Author Topic: Whats the point of a destroyer?  (Read 11355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ionia23

  • 26
  • "YES, I did finally see 'The Matrix' 12 years late
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Freespace...realistic.

A game set in the distant future where we've already figured hyperspace travel, anti-gravity, alien contact, etc...

realistic...

I'm envision all the FS fighters being suddenly replaced by the current shuttle fleet....

:hopping:
"Why does it want me to say my name?"

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Quote
Originally posted by ryuune75
No really! Surprise attack is the key to victroy! How the Japanese nearly destroyed US fleet at Pearl Harbour? With a surprise attack! And how the US managed to win at the end with a crippled fleed? Of course with a surprise attack!
So knowing where the enemy is IS the key to victory in all battles. A carrier that makes a sneak attack on a battleship wins, and so does a battleship that makes a surprise attack on a carrier.
Difference is, to attack with a battleship you have to move all the ship, the carrie just send his bombers to do the work faster and at longer ranges, hopefully.


Not every single victory depends on a suprise attack you know ;)

Quote
Originally posted by ryuune75
True. So in the end we think almost in the same way, hybrid destroyers seem the way to go.


I believe in having a mix of craft for different operations. The destroyers are front line craft.  Carriers hang back out of range and send fighters to support the destroyers.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Well, tactical surprise (as opposed to strategic surprise, which is nearly impossible to achieve) is something you always strive for in an attack without exception (whether you get it or not is different).  While it won't decide the course of a war, it can decide a skirmish.


Quote
Anyway... how is your carrier going to protect itself against bigger menaces? No, not Sobeks and such or Orions... I'm talking about a real ship crusher like the Ravana and the mother of them all, the Sathanas? How many bomber would you need to take them down, considering they too have a fighter escort, after all they are hybrids?


Now, if a Ravana jumped in on your Orion, how long would your orion survive?  I'd say 5 minutes tops.  A tactical surprise attack would result in defeat for almost any destroyer vs destroyer conflict.

A better question to ask is: which would inflict more damage back?

Assuming destroyer would be able to launch a full wing from each fighter launchbay every minute, a Hatshepsut would be able to launch 10 wings.  It would also fire back with its beams until it dies.

A carrier would have at least 4 fighter launchbays even if it was half the size of the Hatshepsut (and I personally think it would have more).  That's twice the bombers and fighters launch.  In addition, while the Ravana blows the carrier to smithereens, the support corvettes and cruisers have time to flank the Ravana (they'll die too, but the point is that they'll get in some hits too).

It seems likely that both scenarios would result in moderate damage to the Ravana.


In any case, before going with this, I want to know what people think about this:  would a carrier have _more_ armor than a destroyer of equivalent size and tonnage?

At first glance one would think that the carrier would obviously be less armored, but that might not be the case.

First of all, the carrier _can_ have heavy armor plating.  There's absolutely no reason why a carrier would need a runway in space.  It would basically be a box engines strapped on and holes cut-out at various places to allow fighters and bombers to be launched.  Any place that's not an engine port or fighter launchbay has no reason not to be covered with as much armor as the structure could support.

But can a carrier actually carry a lot of armor?  That's a good question and something that needs to be decided.

First, let's look at the weight savings of a carrier over a destroyer.  With the advent of beam weaponry, the power consumption of destroyers have increased tremendously.  In fact, the Typhon destroyer, dominant before beam weaponry, suffered from reactor problems when retrofitted with beam weaponry.

A carrier would carry next to no weaponry besides a few flak turrets to protect fighter launchbays and the engines.

The amounts to a huge space and weight savings in reactors.  Therefore, a carrier of similar size and engine capabilities to a destroyer would have comparatively more leeway to carry more armour plating.

Not quite.

The same carrier would also be carrying a much larger complement of fighters, bombers, armaments and their support crews and equipment.

This is all extra weight and space being used up.

Note that the number of decks is reduced since fighterbays are more large.

This means that a carrier of a similar size to a destroyer would require less material to construct while having equivalent amounts of armor.



Now here's something I thought up.  Wouldn't a carrier be harder to kill using beam weaponry than a destroyer?

A destroyer has power conduits carrying large amounts of power throughout the ship to energize the various weapons and to service the fighters.  A carrier carries a relatively small amount of energy to service a greater number of fighters.

These power conduits are, more likely than not, volatile.

