Author Topic: GTD Hades post-Capella  (Read 21186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Falcon

  • 29
Make a Leviathan deadlier by replacing the Terran Turrets with Long Range or Standard Flak cannons and equiping its missle turret with an EMP-Adv. or a Pirahna missle. :devil:

 

Offline FireCrack

  • 210
  • meh...
The aeolus outarmours both the levi and the feneris
actualy, mabye not.
"When ink and pen in hands of men Inscribe your form, bipedal P They draw an altar on which God has slaughtered all stability, no eyes could ever soak in all the places you anoint, and yet to see you all at once we only need the point. Flirting with infinity, your geometric progeny that fit inside you oh so tight with triangles that feel so right."
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944 59230781640628620899862803482534211706...
"Your ever-constant homily says flaw is discipline, the patron saint of imperfection frees us from our sin. And if our transcendental lift shall find a final floor, then Man will know the death of God where wonder was before."

 

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Atankharz'ythi
  • 211
Quote
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
[The Hecate was] propably made in Vasuda :o
Um, no.  Vasudan ships are all about flowing curves.  The Hecate, with all its random fins and oversized engines, looks more like the result of an anime cartoonist's anchovy-pizza-induced nightmare.
Sesqu... Sesqui... what?
Sesquipedalian, the best word in the English language.

The Scroll of Atankharzim | FS2 syntax highlighting

 

Offline ShadowWolf_IH

  • A Real POF Guy
  • 211
    • CoW
ois it just me or was the modeller for the heacate inspired by a grassshopper's head?  and tell me those side fins aren't legs.
You can't take the sky from me.  Can't take that from me.

Casualties of War

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
I thought the Hecate looked more like a squashed cockroach, myself.

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
There's nothing wrong with terran ship designs or the Collin.

the main reson terran capships get pawned is couse teh [V] guys gave them awfull beams. Terran beams do less damage, the have a greater re-charge rate and their lifetime is shorter.
They are approximately 4 TIMES weaker than shivan counterparts.
The SGreen is a espacially dumb case (45 seconds re-charge!!!!)

Try putting LRBGrens on Colossus and watch it carve the Sathanas.
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
The (FS2) capship texturing is ****ed up at the very least.  

Probably worth noting the likely reason the ter ships don't have good beams is simply because they don't have good enough reactors to power better ones........

 

Offline DIO

  • 26
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
There's nothing wrong with terran ship designs or the Collin.

the main reson terran capships get pawned is couse teh [V] guys gave them awfull beams. Terran beams do less damage, the have a greater re-charge rate and their lifetime is shorter.
They are approximately 4 TIMES weaker than shivan counterparts.
The SGreen is a espacially dumb case (45 seconds re-charge!!!!)

Try putting LRBGrens on Colossus and watch it carve the Sathanas.

Well the Shivan is suppose to be the uber enemy and the Sathanas supposed to be the uber battlesihip, I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Offline StratComm

  • The POFressor
  • 212
  • Cameron Crazy
    • http://www.geocities.com/cek_83/index.html
What I don't understand is why certain people continue calling the Colossus some variant of "Collin"  There is neither two 'l's nor any 'n's in the entire flipping word.

Terrans are supposed to be renowned for their weaponry (as opposed to Vasudans, who specialized more in reactors and propulsion) but the trend doesn't seem to continue into FS2.  You always get the sense that the Terran war machine relies more heavily on numbers than technology.
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

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
What I don't understand is why certain people continue calling the Colossus some variant of "Collin"  There is neither two 'l's nor any 'n's in the entire flipping word.

Terrans are supposed to be renowned for their weaponry (as opposed to Vasudans, who specialized more in reactors and propulsion) but the trend doesn't seem to continue into FS2.  You always get the sense that the Terran war machine relies more heavily on numbers than technology.


I'm more interested in why everyone keeps misspelling 'Colin'.......

:p

 

Offline Kie99

  • 211
Quote
underneath strat's post
Last edited by StratComm on 08-23-2027 at 08:34 PM

WTF????
"You shot me in the bollocks, Tim"
"Like I said, no hard feelings"

 

Offline Unknown Target

  • Get off my lawn!
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • Push.Pull?
What does speed exactly have to do with anything, in game terms? Since all of the ships seem to move at top speed, and have no problems, what's the problem?

Hell, speed doesn't matter when traversing systems, because they just need to jump ffrom point A to point B, and it doesn't matter in combat, because all vessels are usualyl right up near each other, and don't maneuver much.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
It's nice to be able to run away if you need to.

There have to be restrictions on subspace drives we don't know about, because otherwise quite a few of the places were FS battles take place wouldn't have battles taking place there.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Drew

  • 29
    • http://www.galactic-quest.com
Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
My personal guess is that the GTVA will happily pour money into their military...because that will help the economy via military contracts.



The GTVA would be too broke to pay out for government contracts.  The only way the GTVA to get the funds to replenish their treasury is to let the economy fix itself, (which would take a very long time since resources and money have been drained into the war effort) and use tax money gathered to rebuild the fleet.  

