[Mad Bomber]

*sigh* you're really not getting my point.

I'm not suggesting that destroyers be abandoned altogether. They still have a very important role.

What I am suggesting is to have a higher cruiser/corvette-to-destroyer ratio in each fleet, and that to compensate, some of the 'vettes could be light carriers. I'm also completely ignoring the old, useless classes of cruiser (Fenris, Leviathan) for the purposes of the argument.

More tactical flexibility (you can be in more places at once), and no loss of fighter coverage.

Understand now?

[Ghostavo]

I agree with all that but I think that anything below destroyer class is useless as a carrier because it's just a waste of space, while anything destroyer or above can have the same or better cargo by volume ratio while keeping it's current weapons without becoming a specialised carrier. Think of this. Instead of having the fleet to carry what a destroyer is capable (or a bit less) you have that AND the firepower of a destroyer. Yes I agree corvette is the way of the future, but as carriers? No...

[karajorma]

Mad Bomber : I think you're forgetting that the Aeolus was discontinued because it was too expensive to be worth making. It was more cost effective for the GTVA to build corvettes instead. No doubt the war cruiser idea would suffer from the same high expense.

[aldo_14]

Corvettes would definately appear to be the replacement for the cruiser class altogether.

One other thing RE: fighter coverage - Arcadias also have multiple fighter wings on board.  That would likely provide a great deal of your fighter coverage in-system, especially if you work on the (fairly likely) assumption that there is at least one and (probably more) installation in a colonised GTVA system.  Destroyers would generally be used to bolster that and to provide roving security for uncolonised systems with no local coverage.... remember that range / time isn't an issue for fighter bases thanks to intrasystem jump drives.

[TopAce]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Corvettes would definately appear to be the replacement for the cruiser class altogether.
...

Corvettes are more expenses. One or another situation might demand that cheaper warships should be built quickly.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TopAce


Corvettes are more expenses. One or another situation might demand that cheaper warships should be built quickly.

Corvettes are better.  Simple upgrading - by FS2 time cruisers are essentially ineffective cannon-fodder, even a fighter can take them down.  FS1 they were useful as there were (initially) no shields, lighter bombing weapons and no beams.

With multiple flak & AAAf weapons, plus slash beams (which should be used for disabling), a corvette is a far more effective combat ship than a cruiser.   Despite an increased cost, the combat effectiveness of a corvette should more than compensate.  Additionally, the shipyards will be geared up towards rapid manufacture of these vessels as they take over wholesale from cruisers, and manufacturing refinement will reduce the cost.

It's essentially equivalent to a new cruiser class replacing the Fenris / Leviathan.  The only difference is that the class has changed because the ship is so much more powerful.

[NGTM-1R]

Cruisers are hardly useless; it depends on how they're handled, much like corvettes and even destroyers. However, I do think that cruisers ought to be removed from a main offensive role and rather serve as installation defenders or escorts.

Again it comes back to how the ships are deployed. They come in ones and twos, which is practically a death sentence. A lone Leviathan is bomber-fodder, but a group of three or four is a formidible force.

What's the greatest number of large combatants we've ever seen deployed together? Two? (Either the NTC Majestic and NTC Refute or the GTCvs Actium and Lysander. The Actium and Lysander were deployed too far away from each other to really be mutually supporting, though.)

[aldo_14]

It's not a case of having less cruisers, it's a question of completely replacing them, one-for-one (or more likely in a 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio) with corvettes.

[TopAce]

Originally posted by TopAce
Corvettes are more expenses. ....

What the hell did I write? EXPENSIVE!

Originally posted by aldo_14
It's not a case of having less cruisers, it's a question of completely replacing them, one-for-one (or more likely in a 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio) with corvettes.

The Corvettisation era.

[Zarax]

You need to make cruisers much more agile to keep their usefullness...
Comeon, with jugs going at 25 why a cruiser should go only marginally faster (newer ones) or even slower?
I'd say to give them a 20% speed increase and that way you will have a convoy killing vessel and some quick anticap power when needed...
On the other side you may take the Lilith way... an overgunned vessel of mayem...

[aldo_14]

Agility?  For a >200m long ship?  

'sides which, the more you pump into engines the more you lose for weaponry.... not exactly ideal to have a convoy killing cruiser with about 3 working laser turrets.

Cruisers don't have a single practical advantage over corvettes.

[Zarax]

Strip down all those useless plasma turrets, replace it with flak and you will have extra power for the engines...
Besides that, with a next gen ship you can retain the current firepower and use a more efficent reactor for the engines...
The Aeolus and Mentu were both faster and with better weapons/armor than their predecessors...
Set a cruiser speed to 40/45 and you will obtain something much deadlier, and an harder target for many turrets FOV...

[Akalabeth Angel]

Corvettes are better. Simple upgrading - by FS2 time cruisers are essentially ineffective cannon-fodder, even a fighter can take them down. FS1 they were useful as there were (initially) no shields, lighter bombing weapons and no beams.

       I hear a lot (or maybe just one person a lot of times) saying that FS2 cruisers can be taken down by "a fighter". Am I the only person that played Feint! Parry! Riposte! were the player is in a Perseus and has to lure fighters from a pair of Fenris back to his own Leviathan. I'm not sure about anyone else, but if I got too close to those Cruisers I got cut apart. Even an Aten with its two AAAfs is going to be a hard nut for a single fighter to crack (unless you have broken Trebuchets).

           A lot of people probably rather remember the first mission with the Colossus where a Leviathan was attacking an Arcadia and it was essentially fodder because its four AAAfs were beam-locked. If those beams weren't locked, Alpha 1 would be the only survivor (if that).

           Despite their relative fragility, Cruisers can be very effective Anti-fighter elements (especially the Aeolus). Shivan Cruisers even can be very effective anti-ship elements . . . hell a Lilith can rip through a Deimos with ease.

           And not every battle is the Colossus versus the Shivan armada. When the Shivans aren't threatening extinction, there are pirates and other small battles were cruisers guarding convoys and the like are very effective. Whose going to get a Corvette to guard a couple of freighters? But a Cruiser, sure sounds good.

          As for expense, there is no clear explanation in FS2 as to what is more expensive or not. Any ship mass produced will be less expensive than a ship on a limited run like the Aeolus. Its also why the Iceni was probably several times more expensive than a Deimos.

[karajorma]

People tend to forget how deadly a leviathan with beams-free can be cause you rarely (or never) meet one in the main campaign.

In a mission I was making I made the mistake of having two leviathan's next to each other and beam unlocked. They kicked the **** out of me. While one was knocking me about with AAAf the other recharged.

[Zarax]

Yep, a beam freed Leviathan can be a total pain especially for lighter fighters...

[Ghostavo]

Maxims rule?

Fenris and Leviathans when in close proximity seem to beat the crap out of each other when a fighter goes between them... hehehe...  They might make me lose a bit of shields or 5% or so of hull if they are lucky, but they finish each other off if they are not careful

[TopAce]

They do, but they are not always available. They are like Trebuchets. If all the GTVA fighters were compatible with the Trebs or Maxims, the AAAfs would make no sense.

[Ghostavo]

But that's not the point, the point is a wing of Enr... er... those fighters that have 8 gunpoints which can load maxims... can blow a cruiser in seconds... with ease.

[TopAce]

And how many pilots throught the GTVA are authorized to fly them(GTF Erinyes, by the way)? At most 50, the elites.

[Ghostavo]

And how much time until it starts to get mass produced?