Whereas a beam punching a hole through most points of the destroyer could potentially cause a cascading reaction through the power system, a beam through a fighterbay of a carrier would be a hole.  The fighters can still manual launch.  It's inconvenient but not quite as deadly.  A beam through the bridge or reactor would still be just as deadly, but the carrier can afford to allocate more armor to those areas than a destroyer would.


So while it's easy to imagine a carrier to be a soft target, it _may_ be a pretty tough nut to crack.


Thoughts?

 

Offline diamondgeezer

Whats the point of a destroyer?
This thread  = :no:

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Whats the point of a destroyer?
1st.
A destroyer can do more damage in a small amount of time than a group of fighter... trust me on this ;) especially when we start going to really big sized capships (the ones which matter)

2nd.
If a carrier has "companions", why can't a destroyer have some?

3rd.
Carriers need power too, or what do you use to power up fighters, bombers, engine, subspace drive (think how much energy just that uses)

4th.
A beam straight through the fighterbays is something no pilot wishes to see. And if these are destroyed well... go play the mission where the Colossus is destroyed. Believe, if they had anyway to manually launch a fighter they would... And it's not inconvinient... it's just as deadly...

5th.
Put a Sathanas near any carrier you wish to design, it can be any size you want, see who wins!! :devil:

6th.
Quote
Now, if a Ravana jumped in on your Orion, how long would your orion survive?quote]

:rolleyes: I rest my case :rolleyes: (I have an Orion now... coll!! :D) Here you have clearly shown the superiority of a destroyer... well done!! :D

7th. (nitpick actually)
Weight in space doesn't mean anything. :p (so sue me)

8th.
They look cool!! :D
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
A destroyer can do more damage in a small amount of time than a group of fighter... trust me on this  especially when we start going to really big sized capships (the ones which matter)


Fighters, yes, bombers armed with helios, no. Unless you talk about BFRed, but those are umbalanced weapons, if we keep the discussion on standard terran weaponry...

Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Put a Sathanas near any carrier you wish to design, it can be any size you want, see who wins!! :devil:


Satahanas are uberships, we are not talking about unbalanced ship confrontation. The colossus is a freaking battleship but can't stand 2 minutes against a Sathanas, so what? Shivan ships are a lot more powerful than the corresponding terran ones, this means nothing.

Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Weight in space doesn't mean anything. :p (so sue me)


Oh yeah... never heard of someting called "mass"? :rolleyes:

Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
They look cool!! :D


Here i fully agree :)

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Quote
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
A carrier would have at least 4 fighter launchbays even if it was half the size of the Hatshepsut (and I personally think it would have more). That's twice the bombers and fighters launch. In addition, while the Ravana blows the carrier to smithereens, the support corvettes and cruisers have time to flank the Ravana (they'll die too, but the point is that they'll get in some hits too).


Why does the carrier get support corvettes and the ravana doesn't? How come the Orion didn't either?

For equal tonnage the shivans should have  2 or more destroyers.  The same goes for the terran destroyer. So comparing a carrier and its carrier group against a single destroyer is an unfair comparison.

If you balance the battle in favour of the carrier of course it will win but make it a fair fight and the battle becomes much harder to call.


Quote
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
So while it's easy to imagine a carrier to be a soft target, it _may_ be a pretty tough nut to crack.


Even if the carrier is as tough as the Orion there's still only one. As soon as it's dead the shivans can quite easily pull their caps out of the way and kill everything else with waves of bombers.

Quote
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
First, let's look at the weight savings of a carrier over a destroyer. With the advent of beam weaponry, the power consumption of destroyers have increased tremendously. In fact, the Typhon destroyer, dominant before beam weaponry, suffered from reactor problems when retrofitted with beam weaponry.

A carrier would carry next to no weaponry besides a few flak turrets to protect fighter launchbays and the engines.

The amounts to a huge space and weight savings in reactors. Therefore, a carrier of similar size and engine capabilities to a destroyer would have comparatively more leeway to carry more armour plating.


Maybe. Power consumption may have gone up but the FS1 era Orion and Typhon were doing something with all that space before they were refitted with beams.  Most likely the reactors needed upgrading but it doesn't immediately follow that they got significantly larger. Maybe they just got much more expensive due to the need to make the components more powerful while remaining the same size.
 In fact it's unlikely that the weight penalty was that much or it would have just been easier to build a new ship instead of retrofitting the Orion.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Weight is not mass.... mass is important to consider, weight is not (that is why I said it was a nitpick) :p

Tell me who does more damage on the mission to destroy the Sathanas, you and every fighter/bomber or the Colossus itself?
It's not unbalanced it just as reality is... One Ship to rule them all! And it's beams are quite terran.