Unless the GTVA has a total self sustained economy, which makes cannon sense in a rediculous sort of way.
[(WWF - steroids + ties - spandex) / Atomic Piledrivers] - viewing audience = C-SPAN

My god.. He emptied the gasoline tank from the van onto your cat, lit him on fire, threw him in the house and dove for cover.  :wtf: Family indeed.  ~ KT

Happiness is belt fed.

 
This is pretty simple.

Mixing the requirements for a carrier and a battleship(destroyer because for some reason FS reverses things) is possibly the worst idea, ever conceived...by anyone...ever.

By being a jack of all trades the destroyers in FS are the worst compromise between firepower and fighter capacity, making them worthless overall.

With subspace travel there is NO REASON why ships of the line (destroyers) should ever...EVER carry fighters...EVER.

What the GTVA needs is a carrier, its really that simple, something designed to launch, recover, and DESTROY fighters.

A carrier capable of defending itself while it withdraws from direct-fire combat = GOOD!

A destroyer that sacrifices firepower, armor, speed or maneuverability to carry fighters into a direct-fire(IE line of sight) battle = BAD!

If the GTVA had dedicated ships of the line, say a Hecate with actual firepower supported by multiple Deimos corvettes and screened by fighters and cruisers they would pwn, but instead they suck.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Quote
Originally posted by Drew



The GTVA would be too broke to pay out for government contracts.  The only way the GTVA to get the funds to replenish their treasury is to let the economy fix itself, (which would take a very long time since resources and money have been drained into the war effort) and use tax money gathered to rebuild the fleet.  

Unless the GTVA has a total self sustained economy, which makes cannon sense in a rediculous sort of way.


Since when has being broke stopped a government from spending money? They PRINT the money, they don't care.

GoreChild...no. Don't make us hurt you. Your own logic defeats itself.

With subspace travel, there are no rear-area posistions for a carrier to take. Everywhere is equally vunerable to attack. A carrier is too high-value a target, it must be able to defend itself. Hence the FS destroyer.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Nuclear1

  • 211
Quote
By being a jack of all trades the destroyers in FS are the worst compromise between firepower and fighter capacity, making them worthless overall.


:wtf:

Apparently you haven't played Freespace 2, or else you would have heard of a little ship called the Orion, which, when broadsiding a target, can destroy a Sobek with two BGreens and one or two slash turrets, easily bringing some of the most effective firepower in the GTVA to bear with a quick rotation.

Quote

What the GTVA needs is a carrier, its really that simple, something designed to launch, recover, and DESTROY fighters.


And, if you look around in the various user-made campaigns, you would find that several carrier designs have been implemented and completed.

Quote

With subspace travel there is NO REASON why ships of the line (destroyers) should ever...EVER carry fighters...EVER.


What, so you say that, just because fighters have a subspace drive, they should never have to dock with a larger ship except a rare, multi-billion dollar carrier? The purpose of the fighterbay in a destroyer is the ability for a destroyer to support itself in a direct confrontation with enemy capital ships by using its smaller squadrons to ward off enemy fighters and bombers and disable enemy turrets. Also, they allow the destroyer, which can be more commonly produced than a massive carrier, to reinforce its battlegroup with quick, easily-delivered firepower through fighters and strike bombers.

Quote
If the GTVA had dedicated ships of the line, say a Hecate with actual firepower supported by multiple Deimos corvettes and screened by fighters and cruisers they would pwn, but instead they suck.


:wtf:

A battlegroup of that size is just far too improbably and inefficeint. Sure, they would kick some serious ***, but in one place at a time only.

And Hecates, despite what many say, has some serious firepower, at least in its forward arc. You know those two turrets on the front? Those are beam turrets. When a Hecate jumps in, it just simply maneuvers to put a Shivan/NTF/Vasudan/HOL target in its sights, pushes the button, and makes the bad guy go away.

Quote
A destroyer that sacrifices firepower, armor, speed or maneuverability to carry fighters into a direct-fire(IE line of sight) battle = BAD!


A destroyer that carries more firepower, significantly tougher armor, speeds of over 15 m/s for its enormous size, and can almost turn on a dime in-game, and be able to deliver several squadrons of lethal fighters and bombers at various targets = NOT BAD! :rolleyes:
Spoon - I stand in awe by your flawless fredding. Truely, never before have I witnessed such magnificant display of beamz.
Axem -  I don't know what I'll do with my life now. Maybe I'll become a Nun, or take up Macrame. But where ever I go... I will remember you!
Axem - Sorry to post again when I said I was leaving for good, but something was nagging me. I don't want to say it in a way that shames the campaign but I think we can all agree it is actually.. incomplete. It is missing... Voice Acting.
Quanto - I for one would love to lend my beautiful singing voice into this wholesome project.
Nuclear1 - I want a duet.
AndrewofDoom - Make it a trio!

