[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Mongoose
If someone was interested enough, you could even try making a mini-campaign of the Colossus's destruction of the NTF; we already have most of the ship names from the command briefings.

Inspiration strikes!

Although considering the Colossus annhilated the NTF as a military force, I doubt that only what was mentioned in the CBs was destroyed.

The Colossus was uniquely suited to the role of node-blockade smasher. Only a few ships can jump through a node at once, small ones: you can only get one destroyer or larger through at a time. The NTF threw back repeated multidestroyer attempts to breach the blockades of the Polaris nodes, inflicting heavy casualities in the process. They could stop Hecates, Orions, Hapshepshuts, Typhons, and smaller ships in their tracks.

The Colossus? That was a different matter.

Sometimes you need flexiblity. And sometimes, you need a sledgehammer.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Personally, I liek the idea of a rifle-shaped warships (alltouhg they sure picked an ugly rifle for hte big C).

The problem with C wasn't it's shape or it's weapon placements..

It was:
1. Stupid command
2. Weak beams...terran beams fire 4 times slower than shivan ones.. It's just too big of a handicap. Give terrna and shivan beams the same fire rate and THEN watch the Big C in action.

We might as well move its center to a more reasonable location then, shouldn't we

We can't go changing the tables just for the hell of it and call the new stuff canon.  It doesn't work that way.

What you're saying there that the GTVA would have the technology to equip the Colossus with such beams.  The point of the long coldown isn't to unbalance things, it's to reflect the relatively primitive state of GTVA weapon and energy systems.  The Colossus sucked because, well, it sucked.  It didn't look cool, had horrible coloring, worked wonders at shooting down a lone destroyer or corvette but nothing else, and was always seen by the player in a situation where it was either useless or was almost destroyed.  None of those things make that ship imposing.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Personally, I liek the idea of a rifle-shaped warships (alltouhg they sure picked an ugly rifle for hte big C).

The problem with C wasn't it's shape or it's weapon placements..

It was:
1. Stupid command
2. Weak beams...terran beams fire 4 times slower than shivan ones.. It's just too big of a handicap. Give terrna and shivan beams the same fire rate and THEN watch the Big C in action.

RE: 2

There's a reason Terran beams are worse.

Offhand, I think Bobs Odin(?) destroyer is the nicest gun-like design I've seen.

[Boomer]

The Colossus was great.  That is, it was the greatest technological failure of its time.  While it was a political success, and yes, it contributed to several major victories.  However, it just wasn't designed well.  Think about it:

The term "Super Capital Ship" doesn't necessarily entail being big.  A Super Capital ship is a ship which is armed far more heavily than a typical capital ship.  On a ship the size of the Colossus, you could have had hundreds of beam turrets, but they only put in a measly dozen?!  Come on!  In a Super Cap, the surface area to turret ratio should be high.  The Colossus was sadly lacking in this respect.

[edit] The Colossus is however a beautiful sight, except for the khaki.  All I'm saying is, more turrets people, more turrets! Even in High Noon, the Colossus shot maybe 1 or 2 beams at a time.  When I think super-destroyer, I want to see a devastating oldschool "broadside" that pounds the enemy into submission.  Not some overly expensive musket!

[Ghost]

The other failing of the Colossus that I can think of was that it couldn't be used as a weapon of intimidation against sentient species. Shivans can't be reasoned with, and therefore can't be frightened.

And it wasn't really the fact that the C didnt' have enough weapons. It was more the fact that It could only fire 3 max at a time, just like other Destroyers. Damn you, programming...

[TopAce]

The Colossus would have been far stronger that way, that is true.

Sacrifices are to be made for game balance, I guess.

[Ghost]

Who cares? The second Sath still would've blindsided it with its four beams.. but still. That's how it should've been. If every ship could fire all its beams at once, it'd be way more impressive, but if the Colossus is meant to be unbalanced, and it obviously is, why bother to balance it?

[TopAce]

This is not only true for the Colossus. Of what use would it be that capital ships finish off each other in twenty seconds? That would happen if all the turrets were able to fire simultaneously(<- if this word is misspelt, don't comment, I am damn tired. ).

[Kie99]

Simlutanou... Simulltra.... um.... That word is spelt correctly TopAce.

[Dark RevenantX]

Using my magical method of ship scoring, the colossus scores 834 points normally, and if it switches its 6 bgreens into bfgreens, as in the high noon mission, it gets 852 points.
     The Sathanas, however, gets a whopping 1,349.5 points.

852 to 1350... the sathanas is almost exactly 1.583920187793 times better than the Colossus.

[TopAce]

Interesting. I though BFGreens are much more powerful than standard BGreens.
Anyway, isn't the Big C armed with LRGreens in High Noon? Long Range beams, I mean.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by ngtm1r


Inspiration strikes!