Put a HUGE Terran destroyer against a HUGE Terran carrier, what do you get? (same point as the sathanas).

Oh yeah... forgot to mention... carrier mass + fighters/bombers mass > hybrid mass so....
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Weight is not mass.... mass is important to consider, weight is not (that is why I said it was a nitpick) :p


Terran ships use artificial gravity so weight is a fair enough term :D
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline StratComm

  • The POFressor
  • 212
  • Cameron Crazy
    • http://www.geocities.com/cek_83/index.html
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Oh for the love of god, why is this under debate?  "Number of launch bays" means jack squat in Freespace, since fighters just pick a launch path and follow it regardless of where it lies on the ship.  It's all a matter of how strong the mission designer wants to make a ship.

As for the logistical argument, the fall of the colossus proves the point against carriers actually, as no reasonable number of figters would have changed that battle.  Another Colossus would have.  The question really revolves around how a given fleet wants to use strike craft; if there are a lot of small skirmishes, then you want lots of subspace capable craft to jump in and out of hotspots and engage mutliple targets simultaneously.  A large ship isn't as good at that.  However, if you have major fleet battles going on, then you need capital ships with big guns, because fighters play a diminishing roll as more large ships enter the picture.  So ultimately, it depends on the strategies and composition of enemy forces rather than your own strategic goals, making a more versitile fleet far more valuable than a bunch of specialized ships that are not built to directly enter combat as the aggressor.  Current naval tactics do not draw a parallel, especially since this is a video game.

However, on that note, does anyone else think that both the Shivans and NTF seem to be able to throw a whole lot more fighters at the GTVA than you ever see of your own team in a mission?  All things created equal, you'd either never deal with more than a couple of bomber wings or else have a ton of friendly fighters hanging around (the NTF sortied more bombers against the Colossus convoy than the Psamtic did against the Sath).  But if the player has too much support the missions go out of player control, and that's not the point of a game now is it.
who needs a signature? ;)
It's not much of an excuse for a website, but my stuff can be found here

"Holding the last thread on a page comes with an inherent danger, especially when you are edit-happy with your posts.  For you can easily continue editing in points without ever noticing that someone else could have refuted them." ~Me, on my posting behavior

Last edited by StratComm on 08-23-2027 at 08:34 PM

 
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Ah good, discussion :)



Quote
A destroyer can do more damage in a small amount of time than a group of fighter... trust me on this  especially when we start going to really big sized capships (the ones which matter)


Not when we're talking about the end of FS2.  Heck even pre-trebuchet, snubfighters can cripple the Sathanas.

The Sathanas may carry its own fighter complement, but even a carrier half the size of an Orion would carry more than the Colossus (I'm assuming the Sathanas carries a similar complement to that of the Colossus of course).

And ever notice that Stilleto IIs aren't available for mission against ships like the Ravana?  That's cause Stilleto IIs are rather insanely good if used properly (nothing beats a pair of Helios though).




Quote

2nd.
If a carrier has "companions", why can't a destroyer have some?


I was actually taking a carrier half the size of a destroyer.  The armor discussion was to show that a carrier would have at _least_ as much armor as a destroyer (and I personally think it would have much more).  Half a destroyer should be enough to build at least a couple of cruisers eh?



Quote
3rd.
Carriers need power too, or what do you use to power up fighters, bombers, engine, subspace drive (think how much energy just that uses)


Did I say a carrier doesn't need power?  I explicitly stated that a carrier needs to power MORE fighters and its related support crews (something you neglected to mention).  However, considering how much the Colossus complained when firing not even all its beams and how the Typhon class had so many reactor overload problems, I'd say that the reactor (and its fuel, if it has any) take up a fair proportion of a destroyer.  In any case, a destroyer is so large that the space has to be used for _something_.  I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say at least a quarter is devoted to reactors.


Quote
4th.
A beam straight through the fighterbays is something no pilot wishes to see. And if these are destroyed well... go play the mission where the Colossus is destroyed. Believe, if they had anyway to manually launch a fighter they would... And it's not inconvinient... it's just as deadly...


