[Nuclear1]

For one, I was never "talking down to you." I was presenting an argument for your position, and, now that you decide to start bad-mouthing, I'll counter.

You've never played the Freespace 2 campaign. I can assume that through the fact that you apparently don't recollect the mission "The Sicilian Defense", where, in an assault on an NTF Orion-class destroyer, a Sobek-class corvette jumps in on its broadside to assist you. Now, without destroying at least one of the Orion's beam cannons, the Sobek is almost guaranteed to be destroyed in one salvo from the Orion's main turrets.

Apparently you've not well-considered your "stupid bunker" theory. If you're referring to a planetary-based launch site, the power requirements to escape the atmosphere and gravitational pull of a planet or moon would make the time to charge the subspace drive ineffecient; hence, the fighters (and especially bombers) would not have the same quick response time that they would if they had simply been launched from the hangar bay of a destroyer, most of which destroyers deploy their fighters directly into the heat of a battle, or quickly enough into clear space and with little energy cost of the fighter's engine to allow a quick jump into subspace to respond to a threat.

And Orions, in case you haven't noticed, have a very high probability of engaging and surviving against medium-sized Shivan warships. Remember those two BGreens that it can bring to bear? Those could very easily cripple or destroy Cain-class or Moloch-class warships easily. As for Lliths and Destroyers, the Orion has a fighterbay for that: deploy bombers and strike fighters, take out the Shivan beam cannons, then torch the Shivans.

As for the carrier sequence, it seems that, once again, you undermine plot and strategy. While a carrier would indeed be effective at simply retrieving/deploying ships in one area, you miss one primary consequence: vulnerability. Even if you did add large amounts of anti-fighter/bomber weapons onto its hull, you miss the problem with those "medium-sized Shivan warships", or anything corvette-class and above. The carrier, with the exception of its docked fighters, which may very well be away on a sortie, as you describe, has little defense against these large capital ships.

Hecate-class destroyers are intended to serve as flagships, not as front-line assault weapons. Orions were birthed in the need to deliver heavy firepower during the Terran-Vasudan War right at the frontlines of major battles. A Hecate only engages when it must, or if no other heavy support is present for the player. The Hecate was created in a time of relative peace, with no real need for a frontal assault weapon.

With your arguments, it seems to me that you are indeed a child, and have little room for your own "strategic thought". There. Accuse me of "down-talking"?

[GoreChild]

Originally posted by ngtm1r


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.

Sorry I missed your post before, my bad.

Cant ships hide in subspace? or is there some sort of science fiction explanation as to why they cant?

Your idea of carriers needing to defend themselves is logical. A carriers strength, however, lies in the hundreds of fighters it can launch to defend itself and blast enemy ships to shreds.

If we take for granted that fighters(+ bombers obviously) are the key to winning a battle, then you realize that if the GTVA fielded a true carrier they would win almost by default since their fighters would EASILY outnumber the fighter complement of any "destroyer." Add to the carrier's arsenal a plethroa of flak guns and anti-fighter beams and along with its airwing it can defend itself(and its escorts) from enemy fighters.

And no, my logic doesnt defeat itself. You cant defeat logic with science fiction.

Sorry if I've been a jerk, I'll stop, and sorry to nuclear1 if I sounded like an ass.

OK...lets take a model of FS naval combat.

Let us assume then that destroyers fulfill the need for carriers in being basically a floating base for fighters, which can range throughout star systems(through subspace) carrying out attacks on enemy ships etc. This seems like an ideal situation for a carrier, more fighters = more firepower. Now that I think of it the GTVA seems to go for the option of one ship that does everything because its probably cheaper, rather than specialized ships that would actually win.

After all, why have 2 ships that rule when you can have one that...doesnt so much.

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by GoreChild
Sorry if I've been a jerk, I'll stop, and sorry to nuclear1 if I sounded like an ass.
 

No problem.

[Ghostavo]

(...)
If we take for granted that fighters(+ bombers obviously) are the key to winning a battle (...)

That's the problem, it isn't taken for granted. A destroyer can deliver more damage per time unit than an absurdly amount of bombers. That coupled with subspace drives, makes a pure carrier a not practical idea. If you try really hard to make a carrier in FS, odds are (if it's balanced of course) that it will look like a FS destroyer.

