[Prophet]

With the agility we must also remember the stress the G-forces cause to an object of that mass (battleship/destroyer), also applys on acceleration. You wouldn't want the crew to bang around walls during tight manouvers. Speed is hardly an issue in space thought, and thus has really nothing to do with manouverability of a vessel.

[TrashMan]

The Leviathan pays very heavily in terms of speed for that armour. Apply the same logic to a BB and you end up with something that moves at 5m/s. If you're willing to accept that consession then fine but in previous arguments you have repeatedly stated that you see no reason why a BB should be much slower than a destroyer, even going so far as to quote wet navy speed figures for the Iowa class as if that is somehow relevent to the discussion.

True..but the Leviathan was an uppgrade of a Fenris, a ship that doesn't have much room to spare as they were both cruisers...you realyl didn't have anythign t ostrip except for engines.

A BB made from a destroyer-sized hull would have far more room as you HAVE must to strip - teh hangarbays, storage rooms and stuff. Thus, the ammount of a speed penalty, or the very penatly itself is questionable.

They may have been running but there's no indication anywhere that they were under fire from anything as they actually entered subspace. As for jumping in close to each other where do you think they'd end up if they did that? Smacking into each other!

Up, down, left and right seem to be unknows concepts for you, don't htey?

We cleary seen warship entering and exiting the node across all of it's "surface". The very center is not the only way to go.

Check the WWII stats for the Iowa you're so fond of and you'll find its the BB. The big guns required upto 110 people each. Given the number of crew the Deimos requires it could easily be the same with beam cannons.

That was WW2.. before the modernization. And by FS2 time, they'll be even more modernized.
And where do you get that Deimos crew figure? I checked all the FS2 game sources and couldn't find that mentioned nowhere.

b.t.w. - I did a small test in Truespace where I arranged 120 fighters as seen in the FS mainhalls on how terran hangarbays look, and compared that to hte Orion. Guess what - they take a helluva lot of space. Far more than even I tought!

Which surely helps my argument that you're wrong about internal space being the limiting factor on number of guns a destroyer can carry. Although to be honest all the FS2 ships appear to have tardis-like qualities. Simply stack up the number of missiles a fighter can carry next to the fighter itself for proof of that.

But it allso helps my argument that you can clear up even MORE space for other stuff - like armor, redundant system, back-up generators and stuff

[TrashMan]

However the addition of a fighterbay is so cheap (both in terms of actual money and in design considerations) that compared to issues like reactor power, heat sink usage, armour considerations etc that no one in their right mind would build one without sticking a fighter bay on it and calling it a destroyer.

I don't know wrehe the hell you got that from, but i don't recall EVER hearing in FS that fighterbays are cheap...

by StratComm
And this differs from a destroyer how, exactly?  Other than the fact that it can't launch fighters to screen incoming bombers or disable defending warships, that is.  It's got heavier armor, but that seemed to not matter one bit in King's Gambit.  Ships coming through the node get ripped to shreads in so little time that the difference extra armor could add would be negligable.

Oh? I think the kings gambitproves my views admirably!
Just how much damage did that Orion do when he jumped in? Not much - and all of hte damage it did, it did with it's heavy weaponry. It didn't have time to launch fighters.
That's why the BB is better in such a situation - it will do more damage before it's destroyed.

Go look up the Leviathan stats again.  It's more heavily armored, yes.  But it is not twice as heavily armed.  The main beam is slightly more powerful and a pair of AAA beams added, but otherwise the armament is identical.

It's main weaponry (the beam) is twice as powerfull..not all of it.

and where do you get the Deimos numbers from?

 

[StratComm]

However the addition of a fighterbay is so cheap (both in terms of actual money and in design considerations) that compared to issues like reactor power, heat sink usage, armour considerations etc that no one in their right mind would build one without sticking a fighter bay on it and calling it a destroyer.

I don't know wrehe the hell you got that from, but i don't recall EVER hearing in FS that fighterbays are cheap...

