[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool


Yeah, I use a lot of AAA firepower on Starforce ships, but not too much. Attacking a cap will be tough (unless it's a Border Systems Coalition cruiser because they suck), but Alpha 1 (or Beta 1 in certain cases) has to be the person who is the deciding factor. A mission is no fun unless your actions decide the outcome of the mission.

Tragicly, a single pilot doesn't decide the outcome of EVERY mission he's in. And that'ds how I plan to make it.
You are one among many. Your action will have a huge effect on the battlefield, but you're still just one fighter.

FLASER - I like the idea of armour theshold. WW2 battleships had different armoour thickness on different areas (alltough in space, it can be the same hickness everywhere).
The armour was thick enough on the most critical positions(fuel, ammo, fire contol, bridge, main guns) to withstand a direct hit from the main battery (i.e. - a battleship with the 365mm main guns would have a 365mm armour, a battleship with 406mm guns would have 406mm armour on the most sensitive spots - alltough the armour was thinner on other, not so importnat spots.) That's why naval battles lasted for hours.
A 500kg bomb falls on a turret and the crew inside says: "Did you hear something?".

The Prince of Wales was hit by 28 torpedos and 300 bombs. Even after that it took him 3 hours to sink. So yes, battleships are a damn tough nut to crack.

[karajorma]

The player doesn't have to decide the outcome of every battle but if he doesn't have any effect on the out come of any of them then there isn't really much point in playing at all.

Basically from the description of your super ships it sounds like any escort mission with them in is completely pointless.

[mikhael]

That's one of the things that I liked about Starlancer. Everyone complained about torpedo-intercept missions, but I consider them to be the proper use of fighters in a capship confrontation. Torp intercept and subsystem destruction are exactly the right place for fighters.

Look at it this way: if capships were so thoroughly vulnerable to fighters, no one would build anything but carriers. There wouldn't be any need for capship battles.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
Look at it this way: if capships were so thoroughly vulnerable to fighters, no one would build anything but carriers. There wouldn't be any need for capship battles.

I wasn't saying the player should be able to take down capships. I was saying that if the capship can defend itself against enemy bombers and fighters the complete reverse becomes true.

If a capship can defend itself against enemy bombers who'd bother to build fighters?

[Killfrenzy]

Originally posted by karajorma
The problem with that philosophy is can the AI handle it?

If the AI bombers get slaughtered every time they appear the campaign can become boring really fast because intercept missions are completely pointless.

Sorry for the late reply!

I plan to make TSW's bombers somewhat tougher than their FS2 counterparts. The way it works will be thus:

Bombers tend to have strong hulls and powerful shields to deflect the amount of weaponry fire coming at them. They carry Fusion Torpedoes which actually move at a fair old lick, giving anyone a hard time trying to shoot them down.

They're designed to take down anything up to and including Light Cruiser size (though they can take certain Heavy Cruisers too). Anything bigger than that (Battlecruisers/Battleships) would be a suicide run. They can engage a large warship in a support role to aid another in the destruction of the target.

The other factor to weigh in is that Fusion Torpedoes are very much a standoff weapon. I'm planning for the bombers to be able to target something from about 5k away, so intercept missions still work. They'll work very much like traditional intercept missions where you have to hit the bomber formation BEFORE they can start unloading on their target.

I've cooked up a couple of bomber ideas to go with various attack plans. The Gencore Rage class bomber is VERY fast for its type, attaining a combat speed equivalent to the Harpy class fighter. It's also quite agile and can defend itself without fighter support. The tradeoff is a very small payload, but the Rage is designed to get in close, unleash hell when they're certain of a hit, and then bug out again.

The other design is the Harbinger. I think 'gunship' might be a better description - three turrets, a few forward laser mounts and a payload that'll make a B-52 feel inadequate! The Harbinger is designed to pulverise capital ships of Heavy Cruiser size and up. You get a squadron of these monsters coming at you unloading their Fusion Torps, and you'll be cursing to high heaven!