No it wouldn't.  Look at the fighterbays of the Hatshepsut.  They're big.  But do they have lots of plasma conduits?  No they wouldn't, why would they?  There aren't any beam cannons nearby.  Fighterbays are already designed to take a vacuum, so exposing them to vacuum isn't a horrible incident.  Sure the beam may vaporaize a large number of fighters and destroy launch equipment, but the surviving fighters can still be launched, if only by the pilots flying out themselves.

A hole in a orion would cause the leaking energy and plasma (from the beam cannon cores) to continue damaging the ship.

The point is that while a hole in a fighterbay is a bad thing, it isn't a crippling thing.

The Colossus fighter launchbay didn't have a hole in it; rubble had obstructed it.  A carrier would have multiple launchbays and not suffer such a problem (frankly even the Colossus should've had more than one launchbay)


Quote
5th.
Put a Sathanas near any carrier you wish to design, it can be any size you want, see who wins!!


Oh and a destroyer would fair any better?  Give me a break.


Quote
6th.
Quote
Now, if a Ravana jumped in on your Orion, how long would your orion survive?quote]

I rest my case (I have an Orion now... coll!! ) Here you have clearly shown the superiority of a destroyer... well done!!


Huh?  The Orion survives up to 5 minutes.  The carrier would also survive about five minutes (perhaps longer since more armor is allocated to protect the reactor and bridge).  So how does that make the destroyer any more superior?

Quote
7th. (nitpick actually)
Weight in space doesn't mean anything. (so sue me)


Yes, but mass does.


Quote
8th.
They look cool!!


Yes they do, but why can't a carrier be modeled to look cool as well?



Quote
Why does the carrier get support corvettes and the ravana doesn't? How come the Orion didn't either?

For equal tonnage the shivans should have 2 or more destroyers. The same goes for the terran destroyer. So comparing a carrier and its carrier group against a single destroyer is an unfair comparison.

If you balance the battle in favour of the carrier of course it will win but make it a fair fight and the battle becomes much harder to call.


Yes, but I'm taking a carrier half the size of an orion (and potentially less than half the tonnage).

Quote
Even if the carrier is as tough as the Orion there's still only one. As soon as it's dead the shivans can quite easily pull their caps out of the way and kill everything else with waves of bombers.


So what prevents the carrier from jumping out first sign of trouble and then sending its _greater_ numbers of bombers and fighters to obliterate everything?


Quote
Maybe. Power consumption may have gone up but the FS1 era Orion and Typhon were doing something with all that space before they were refitted with beams. Most likely the reactors needed upgrading but it doesn't immediately follow that they got significantly larger. Maybe they just got much more expensive due to the need to make the components more powerful while remaining the same size.
In fact it's unlikely that the weight penalty was that much or it would have just been easier to build a new ship instead of retrofitting the Orion.


Fair enough, but from what happened with the Typhons, I'm under the impression that the Orion's reactors were indeed retrofitted with new and more powerful ones while the Typhon was not.

And the space had to be used for something; I believe that it was used for reactors even before beams.  With beams, they got new ones generating much more power at the same size (i.e. still huge).


Quote
Tell me who does more damage on the mission to destroy the Sathanas, you and every fighter/bomber or the Colossus itself?
It's not unbalanced it just as reality is... One Ship to rule them all! And it's beams are quite terran.


It's rather funny, because the way I've always crippled the Sathanas, given 10 wings of heavy bombers (costing much less than a Colossus) and a supply ship, I bet I can take down the Sathanas without taking too long (albeit slower than the big C, but I can just as easily spring for 50 wings of bombers for what the Colossus costed).



Which brings to to another thought.  What do we always get ordered to do when a capital ship jumps in?  Kill its beam turrets.

Frankly, I'd rather try to hold out while hoping my bombers and fighters kill the beam turrets rather than try slugging it out with my own beams.  At least there's a slim chance of survival with the former choice if the enemy has a bigger ship.



Now, finally, why would there even be a head to head confrontation between a carrier and a destroyer?  Any carrier commander would get the carrier out if jumped by a destroyer.  A carrier would never jump in itself to attack a destroyer.

Sure the carrier would most likely be destroyed if hit by a surprise attack, but it'll survive long enough to launch a lot of snubfighters and they would try to engage a quick shortjump if possible.

A destroyer would just as likely be destroyed in a surprise attack, whether by a fighter swarm or a destroyer.




Quote
Oh for the love of god, why is this under debate? "Number of launch bays" means jack squat in Freespace, since fighters just pick a launch path and follow it regardless of where it lies on the ship. It's all a matter of how strong the mission designer wants to make a ship.


Oh come on, debate is fun as long as it stays civil.