As opposed to heavy beam weapons, extra reactors, cooling systems, power transfer systems, armor, etc?  The cost of a pressurized bay would be negligable.  That's ignoring the fighters that go in it, of course, but as I've said before you can't actually count them out of the cost equation anyway.  They have to be somewhere, even if that means stationed on another ship.

by StratComm
And this differs from a destroyer how, exactly?  Other than the fact that it can't launch fighters to screen incoming bombers or disable defending warships, that is.  It's got heavier armor, but that seemed to not matter one bit in King's Gambit.  Ships coming through the node get ripped to shreads in so little time that the difference extra armor could add would be negligable.

Oh? I think the kings gambitproves my views admirably!
Just how much damage did that Orion do when he jumped in? Not much - and all of hte damage it did, it did with it's heavy weaponry. It didn't have time to launch fighters.
That's why the BB is better in such a situation - it will do more damage before it's destroyed.

Ah, but we don't know how low on supplies the ships running King's Gambit were.  That was not the first blockade they had engaged in their run, and with a battlegroup in close persuit I would imagine their fighters would have been picked off in rear-guard manuvers. 

And that still leaves one major problem with that justification.  Is the sole purpose of a battleship is to get destroyed, but take slightly longer in doing so?  You're going to throw an even more expensive piece of hardware into certain destruction, and for what purpose?  To "damage" the defenders?  The ships in King's Gambit cannot be used as an example of breaking a blockade, only running one.  The NTF was trying to get all of its assets into the Nebular theater (or sacrafice them covering the Iceni) so they weren't actually trying to overpower the node defenders as much as they were just trying to slip through the net.  Had their goals been to break the blockade, I'd imagine the NTF would have deployed their forces somewhat differently.  That doesn't change my example of the speed with which a ship entering a strong blockade goes down.

Go look up the Leviathan stats again.  It's more heavily armored, yes.  But it is not twice as heavily armed.  The main beam is slightly more powerful and a pair of AAA beams added, but otherwise the armament is identical.

It's main weaponry (the beam) is twice as powerfull..not all of it.

and where do you get the Deimos numbers from?

No it's not.  It's AT BEST 40% more powerful, but has a longer fire-wait and a shorter lifetime than the "lighter" beam on the Fenris.  Different purposes, but there's not even any indication that they are even functionally different weapons inside the hull.  And the engines weren't removed, the ship gets slower because the extra armor adds mass.

And the Deimos numbers come from one of the briefings or the like, though I cannot remember exactly where offhand.  It's canon, though, and I'm clearly not the first person to have brought it up.  Anyone remember where that originally comes from?  I'm guessing it's something around either "The Great Hunt" or "A Game of Tag".

[TrashMan]

b.t.w. - I did a small test in Truespace where I arranged 120 fighters as seen in the FS mainhalls on how terran hangarbays look, and compared that to hte Orion. Guess what - they take a helluva lot of space. Far more than even I tought!

What on earth makes you think that's how they're stored?  The mainhalls seen in FS1/2 are quite probably launch bays or staging areas for scramble ready or mission prepped fighters, not actual storage of those held in reserve.

The Galatea and Bastion main halls are supposed to be fighterbas on destroyers.. And incidently, they are arranged rather well, in the shelf-like system. However, as evident fro mthe mainhalls, there is a lot of free space between the individual fighter holds, increasing the hangarbay size well above what I though it would be.

Easily?  Then why haven't they.  Give me one good reason why, if it was feasible, the GTVA doesn't have that sort of close-to infinite range weaponry.  Even assuming there aren't limits placed by physics restricting the damage-per-energy factor of weaponry.  Or, hell, if they do, what makes you think it won't have, y'know, a logical increase in power requirements or heat build-up?

simple - becoause [V] can't account for every invention, every weapons and every ship ever created by terrans. Look at it realisticly - how many fighter classes do we have today in service? How many ship classes? Heck, mroe than you and I can count.
And somehow, in FS 2 the whole terran fleet has the "vast" diversity of 2 destroyers, 3 cruisers and a dozen fighter/bombers.
If they were to maek things real, we would have 1000 differnt ships...but then again, who would ever model or invent all of them?
the question is not "does it currently exist in FS2" but rather, does FS2 permit it to exist?