At least, that's the plan! I'm just sick of the ease in which small strike craft can take down massive ships kilometres in size! Also it'll allow for more capship vs capship action.

Oh yes, one more thing: Don't expect to be the be all and end all of the campaign. You're a cog in a bloody great big wheel!

[Woolie Wool]

But being just another pilot is no fun.

If you don't think little bitty ships should be able to destroy massive caps, you'll be glad to know that most Starforce bombers are huge, at 50-75 meters in length.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by karajorma


I wasn't saying the player should be able to take down capships. I was saying that if the capship can defend itself against enemy bombers and fighters the complete reverse becomes true.

If a capship can defend itself against enemy bombers who'd bother to build fighters?

But not everything is black and white. You can have ships that can defend themselves against bombers to some degree, but a large assault will be too much for the bombers.

[übermetroid]

Originally posted by mikhael
That's one of the things that I liked about Starlancer. Everyone complained about torpedo-intercept missions, but I consider them to be the proper use of fighters in a capship confrontation. Torp intercept and subsystem destruction are exactly the right place for fighters.

Yea, its kinda like playing HW2.  You send in your fighters to take out the anti-hyperspace thing and the ion beam thing and then you jump in you battle cruiser to finish off the job.

[Unknown Target]

The Merrimac (AKA CSS Virgina): A sunken Confederate wooden-hulled ship, raised by the confeds and the upper half was built up out of metal. It did, however, still have standard fixed  cannons.

The Monitor: The Union's response to the Merrimac. An all-metal, built-from-the-ground-up ship, it sat so low to the water that it was almost completely submerged (it met it's fate in windy seas, when it was caused to capsize). Not only was it the first ship to be competely built out of metal, but it was ALSO the first ship to have a rotating turret, built into the center of the ship and carrying two cannons.

The Hunley: A Confederate (I think) submerine, the first military sub in the world, was used to try and break the Union blockade of a certain town (forgot the name, think it was in Maryland). It was hand-powered via a large crankshaft, and it's weaponry was a single explosive charge on the end of a long spear. The spear was rammed into a ship, the Hunley was backed off, and the explosive was detonated via a cord. The Hunley succeeded in sinking a ship, however, it was sunk later on the same mission. It is debatable as to why this happened, although the two leading theories are that it was A) Sunk by a Union warship, or B) the explosive charge wounded it's owner fataly.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
But not everything is black and white. You can have ships that can defend themselves against bombers to some degree, but a large assault will be too much for the bombers.

Jeez everyone stop taking everything I say so bloody literally. I didn't say that capships have to be defenseless against bombers! Just that they shouldn't be able to take on hundreds and win.

READ BETWEEN THE LINES PEOPLE!

[IceFire]

Eerrmmm....who said 40mm cannons were weak against fighters?  Right... a single 40mm cannon shell (heck a 37, 32, or HE 30mm would do it) can rip virtually any WWII fighter out of the sky and modern day fighters are just as vulnerable.

The average American fighter in WWII had 6 .50 calibre machine guns which ripped enemy aircraft, even fairly well armored ones, to pieces relatively quickly if the right areas were hit.  The average British, German, and Soviet aircraft of the time typically used 20mm cannons and most fighters needed but a few hits to fall apart.  One American fighter and one Soviet fighter mounted a 37mm and 45mm cannon respectively (the P-39 and the Yak-9K).  Most bombers fell apart on a hit of those a few times.

Virtually every weapon in the battleships arsenal was a death dealer for aircraft.

WWII battleships like the Tirpitz and Yamato are virtual fortresses...any aircraft that attacked a WWII battleship did so in massive numbers and usually sustained equally massive losses.  However, as we know in the case of the Bismarck, a single torpedo hit can spell doom for the ship by crippling critical components.