[GoreChild]

Originally posted by nuclear1
For one, I was never "talking down to you." I was presenting an argument for your position, and, now that you decide to start bad-mouthing, I'll counter.

You've never played the Freespace 2 campaign. I can assume that through the fact that you apparently don't recollect the mission "The Sicilian Defense", where, in an assault on an NTF Orion-class destroyer, a Sobek-class corvette jumps in on its broadside to assist you. Now, without destroying at least one of the Orion's beam cannons, the Sobek is almost guaranteed to be destroyed in one salvo from the Orion's main turrets.

Apparently you've not well-considered your "stupid bunker" theory. If you're referring to a planetary-based launch site, the power requirements to escape the atmosphere and gravitational pull of a planet or moon would make the time to charge the subspace drive ineffecient; hence, the fighters (and especially bombers) would not have the same quick response time that they would if they had simply been launched from the hangar bay of a destroyer, most of which destroyers deploy their fighters directly into the heat of a battle, or quickly enough into clear space and with little energy cost of the fighter's engine to allow a quick jump into subspace to respond to a threat.

And Orions, in case you haven't noticed, have a very high probability of engaging and surviving against medium-sized Shivan warships. Remember those two BGreens that it can bring to bear? Those could very easily cripple or destroy Cain-class or Moloch-class warships easily. As for Lliths and Destroyers, the Orion has a fighterbay for that: deploy bombers and strike fighters, take out the Shivan beam cannons, then torch the Shivans.

As for the carrier sequence, it seems that, once again, you undermine plot and strategy. While a carrier would indeed be effective at simply retrieving/deploying ships in one area, you miss one primary consequence: vulnerability. Even if you did add large amounts of anti-fighter/bomber weapons onto its hull, you miss the problem with those "medium-sized Shivan warships", or anything corvette-class and above. The carrier, with the exception of its docked fighters, which may very well be away on a sortie, as you describe, has little defense against these large capital ships.

Hecate-class destroyers are intended to serve as flagships, not as front-line assault weapons. Orions were birthed in the need to deliver heavy firepower during the Terran-Vasudan War right at the frontlines of major battles. A Hecate only engages when it must, or if no other heavy support is present for the player. The Hecate was created in a time of relative peace, with no real need for a frontal assault weapon.

With your arguments, it seems to me that you are indeed a child, and have little room for your own "strategic thought". There. Accuse me of "down-talking"?

You keep making the point that there "isnt any front like and no rear area." Ok, lets take that for granted now, anyone is vulnerable.

What happens when the shivans jump in close to a carrier? Well since any ship can enter subspace, why doesnt the carrier just...jump away? Hell it doesnt have to worry about leaving its fighters behind, they've got subspace drives too. Thats assuming the carriers escorts of upgunned destroyers and such dont torch the shivans anyway and is the reason real navies in real life put their carriers in the middle of a battle group. There isnt really any rear area in real life anyway, not with combat nowadays, hence destroyer pickets and such.

You make the argument that having fighters based on planets wouldnt work because it would be too slow. Why cant the fighters just enter subspace from within the atmosphere after they take off? Oh yeah, cuz this would preclude the need for starships which would make this game kind of boring right?

I understand that Volition wanted to do something different and cool with switching all the names for ship classes around and getting rid of carriers so that they could have cool ship vs. ship battles, and they have succeeded, this game rocks, though it isnt very realistic, but then again, what sci-fi is?

And about me being a child, I said I was sorry about acting like a jerk, give me some credit.

[DIO]

Originally posted by GoreChild


You keep making the point that there "isnt any front like and no rear area." Ok, lets take that for granted now, anyone is vulnerable.

What happens when the shivans jump in close to a carrier? Well since any ship can enter subspace, why doesnt the carrier just...jump away? Hell it doesnt have to worry about leaving its fighters behind, they've got subspace drives too. Thats assuming the carriers escorts of upgunned destroyers and such dont torch the shivans anyway and is the reason real navies in real life put their carriers in the middle of a battle group. There isnt really any rear area in real life anyway, not with combat nowadays, hence destroyer pickets and such.