While number of launchbays in the FS2 engine currently is meaningless, the story can easily accomodate for it.

And the last point, you do try to make things seem logical at least.  A fighter shouldn't be able to blow apart a corvette in 2 seconds and stuff like that.



Quote
As for the logistical argument, the fall of the colossus proves the point against carriers actually, as no reasonable number of figters would have changed that battle. Another Colossus would have. The question really revolves around how a given fleet wants to use strike craft; if there are a lot of small skirmishes, then you want lots of subspace capable craft to jump in and out of hotspots and engage mutliple targets simultaneously. A large ship isn't as good at that. However, if you have major fleet battles going on, then you need capital ships with big guns, because fighters play a diminishing roll as more large ships enter the picture. So ultimately, it depends on the strategies and composition of enemy forces rather than your own strategic goals, making a more versitile fleet far more valuable than a bunch of specialized ships that are not built to directly enter combat as the aggressor.


I'm not convinced that the situation of Their Finest Hour shows this.  In this mission, the Colossus was already damaged and doesn't even fire back (no beams free?) at the Sathanas.  The Sathanas attacks immediately and over and over again as soon as it jumps in.  But... the fact that the big C could've jumped out shows that there is time for something like that (even the Pheonicia jumped out after getting smacked).  Then waves and waves of bombers and fighters all shortjump in and start killing the fighter screen and disabling turrets.

While the individual fighter might not make as much difference, a couple of wings do since FS2 warships are so vulnerable to system disabling.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2004, 03:39:24 pm by 998 »

 

Offline StratComm

  • The POFressor
  • 212
  • Cameron Crazy
    • http://www.geocities.com/cek_83/index.html
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Sorry Chronoreverse, but I have to call you out on one thing.

The idea that any sensible carrier commander would jump out at the first sign of trouble is obvious.  However, the same would apply to a destroyer that is overmatched, or even a cruiser or corvette.  How many times did we see situations like this in FS2's campaign?  More than once, most certainly.  When the Iceni gets jumped by Vasudans in the SOC loop, when the Aquitane gets jumped (several times) in the Nebula, when the Colossus gets jumped by the Sath.  How many times did the ship commander immediately jump out?  There are cases where the ships did (what is it, Bearbaiting?), but for the most part they all hung around.  Whatever prevented them from leaving would still apply to a Carrier, and the carrier can't as easily fight back.  Remember that by the time of FS2 all ships carried SS tracking technology, so jumping away only delays the inevitable.

Don't get me wrong, carriers have a place in FS2.  However, that place is not as a replacement to the Destroyer class, but rather as a suppliment.
who needs a signature? ;)
It's not much of an excuse for a website, but my stuff can be found here

"Holding the last thread on a page comes with an inherent danger, especially when you are edit-happy with your posts.  For you can easily continue editing in points without ever noticing that someone else could have refuted them." ~Me, on my posting behavior

Last edited by StratComm on 08-23-2027 at 08:34 PM

 
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Weight is not mass.... mass is important to consider, weight is not (that is why I said it was a nitpick) :p


And so? I dont' get what you want to say....

Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
And it's beams are quite terran.


I hope you are kidding... confront the power of BFRed to that of BFGreen...no match for the Sathanas

 
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Fair enough.  However, a destroyer that jumps out immediately can no longer really participate in the battle and inflict damage... not to the degree a carrier would.

Whereas the carrier would then proceed to launch a huge swarm of snubfighters that jump back and start blasting (and still have a fighter complement to cover itself), a destroyer would have a much smaller complement of such fighters to send back.

In any case, fighter and bomber weaponry have been steadily improving to the point where by the end of FS2, their weaponry is starting be enough to overwhelm even destroyers.



The SS tracking part is rather important of course.  It means that they can follow you.  But does buy some time for your fighters and bombers to continue harrassing the opponent while you're running, disabling things (and if they can take out the engines, you're home-free).



And speaking of things that prevent jumping out, I've always wondered about it, a lot of times, there was very little reason not to initiate a quick shortjump, anyone want to share theories?

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Whats the point of a destroyer?
er... ok...

it seems that you aren't understanding some of my points... let me rephrase some of them...

4th.
A beam hit in a fighterbay would easily prevent more fighters from "ever"!!! being sent by that fighterbay.

5th.
Quote
Put a HUGE Terran destroyer against a HUGE Terran carrier, what do you get? (same point as the sathanas).


