[NGTM-1R]

Also, Capella was singularly devoid of unstable nodes.

[Cabbie]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Terran destroyers or criuisers by their design (shape, weapon, subsystems & engine placement) are superior to the shivans in most cases..

What really makes shivans more deadly is the fact that their beams have a re-charge time of 15 seconds tops, while terran have 25-30. On top of that the shivan beams fire for 7.0 seconds, while terran fire 4.0 - in other words, shivan beams are FOUR times as powerfull as terran ones.

I changed all the beam values to a mid centre between the two (20-25 sec recharge for all, 6 second fire for terrans, 7 for shivans), and belive me, shivans destroyers started to look pretty bad at that point...



On another note, in the last few FS2 mission it is clearly stated that "Shivans are just as dependant on subspace nodes as we are"

hmm interesting snippet of info...

[Jetmech Jr.]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Terran destroyers or criuisers by their design (shape, weapon, subsystems & engine placement) are superior to the shivans in most cases..

What really makes shivans more deadly is the fact that their beams have a re-charge time of 15 seconds tops, while terran have 25-30. On top of that the shivan beams fire for 7.0 seconds, while terran fire 4.0 - in other words, shivan beams are FOUR times as powerfull as terran ones.

I changed all the beam values to a mid centre between the two (20-25 sec recharge for all, 6 second fire for terrans, 7 for shivans), and belive me, shivans destroyers started to look pretty bad at that point...

 

So you changed the stats from canon to suit your argument?

Terran destroyers tend to focus on bringing heavy firepower towards the sides (Orion, anyone?). Ideal if your going to sidle up next to em. Shivans, however, have destroyers that are a) in possession of FAR superior weapons, and b) are capable of focusing all of their heavy-hitting weapons in one direction. (except the Demon, which is still superior to Terran destroyers IIRC even though it can only fire one gun at a time on any given ship)

Also, your underestimating the shivan destroyers radius IIRC.

Not all Capship battles take place in confined quarters, either (shivan Beams have a superior range, too), nor are they completely immobile. They can turn to face an enemy.

[deep_eyes]

I belive that in the story, when dealing with subspace travel, when its intersystem there isnt  "one conduit" from point a to z within a system. That concept is between system to system. when in system i dont think the subsapce travel essentially is the same in terms of those 2 types of travel. i belive in FS1 there was an explanation for this i just dont remember which specifically....

however, it has been mentioned plenty of times the shivans jump in and out "random" entires between systems without subspace nodes. but the only contradiction to this is that in some cases, they actually use the nodes suggesting a possible distance issue.
maybe they can only jump random systems within a certain max range....

i think the shivans got subspace down to apoint where its just like Inner system travel, without the nodes to go from say pluto to earth in 4 minutes via subspace.

[deep_eyes]

Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.


So you changed the stats from canon to suit your argument?

Terran destroyers tend to focus on bringing heavy firepower towards the sides (Orion, anyone?). Ideal if your going to sidle up next to em. Shivans, however, have destroyers that are a) in possession of FAR superior weapons, and b) are capable of focusing all of their heavy-hitting weapons in one direction. (except the Demon, which is still superior to Terran destroyers IIRC even though it can only fire one gun at a time on any given ship)

Also, your underestimating the shivan destroyers radius IIRC.

Not all Capship battles take place in confined quarters, either (shivan Beams have a superior range, too), nor are they completely immobile. They can turn to face an enemy.

agreed....

story wise and common sense wise based on current human designs... DUDE! current navies do not balance all there guns in the front of the damn thing to get a  nice sniper like attack like the shivans. the shivan mode of attack is much more animalistic and less calculated (well more as long as there target is infront of them). Human design balances all weapons on all sides to provide the best possible cover to all its suroundings. as soon as a cap ship gets behind a sethanas, it just camps and blows it from the ass...

one of these days ima write a theroy and motief explaing Shivan and Terran/vasudan tactics based on the story without chaning anything to convene my arguement.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Eh? Yeah, I know that about navies, hence why I stated that terran design focuses more on putting guns on the sides. Shivans tend to go sheer offensive, though, moving in and decimating anything thats in their way. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any time when the shivans were on pure defensive, where having good coverage would help a lot more. Also, when your on the attack, you tend to be moving forwards, with your front towards the enemy.