You make the argument that having fighters based on planets wouldnt work because it would be too slow. Why cant the fighters just enter subspace from within the atmosphere after they take off? Oh yeah, cuz this would preclude the need for starships which would make this game kind of boring right?

I understand that Volition wanted to do something different and cool with switching all the names for ship classes around and getting rid of carriers so that they could have cool ship vs. ship battles, and they have succeeded, this game rocks, though it isnt very realistic, but then again, what sci-fi is?

And about me being a child, I said I was sorry about acting like a jerk, give me some credit.

Shivans can track enemy through subspace so They will just follow the jumped carrier.

[GoreChild]

Originally posted by nuclear1


No problem.

Missed this post too, sorry.

So if Shivans can track through subspace whats to stop the carrier from jumping repeatedly to evade pursuers? That and its escorts of course, which it would obviously rely on for protection.

[Hippo]

GoreChild: do you understand the concept of subspace in relevence to FS? No, a ship cannot just enter subspace. Subspace for capital ships needt to be done in a jump node, or there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING keeping them from being persued. This is canon, the shivans can track through subspace.

Also canon: FIGHTERS CAN NOT ALL MAKE INTER SYSTEM JUMPS. Inter system drives are expensive, and difficult to use, and are RESTRICTED to ONLY SOC squads. Also canon.

In the 5 seconds it takkes for a subspace drive to engage, at 40m/s, even pointing DIRECTLY away from a planet, you have fallen several hundred meters. FS fighters and bombers don't have enough force nescessary for them to EVER acheive escape velocity, and even if they could enter susbspace in an atmosphere, they MUST jump to somewhere INSIDE the planet's gravity field.

Your posts about FS spec destroyers doesn't make ANY sense, seeing that fighters are NOT able to make intersystem jumps.

You're wrong about Shivans needing to hold a large amount of space if they jump in behind GTVA lines. They need ONLY hold the jump node, and should they succeed, there is NO way of escaping the system.

[Jal-18]

About the Shivans subspace tracking:

Doesn't really matter, as what's stopping you from jumping them straight into a web of RBC's and Orions?

[Hippo]

that a heavily armed shivan destroyer, vs a lightly armed carrier, in subspace, is suicide for the carrier. even the fighters will be useless, without shielding. stiletto's won't work well for disarming something, because the shielding it has (canon from the cbani's) won't protect it...

[GoreChild]

Originally posted by Hippo
GoreChild: do you understand the concept of subspace in relevence to FS? No, a ship cannot just enter subspace. Subspace for capital ships needt to be done in a jump node, or there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING keeping them from being persued. This is canon, the shivans can track through subspace.

Also canon: FIGHTERS CAN NOT ALL MAKE INTER SYSTEM JUMPS. Inter system drives are expensive, and difficult to use, and are RESTRICTED to ONLY SOC squads. Also canon.

In the 5 seconds it takkes for a subspace drive to engage, at 40m/s, even pointing DIRECTLY away from a planet, you have fallen several hundred meters. FS fighters and bombers don't have enough force nescessary for them to EVER acheive escape velocity, and even if they could enter susbspace in an atmosphere, they MUST jump to somewhere INSIDE the planet's gravity field.

Your posts about FS spec destroyers doesn't make ANY sense, seeing that fighters are NOT able to make intersystem jumps.

You're wrong about Shivans needing to hold a large amount of space if they jump in behind GTVA lines. They need ONLY hold the jump node, and should they succeed, there is NO way of escaping the system.

Fighters can indeed make INTRA-SYSTEM jumps.

You say subspace for capital ships needs to be done in a jump node? You're simply wrong, plenty of missions have enemy capital ships appearing out of nowhere into your general vicinity via subspace, an example is Surrender Belisarius.

I never said the Shivans needed to hold territory, territory is pretty irrelivant in space.

Technically a planet's gravity field is rather large, and since the only real areas of strategic importance are around planets or are the planets themselves, this isnt a problem.

[Jal-18]

The carrier probably jumps out as soon as the destroyer jumps in, and the destroyer still has to recharge it's subspace drive.  Even with emergency power reallocation, the carrier still has a distance advantage.  