FreeSpace capital ships are in general undergunned in terms of anti-fighter defense but not in the anti-capital ship department.  Laser turrets after the initial part of FS1 were used for warhead interception....they are pretty good at that.  Largely everything was balanced for gameplay reasons.  Many MOD's have gone the opposite route and made the game much less fun to play.

[Ashrak]

i say crank up the capships ... but make them fewer..... not 30 caps in 1 battle more like 3 or 4 and if one is lost oh my thats a LOT of credits hehe

[Nico]

Originally posted by IceFire
However, as we know in the case of the Bismarck, a single torpedo hit can spell doom for the ship by crippling critical components.

Nope. Haven't seen that documentary by James cameron? He's done the same thing ghe did with the Titanic, with the Bismark. Very impressive shots. Anyway, the thing proves fairly well that this famous torpedo hit near the propelers did not sunk the Bismark. Nothing the brits throw at it sunk it, actually. When they destroyed the left fan, the Bismarck could not escape anymore, it could only do large circles, so the Brits went at it, but they came to close to sink it. According to the ballistic specialists who were with James Cameron, , the only way to sink the Bismark was to shoot it under the... her... what's the name in english? well, in  the hull UNDER the water. but the brits came too close, forced to shoot almost horizonatlly, and the shells were deflected by the surface of the sea, no critical hit was dealt. And yet the ship was shot at more than 2800 times, I remember something around 400 40cm shells, stuff like that. It was some kind of hell onboard, so in the end the germans decided to sink their own ship, so they put destruction charges and, well, sunk it.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by karajorma


I wasn't saying the player should be able to take down capships. I was saying that if the capship can defend itself against enemy bombers and fighters the complete reverse becomes true.

If a capship can defend itself against enemy bombers who'd bother to build fighters?

I think you and I are approaching the same concept from two different directions.

I'm totally with you. Bombers are the anti-capship fighter and always should be. This is a classic, venerable, utterly important part of the space sim genre.

Fighters (interceptors and superiority) should protect bombers, take down other fighters, intercept enemy munitions and bombers, and harass capships.

Bombers should attack capships.

Capships should deploy turrets and fighters against fighters/bombers and torpedos and big guns against other capships. Capships should never be trivial to kill.

Originally posted by Nico

According to the ballistic specialists who were with James Cameron, , the only way to sink the Bismark was to shoot it under the... her... what's the name in english? well, in  the hull UNDER the water. but the brits came too close, forced to shoot almost horizonatlly, and the shells were deflected by the surface of the sea, no critical hit was dealt.

I think you're looking for "under the waterline".

It was some kind of hell onboard, so in the end the germans decided to sink their own ship, so they put destruction charges and, well, sunk it.

The word for that is "scuttle".

Regardless, I didn't know that. That's pretty damned impressive engineering.

[pasti]

That's right Nico.
Bismarck wasn't critically hit, it was sunked by Germans...

I agree with some people, FS ships lack serious AAA...
Yes, it makes gameplay balanced, but it can be undone. Put more stronger turrets and Fenris won't be  so easy to destroy....
That's when the bomber  has something to do.......

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
I think you and I are approaching the same concept from two different directions.

I'm totally with you. Bombers are the anti-capship fighter and always should be. This is a classic, venerable, utterly important part of the space sim genre.

Fighters (interceptors and superiority) should protect bombers, take down other fighters, intercept enemy munitions and bombers, and harass capships.

Bombers should attack capships.

Capships should deploy turrets and fighters against fighters/bombers and torpedos and big guns against other capships. Capships should never be trivial to kill.

Yep. Basically that was what I was on about. Lots of people complain about the stuck at 10% hull thing introduced in FS2 and while I agree that it was a bad way of solving the problem it was ridiculous if fighters could kill even ships of superjuggernaut size.

What I like to see is a nice balance between the power of capships and bombers. Both should be able to take down the other if the conditions are in their favour.