All of which place compromises upon the design.  You move your reactors under armour and deeper inside the ship, and you have to place more cooling around them (for crew safety), put in countermeasures against an overload and explosion taking out the heart of the ship, place more power conduits from those reactors, allocate the same space to backups, etc - not to mention the problems if you have to service the things externally and they're buried under several feet of metal.  You can't just plonk down a bunch of fusion reactors without consequences to the ship design.

A good desing takes al t he things you mentioned in account. And when did you become a starship building expert? As far as I nkow, most things about FS starhsip is unknown or vauge - the rest are all assumptions.

Going by the Fenris, maybe you could decrease the Orions' speed after bolting on some extra armour.  Otherwise it's the same ship, slightly different specialisation.

AS I said before, the Fenris didn't have anything you can take out to put new stuff in. an Orion has - fighterbays and al lthat comes along with them. That would clear up a lot of room for far more improvments than compared to the Leviathan.

If you want good node defense your capship have to be in range to deliver the hurt. Blockading the node focuses on crippling/destroying enemy warship as fast as possible, before they can launch fighters or bring more reinforcements trough the node.

You're assuming the battleship will take longer to destroy, but in actuality - like any FS2 capital ship - all you need is a few Helios hits and the thing is doomed.  and also relying on - yep - destroyers to provide it support

And you're honestly telling me you would send a single ship to break a blockade? If a fleet is parked on the other side of hte node you will send a fleet to counter it. Otherwise ti would be suicide no matter what ship class you send in.
So support is a must - and note - I never said a battleship should be without any fighters whatsoever (even the Iowa has a halipad). It would carry 2 interceptors wings or so, to bolster it's bomber defense.

And you've still not given an example of the armour, turrets, etc of such a vessel.

For a design example I would use my Archangel (only scaled down aand with the firepower scaled down accordingly..after all, I did design it with post FS2 era in mind, so it does have more a bang-per-buck than FS2 would allow).

2.5 x the hitpoints of a Orion
8 main turrets, positioned on the top and below, 4 beam cannons on the sides, and another undefined anti-cap weapon below....and the rest is pretty much point-defense weaponry. Extreemly strong subsystems and main weapons. Ability to concetrate at least 60% of it's anti-cap firepower at any point in space.
2 small fighterbays with a squad of interceptors each.

[Herra Tohtori]

I don't know wrehe the hell you got that from, but i don't recall EVER hearing in FS that fighterbays are cheap...

I'm not the one whom you asked this from, but it isn't actually necessary to have canon confirmation to every thing that is proposed by someone, is it?

Fighter bays are cheap (read: cheaper than massive additional power plant, heavier weapon systems or more advanced armor), because they are basically an open space inside the ship's hull. What makes the cost here is fighters/bombers itself, and their maintenance. Building an ability to host fighters and bombers does not come very expensive. Using it is whole other thing...

And this differs from a destroyer how, exactly?  Other than the fact that it can't launch fighters to screen incoming bombers or disable defending warships, that is.  It's got heavier armor, but that seemed to not matter one bit in King's Gambit.  Ships coming through the node get ripped to shreads in so little time that the difference extra armor could add would be negligable.

Oh? I think the kings gambitproves my views admirably!
Just how much damage did that Orion do when he jumped in? Not much - and all of hte damage it did, it did with it's heavy weaponry. It didn't have time to launch fighters.
That's why the BB is better in such a situation - it will do more damage before it's destroyed.

So, in a sustained battle your mighty BB makes some damage and gets destroyed...

...Whereas a destroyer (making almost as much damage in itself) also can launch fighters and bombers to protect itself in a sustained battle, and to add a mighty blow to the damage it makes to enemy capital ships?

Which, I must say, is also quite a bit more interesting as a mission structure, considering that FS2 is all about fighters and bombers in the end...


