makes it hard to pin down a good role cruisers, but antifighter, escort for convoys, tactical missions, and fighter supplementation are great for cruisers. And i would keep cruisers around for those reasons. Just as long the only thing a cruiser takes down bigger than itself is an arcadia. Just restrict cruisers from dueling with ships bigger than itself. That mission in fs2 where you have to lure out that ntf orion to meet the colossus was absolutely perfect for the leviathen bait that was used. It was supplementing fighters, fighters were supplementing it, and was tactical bait to have the mission unfold.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Parias on June 21, 2006, 02:22:41 am
I put it in the same basket as [V]s 'lol all beams turned off lol' philosophy in the retail missions.  Their Finest Hour, fighting to save all mankind... but don't use your beams dudes.  Think of the warranty!  :rolleyes:

Bear in mind that it seems the beams in Their Finest Hour seem to be broken due to more of a scripting issue than a direct choice on Volition's part - in fact, if you look into the mission file, you'll see this a specific 'Allied Fleet Armed' sequence does a beam-free-all on all the allied ships in the mission, and there's absolutely no contrary lock or protect coding in place to contradict those lines.

Of course, judging by past posts I've seen briefly researching the subject, it seems there's a lot of stuff 'broken' about the mission - inexplicit waypoints for the disabled Colossus and events labelled 'Turn you silly bugger', so I'm guessing Volition just ran out of debug time to get everything working properly,
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 21, 2006, 03:17:01 am
Didn't they have several updates which fixed most of the bugs reported by the players?

Also I do agree that in FS2 cruisers tend to be more of an AAAf role or support ship for the larger warships. This role i believe wil be extended in the future making them more lethat AAAF platforms then cap ship killers. This does not mean that i wouldnt like to see them pack some more damage against warships. This would mean an upgrade of theyr beams to something more powerfull yet retain and improve on theyr aaf abilaties much more so then on the anti-cap side.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 21, 2006, 03:18:53 am
At the end of the day, FS2 ships could be debated over for all time.. (boring eventually i know, but work with me here :D) The hard part is making an "Effective multi-role cruiser mod" without going OTT on uberguuns etc........
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: AlphaOne on June 21, 2006, 04:11:03 am
well the Aeoulous is the most efective cuiser that the GTVa has so i guess any further development of the cruiser class should probably start from there.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Fergus on June 21, 2006, 06:30:10 am
That is if they do any new developments for some time, ship hulls like the Fenris have lasted a good 30 years, and a vessel like the Aeolus definitely has the ability to be a laster in the Terran fleet, and by the time it does come to phase out the vessel weapons technology may have gotten to the stage where a vessel of its type is superflous.
Title: Re: Fenris cruisers
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 21, 2006, 06:33:03 am
A Trinaxian drone ship AI installed in every cruiser........

"has idea, starts to rip sound files from ED-209 and terminator films"

Starts fredding..........