Making uber ships that can cill the other class quickly is very boring for the player. An uber bomber that can kill ships too quickly obviously makes for boring missions but making the capships too uber is equally boring because the player is mostly left wondering why he's there in the first place since the ship can look after itself without any need for him to be there.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Nico
Nope. Haven't seen that documentary by James cameron? He's done the same thing ghe did with the Titanic, with the Bismark. Very impressive shots. Anyway, the thing proves fairly well that this famous torpedo hit near the propelers did not sunk the Bismark. Nothing the brits throw at it sunk it, actually. When they destroyed the left fan, the Bismarck could not escape anymore, it could only do large circles, so the Brits went at it, but they came to close to sink it. According to the ballistic specialists who were with James Cameron, , the only way to sink the Bismark was to shoot it under the... her... what's the name in english? well, in  the hull UNDER the water. but the brits came too close, forced to shoot almost horizonatlly, and the shells were deflected by the surface of the sea, no critical hit was dealt. And yet the ship was shot at more than 2800 times, I remember something around 400 40cm shells, stuff like that. It was some kind of hell onboard, so in the end the germans decided to sink their own ship, so they put destruction charges and, well, sunk it.

I think the point is that the Bismark was tactically and strategically crippled by loosing her ability to maneuver effectively, not that it sunk her.

[pyro-manic]

As far as I know, the Bismarck was screwed as soon as it took the torpedo in the steering gear. That meant it couldn't escape. The King George V (battleship), the Rodney (battleship) and the Ark Royal (carrier) reduced it to a floating hulk, but they couldn't sink it with shellfire or air-dropped torpedoes. According to the RN, it was finally sunk by being torpedoed at point blank range by the HMS Devonshire (medium cruiser). I haven't seen the Cameron film, but if it's been proved otherwise, then I'm wrong.
But she couldn't exactly do much if there's no superstructure left, let alone any guns or power.

[Killfrenzy]

HMS Dorsetshire.

Her torpedoes did naff all to the Bismarck's hull. As for the Tirpitz, it took a Lancaster bomber with a 11,000lb Tallboy bomb to sink her!

Technically it took two.

[TrashMan]

O.k. - Time for some facts.

I don't want to make uber capships.
In DOTA we have a 95m bomber with 6 turrets, 5000 shields, carrying bombs that do around 25000 damage each. So as you can see, that's a whole lot of firepower. Alltough it can barley outrun a cruiser and handles like a brick.

I want to make warship classes act like they should. You can still destroy them, only it will take more effort.
Battleship were designed to stand alone and survive. That's why they had thick armour, and loads of guns. They weren't unsinkable.

Every ship should have his role and act acordingly.
Carriers ar weak, but they carry lot's of fighters/bombers to conpensate that.
Cruisers are even weaker, but they have great AF weaponry.
Battleships are fortresses that require lot of effort to take down.
Fighters engage other fighters and intercept bombs/bombers
Bombers take out heavy warships, but they can't do it on their own (someone needs to draw the fire away)

That's how I want to make it in the DOTA. And the player would have a effect on the outcome. The only difference is he wouldn't be the centre of the universe, and in most cases, he won't be able to do it alone.

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

As far for the Bismarck. The British did pound him good, but they weren't abe to sink him.
The armour around the waterline was too thick. Alltough the armour drops to around 100mm near the front, no critical areas are there and if all the water-tight compatments (bulkheads) are sealed, t's practicly unsinkable. You can turn it into a burning wreck, but it would still float and would probably still be a ble to shoot back.
Like I said, the main turrets, command tower, ammo & fuel storage and the center waterline were so heavily armoured that only a battleship with bigger guns that Bismarck could punch trough the armour.
Even torpedos aren't too effective, since a battleship has triple-layered hull, and torpedo shields (extra extrusions to stop the torpedos).
I do belive the Germans scuttled him, alltough I can't rightly remember!