As per the Sathanas backside thing, wouldn't work. While they turn obscenely slow, they can still make it in time to slag any ship attacking their rear before they're even at half health.

[Ghostavo]

Shivans use swarm tactics, therefore it's quite logical to combine that with a all-weapons-in-the-front ship design.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
As per the Sathanas backside thing, wouldn't work. While they turn obscenely slow, they can still make it in time to slag any ship attacking their rear before they're even at half health.

But any admiral worth his rank would have the destroyer(s) manuver to stay in the rear of the Sathanas.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Originally posted by Liberator


But any admiral worth his rank would have the destroyer(s) manuver to stay in the rear of the Sathanas.

But any shivan admiral (or whatever) worth his rank would dive, bringing it's LRed to bear a lot faster than the slow ass destroyers could maneuver out of reach.

[NGTM-1R]

Slash beams tend to kill that LRed an awful lot. Maybe it's poorly sited or something...I've had a Deimos take it out with un-SEXP'd TerSlash fire three out of five times.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


But any admiral worth his rank would have the destroyer(s) manuver to stay in the rear of the Sathanas.

Which is why the Shivans would plan their attacks so as to ensure their big hitters arrived in a position where they could bring their main weaponry to bear quickly and effectively.

Presumably, a Sathanas could fire it's main guns as soon as they emerged from subspace - ideal for hitting hard and fast.  Shivans - if they have a set of particular tactics - will attack in multiple locations to deny the enemy manueverability and freedom; forcing them on the back foot.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Thanks much, aldo. Everyone seems to think that shivan ships will always be fought at their weakest point, or be put on the defensive, or that they'd be idiots and just sit their while the soak up fire .

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
....that they'd be idiots and just sit their while the soak up fire .

Umm, Colossus vs. Sathanas, round 1?

[Kie99]

I have made a mission to show what happens if 5 Orions jump in behind the Sathanas, If anyone's interested I'll e-mail it to them.

[übermetroid]

since when did Orions travel in packs?

[Kie99]

Since I made the mission!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


Umm, Colossus vs. Sathanas, round 1?

There's a reason why people hated that mission.........  

Of course, the first Sathani let itself be ambushed.... it got hit by the bombers and Mjolnirs, and must have realised it was being targeted with precision - but not fatal - strikes.

And, hey presto, out came the GTVA's biggest and best ship - the Colossus.  And the Sathani sat, and was destroyed... and in the process would have fully analysed the offensive capabilities of the Colossus itself.  Next time a Sathani encountered the Colossus, it destroyed it....

So who's to say the first Sathani wasn't sacrificed to identify the GTVA's most powerful weapon, on the assumption that the GTVA technological level would result in a single ship or class comparable to the Sathani?

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Also, Capella was singularly devoid of unstable nodes.

Not so. Nodes form constantly, generally only lasting a few seconds. It's possible the shivans can tap into these micro nodes and force them to stay open long enough to get their ships through.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Thanks much, aldo. Everyone seems to think that shivan ships will always be fought at their weakest point, or be put on the defensive, or that they'd be idiots and just sit their while the soak up fire .

The same holds true for the GTVA. Their ships wouldn't just stand there and soak fire. If a Sath jumps in, you jump out (preferably at least 1000 klicks away) and every friendly in the vicinity jumps behind the sath (and you could allso jump back).

Of course, the sath can jump out too..and there we have the jump in, jump out marathon...

[Kie99]

Sooo Does anyone want the mission, bear in mind that its not just the orions warping in and blowing it up but something else happens, go on just try it!