Also, the carrier's fighter superiority would mean that it can swat down the Shivan fighters (weaker hulls, overreliance on shields) and then get to work on disarming and disabling the destroyer.


(Also, complete conjuncture: wouldn't lower mass ships move through subspace faster? Meaning the carrier can outrun the destroyer even in subspace? Or am I stuck in terran thinking?)

[GoreChild]

Originally posted by Hippo
that a heavily armed shivan destroyer, vs a lightly armed carrier, in subspace, is suicide for the carrier. even the fighters will be useless, without shielding. stiletto's won't work well for disarming something, because the shielding it has (canon from the cbani's) won't protect it...

Yeah, come to think of hiding in subspace from Shivans is a crappy idea since they own subspace pretty much.

Like hiding underwater from sharks.

[GoreChild]

Originally posted by Jal-18
The carrier probably jumps out as soon as the destroyer jumps in, and the destroyer still has to recharge it's subspace drive.  Even with emergency power reallocation, the carrier still has a distance advantage.  

Also, the carrier's fighter superiority would mean that it can swat down the Shivan fighters (weaker hulls, overreliance on shields) and then get to work on disarming and disabling the destroyer while the carrier runs.

(Also, complete conjuncture: wouldn't lower mass ships move through subspace faster? Or am I stuck in terran thinking?)

Mass and speed are all relative in space. Lower mass ships arent necessarily faster, they ACCELERATE faster and are thus more maneuverable but everything can reach the same theoretical speeds, it just takes time.

As for the physics inside subspace, you might as well ask Volition since they made it up.

[Jal-18]

Faster acceleration is all you really need in a chase. As I stated before, the carrier is not going to be loitering in an area where there aren't friendlies, so as long as it survives for a little while it can still come out on top.

[Hippo]

subspace speed is a constant... Whatever time they enter subspace apart from each other, is the distance they will stay.

Also, should the carrier run through an intra system jump, it is instant, and is immediately stuck somewhere else in the system untill ITS drives recharge. something that the shivans would presumably do faster, and they would be tracked, no doubt...

[Jal-18]

But if the carrier is stuck in the middle of a GTVA fleet, does it matter? Even if the carrier is destroyed, so is the destroyer, and that's a far greater loss.  (Carrier plus ship of the line, instead of just carrier.)

And I disagree that subspace speed is a constant.  The last mission of FS1 is impossible if what you claim is true.

[Drew]

Originally posted by ngtm1r


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

Inflation.  Theres this thing called an economy, and there isnt _any_ economy that cant run on worthless money.  Without an economy to tax, the government will effectily break down, no matter how much money it prints.

[NGTM-1R]

Yes, but does the government truly understand that? Given real-world examples...probably not.

It takes time to charge up for a subspace jump, people don't go around with their jumpdrives charged and ready to go. And as I've pointed out before, a destroyer can target the carrier's hangers and engines with its first and second salvos in whatever order it deems fit. Poof, you can't run, and you are restricted to whatever fighters you already have on combat aerospace patrol, a small fraction of the aerospace group that probably doesn't include any bombers.

Depending on where the hostile destroyer exits subspace, it may even be physical impossible to jump out. If he's parked himself right in front of your bow, you're pretty screwed.

[GoreChild]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Yes, but does the government truly understand that? Given real-world examples...probably not.

It takes time to charge up for a subspace jump, people don't go around with their jumpdrives charged and ready to go. And as I've pointed out before, a destroyer can target the carrier's hangers and engines with its first and second salvos in whatever order it deems fit. Poof, you can't run, and you are restricted to whatever fighters you already have on combat aerospace patrol, a small fraction of the aerospace group that probably doesn't include any bombers.

Depending on where the hostile destroyer exits subspace, it may even be physical impossible to jump out. If he's parked himself right in front of your bow, you're pretty screwed.

It would be suicide for an enemy to do this because he'd jump right into the middle of a battlegroup, asking to get his ass annihilated by escorts. Though I wouldnt put it past the shivans to sacrifice one of their ships to disable the carrier.

Also is there no such thing as a subspace inhibitor field? Could be useful.