Although considering the Colossus annhilated the NTF as a military force, I doubt that only what was mentioned in the CBs was destroyed.

The Colossus was uniquely suited to the role of node-blockade smasher. Only a few ships can jump through a node at once, small ones: you can only get one destroyer or larger through at a time. The NTF threw back repeated multidestroyer attempts to breach the blockades of the Polaris nodes, inflicting heavy casualities in the process. They could stop Hecates, Orions, Hapshepshuts, Typhons, and smaller ships in their tracks.

The Colossus? That was a different matter.

Sometimes you need flexiblity. And sometimes, you need a sledgehammer.

I have to agree with you on that last commnet.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Dark RevenantX
Using my magical completely arbitrary  method of ship scoring, the colossus scores 834 points normally, and if it switches its 6 bgreens into bfgreens, as in the high noon mission, it gets 852 points.
     The Sathanas, however, gets a whopping 1,349.5 points.

852 to 1350... the sathanas is almost exactly 1.583920187793 times better than the Colossus.

There ya go; fixed.

[Dark RevenantX]

It is by no means completely arbirtary!  It may be a little off of what it can really do, but it is just used as a gereral guideline.  I took the very induvidual stats of each of the weapons that are used by capships, got the damage per second, added that to what you get when you have the velocity divided by ten, and added all that to the range divided by a hundred.  I took that number, divided by fiftey, and what I had was the amount of points that one weapon was worth.  For flak, slash beams, homing weapons, and heet seeking weapons, I would modify the point values slightly, as to reduce that arbitrariness!

(((dmg•rate)+(velocity/10))[obtional custom operation]+(range/100))/50=Weapon's Point Value

If you add up all the points of the weapons in a ship, add that number to what you get when you take the hull strength of the ship and divide it by five thousand, and then add all that to the number you get when you double the ship's speed in kilometers per hour.  That total is the points of the ship.  This only works for capships, or a fighter would have the weapons worth, 10 points, plus the hull/5,000, plus the shields/2,000, 11 points total, plus double the speed... 191 points!  Wow, an ai fighter could kill a capship by itself!  You see, this way of doing things is great for capital ships!

[total weapon points]+(hull/5,000)+(speed•2)=Ship's Point Value

[TrashMan]

?????????

Geez...wouldn't it be better to just rate the armor and damage done by ships weapons over time?
And even then, how can you account for weapons placement?

[Dark RevenantX]

I had already stated that it is just a general marking, not the exact amount.

[aldo_14]

I notice you don't factor in maneuverability to your calculations.  Or the subsystem size / strength (plus likelihood of that susbsystem being destroyed and thus affecting the rest of the ship and the offensive spread).  Or  factors the position of turrets for capships.  Or turret refire rate.  Or default AI settings for ship/turrets.  Or power output.

Or indeed that the effectiveness of a ship is almost always determined by the tactical situation.

Hence I would judge a rating based upon a series of incomplete variables to be highly arbitrary for judging relative effectiveness.  Plus the inaccuracy upon a single weapons 'grade' will be multiplied by all the turrets upon a ship, thus increasing the existing inacurracy proportionally to turret numbers.

(not to mention your constants are themselves arbitrarily assigned).

[Dark RevenantX]

Any more complex and I would have to make a java ship point calculator!  I don't want to have to use quantum math to figure a simple thing out!

Also, the constants are good for capital ships.  The speed effects a supercap less than a cruiser because the cruiser is harder to hit, so you would have to have some skill to hit it if it was fast.  A fast supercap is almost no different than a slow supercap; they are both huge targets.

The hull is a huge factor.  I don't want a Hades to be less powerful than an orion simply because of weapon innefficiency.  The Hades has 4x the hp of an orion.

Range is a powerful part of a weapon, but it is not something to use with multiplying because the further something is from you, the harder it is to hit it.  Therefore, you need to add it.

Velocity is more important than range, as it really helps when killing fighters.  It is not godly important, so I used it with addition rather than multiplication, but with a lower division constant than range.

[aldo_14]

The constants are still arbitrary, though. Assumptative.  Made up.

Hence, not useful for an accurate weighted comparison; same as for any calculation involving attributes (plus it's very easy to subconsciously set weigtings based on your opinion as what is most important, rather than by testing).

You like it, use it.  But I don't think anyone else will regard it as a fair/accurate method to judge relative 'power'.

[Dark RevenantX]

Look, I did weapons first, then built the ship operation over that.  Okay, I admit that the ship operation is a bit arbitrary, but it's the best I can do when it has been three months since I last played FS2.  Still, a Sathanas beats a Colossus any day.

However, we are straying from the purpose of the thread!