6th.
If a Ravana is that deadly why strike with other ships?

7th.
Already discussed, see my previous post and karajorma's

8th.
A destroyer will always be cooler than a carrier :D

Quote
It's rather funny, because the way I've always crippled the Sathanas, given 10 wings of heavy bombers (costing much less than a Colossus) and a supply ship, I bet I can take down the Sathanas without taking too long (albeit slower than the big C, but I can just as easily spring for 50 wings of bombers for what the Colossus costed).


Actually... see the costs of those 10 wings of heavy bombers (plus the bombs).

As you say in the last part of your post fighters have rather tactical roles, disabling and disarming ships, etc...

But remember... a destroyer has them too!! (much fewer but it still has them) and could easily blow out a fighterbay or 2.

P.S.
Forgot to mention...
The Colossus didn't complain about the power... it complained about the heat from using the same cannon over and over again.

ryuune75 it was a nitpick... I was joking ok?
and about the beams... they are in diferent arguments... you can't compare... when I said to confront a Sathanas to any carrier I was talking about a possible Shivan carrier for christ sake!!! :mad:

:EDIT: and what prevents a destroyer from jumping in, blasting everything to kingdom come and imediatly warping out?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2004, 03:56:09 pm by 1606 »
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Quote
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Now, finally, why would there even be a head to head confrontation between a carrier and a destroyer?  Any carrier commander would get the carrier out if jumped by a destroyer.  A carrier would never jump in itself to attack a destroyer.


In which case a couple of destroyers could always hold any node against a carrier trying the enter the system.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
ryuune75 it was a nitpick... I was joking ok?


Lol, now i see... language problems here, hehe.... :)


Quote
Originally posted by Ghostavo
As you say in the last part of your post fighters have rather tactical roles, disabling and disarming ships, etc...

But remember... a destroyer has them too!! (much fewer but it still has them) and could easily blow out a fighterbay or 2.


So it's still the idea of an hybrid desing. What i think don't works it's a destroyer without ANY fighter escort at all. It will be just dead meat, because it will not bea able to defend against bombers (like WW2 warships were).

 
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Quote
A beam hit in a fighterbay would easily prevent more fighters from "ever"!!! being sent by that fighterbay.


I've explained why I don't believe this to be true.  You've yet to do so beside asserting that it is.


Quote
6th.
If a Ravana is that deadly why strike with other ships?


A carrier would be hiding somewhere while sending wave after wave of bombers to disable, then take down the Ravana.  My point is that it can do that by itself since it carries enough fighter and bombers for that.


Quote
8th.
A destroyer will also be cooler than a carrier

   

Would it?  I think they're really cool too, but a carrier can be cool too.  And if we can have cool destroyers and carriers, why not cooler corvettes and cruisers as well?



Quote
Actually... see the costs of those 10 wings of heavy bombers (plus the bombs).

As you say in the last part of your post fighters have rather tactical roles, disabling and disarming ships, etc...

But remember... a destroyer has them too!! (much fewer but it still has them) and could easily blow out a fighterbay or 2.


Don't understand the first sentence.

It does indeed, but a carrier would have enough fighters to cover each attacker 1 to one AND have wings leftover to attack.

I've already mentioned how a carrier would have at the very least 4 fighter launchbays (which is what you can actually strike at).  In any case, it wouldn't matter since a carrier wouldn't be situated in the middle of a battlefield unless under a surprise attack (in which case it would lose regardless of what it is unless it's a juggernaut).

Quote
The Colossus didn't complain about the power... it complained about the heat from using the same cannon over and over again.


Ah yes, you're right, it was "The heatsinks weren't designed to take this kind of abuse".  Which means that the space for the giant heatsinks for the beam turrets (heatsinks by design have to be large and heavy) could be either empty or used for more fighter related stuff, excellent.



And I'm actually discussing the merits of a carrier over a destroyer hybrid.  I think that a carrier class should be created and a dedicated beam corvette should be created rather than having a single do it all class.

 

Offline magatsu1

  • 210
Whats the point of a destroyer?
Helios are powerful but too expensive to use on a regular basis.

who'd want to Captain a destroyer size ship without any big guns anyway ?
Blitzerland: Knows what he's talkin' about

 
Whats the point of a destroyer?
If I can order 10 wings of Ares fighters to trebuchet a target into submission, then I wouldn't mind.


And I'd say that Colossus juggernauts are too expensive to be used to hold back a Sathanas for an extra 5 seconds.