 
Quote
Originally posted by nuclear1


:wtf:

Apparently you haven't played Freespace 2, or else you would have heard of a little ship called the Orion, which, when broadsiding a target, can destroy a Sobek with two BGreens and one or two slash turrets, easily bringing some of the most effective firepower in the GTVA to bear with a quick rotation.



And, if you look around in the various user-made campaigns, you would find that several carrier designs have been implemented and completed.



What, so you say that, just because fighters have a subspace drive, they should never have to dock with a larger ship except a rare, multi-billion dollar carrier? The purpose of the fighterbay in a destroyer is the ability for a destroyer to support itself in a direct confrontation with enemy capital ships by using its smaller squadrons to ward off enemy fighters and bombers and disable enemy turrets. Also, they allow the destroyer, which can be more commonly produced than a massive carrier, to reinforce its battlegroup with quick, easily-delivered firepower through fighters and strike bombers.



:wtf:

A battlegroup of that size is just far too improbably and inefficeint. Sure, they would kick some serious ***, but in one place at a time only.

And Hecates, despite what many say, has some serious firepower, at least in its forward arc. You know those two turrets on the front? Those are beam turrets. When a Hecate jumps in, it just simply maneuvers to put a Shivan/NTF/Vasudan/HOL target in its sights, pushes the button, and makes the bad guy go away.



A destroyer that carries more firepower, significantly tougher armor, speeds of over 15 m/s for its enormous size, and can almost turn on a dime in-game, and be able to deliver several squadrons of lethal fighters and bombers at various targets = NOT BAD! :rolleyes:


I have played Freespace2.

User campaigns, though fun, dont count because I was criticizing the naval model that Volition would have the GTVA follow and since the retail game is canon and user campaigns are not. And I wasnt really criticizing anyone but the GTVA and they dont really exist.

Dont talk down to me, I'm not a child, I wasnt talking down to you, but now I will.

I never said that fighters shouldnt have to dock, I said the carrier shouldnt be put anywhere near harms way(IE it hides in subspace if possible) or it lingers a good distance away, where it doesnt have to get shot at by stuff that can kick its ass.

In fact, why have fighter carrying ships at all if fighters can just zip all over the galaxy at will through subspace. Why not just have fighters in an underground bunker just jump into battle then back into their stupid bunker once the battle is over? Keep questioning the science fiction and it gets really stupid, really quick.

My point is, destroyers in the FS universe literally dont have to carry fighters. In relatively few missions do you actually support the Aquitane directly, in fact, unless forced(nebula time), the Aquitane rarely engages the enemy, hell its already acting just like a real carrier would! Why even put guns on it? Just make it a big flying hangar and launch hundreds of "deadly" fighters(your words not mine) to pummel enemies to dust?

Your example of the Orion is kind of cute. So effectively, in a broadside engagement with a smaller ship(a Sobek class carvette), the Orion(read battleship/carrier idiot combo) wins. Well ****, I never saw that coming, imagine how much quicker it could win if it gave up the fighter bays for more ordnance and armor, hell, maybe then it could beat medium sized Shivan ships and survive.

Your point about a battlegroup of a destroyer supported by corvettes and cruisers being improbable is just simply not true. It IS however improbable if you want to LOSE which makes me wonder about the strategic thought that went into any of the GTVA campaigns. The GTVA controls dozens of star systems and has innumerable resources at its command, it can afford battle groups like that if it wants to win.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Hmm...let me repeat.

There is no rear area. Everyone in a system is equally vunerable to attack. A carrier must be able to defend itself against attack from a ship of the line. And a ship of the line must be able to defend itself against bomber attack. Distance does not provide you insulation from hostile attack anymore.

Hence, the FS destroyer, which offers the ablities of both a ship of the line and a carrier in one platform. The tactical thinking you are basing your argument on is flawed, obscelent because of the nature of FS space combat.

It also happens to probably be the thinking that resulted in the Hecate-class destroyers. And those times when the Aquitaine had to run like hell from a Moloch should tell you just how safe your proposed carrier would be.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Jal-18

  • 28
It should also tell you how much better a full split between destroyers and carriers would be.  Would a Deimos run from a Moloch? Hell no.  It would have gone in and killed the sorry Shivan bastard.

A carrier in the same situation would have had more fighters and bombers (not to mention an escort group...) to counteract the threat.

Instead, you get a poorly designed hybrid which can't defend itself from fighters and quivers at the thought of a ship six times smaller then it is.

As to the distance issue: like hell there isn't a rear area.  Anywhere the Shivans are is called the front lines.  Anywhere where you have tons of GTVA between you and the Shivans is called the back area.  Even if the Shivans do jump that far back, it will take them a lot longer to reinforce their position then for the GTVA to reinforce its. (Seeing as your forces are closer)

(And I find it amusing how you can go from saying the Hecate kicks ass to admitting it sucks. )
« Last Edit: January 19, 2005, 08:15:58 pm by 1216 »