Unless you make the BB have hideously thick hull or otherwise make it almost impervious to bomber attacks (Lucy-shield, anyone?), it would perish quite fast when enemy destroyer unleashed its beams and bomber wings. And if you try to remain even few bits of realism in this ship, ultra-thick hull would make it more like heavily armed, subspace-jump capable installation without ability to launch fighters and without ability to move in normal space very fast... Lucy-style shields, on the other hand, demand technology that clearly isn't available to GTVA, and if you add enough flak guns that every bomb gets wasted before hitting the BB, it becomes so ridiculously unbalanced a ship class that it wouldn't very much improve the mod/mission/campaign/whatever. It's called the Superman-syndrome. Impervious to attacks, awesome destructive power... who wants to fight ship like that? GTVA would end up having every system quiet and safe thanks to the GTVBB Kompressor class ships guarding allied space. That, unfortunately, doesn't make much of a campaign...

...That is, if it would even be POSSIBLE for GTVA to build such a ship. Makes me wonder, if they could, should they not have done it by now?

On the other hand, it also makes me wonder how the hell a sivilization which has known spaceflight only a few hundred years manages to build ships that almost completely match or even outclass the ones used by a who-knows-ho-many-millions of years old space-faring race. Perhaps it just isn't POSSIBLE to build much better ships, or perhaps the Shivans have brought their R&D Department down for some reason...

[StratComm]

13 anti-capital weapons is more than the Colossus boasted, and you're somehow fitting that into a 3km-long frame, that has fighterbays?  I'm familiar with your archangel design, and there is absolutely no way it has as much space as the Colossus did inside it, even if it does only have a quarter of the armor.

And besides, you throw fighterbays, no matter how small, into the mix and it basically invalidates your entire argument.  It automatically becomes a FS destroyer, with more concentration on anti-cap weaponry than carrier capabilities but a destroyer just the same.

[aldo_14]

2.5 x the hitpoints of a Orion
8 main turrets, positioned on the top and below, 4 beam cannons on the sides, and another undefined anti-cap weapon below....and the rest is pretty much point-defense weaponry. Extreemly strong subsystems and main weapons. Ability to concetrate at least 60% of it's anti-cap firepower at any point in space.
2 small fighterbays with a squad of interceptors each.

Twice the armour, and, 2 fighterbays?!  I presume this is the size of an Orion.... you'd have massive energy and cooling issues to deal with (NB: give proper turret numbers; how many flak, how many missiles, how many beam, how many laser, how many AAAf).

As the Fenris/Leviathan shows, you'd lose masses of speed and maneuverability as well as space to the increased armour mass (these things aren't shielded by energy; that's pure metal that goes there, and if you're not building out you're building it inwards).  Also appears you'd have vulnerability to disabling (like any other capship) due to rear attacks; probably also a vulnerability to attacks from the direct top by other large vessels (you'd need to belly-role 90 degrees to counter, and with all that extra weight.......).  2 fighterbays probably represents a structural weakness, too; that area isn't covered by the mass of metal forming the extra armour.

Then you have a reduction of internal space for your subsystem shielding and/or space used for redundancy (this'd also need crew for maintenance).

And less beam weapons than the humble Orion (which has 6) and the same as the Hecate (4 TerSlash, 1 Big green), so it's not exceptionally powerful.  So it's a big slow target with only enough fighter cover to protect itself.

NB: Deimos numbers are being derived from (probably) the 6,000 crew of the Sobek, as stated in Lion At The Gates.

[karajorma]

True..but the Leviathan was an uppgrade of a Fenris, a ship that doesn't have much room to spare as they were both cruisers...you realyl didn't have anythign t ostrip except for engines.

A BB made from a destroyer-sized hull would have far more room as you HAVE must to strip - teh hangarbays, storage rooms and stuff. Thus, the ammount of a speed penalty, or the very penatly itself is questionable.

The reduction in speed is not just a matter of the Leviathan stripping out its engines. It's more to do with the fact that armour is ****ing heavy! I very much doubt the Leviathan had different engines from the Fenris. It moves slower because of the weight of the armour it's carrying.

When you look at a destroyer the stuff you're stripping out is mostly open space and therefore lightweight. Especially if we are to believe your claims that the destroyers hanger bays look like those in the FS1 mainhalls. The armour you are replacing it with though is bloody heavy. Furthermore you kept claiming that beams are big and heavy too. Have you now revised this opinion in order to fit with your claims that there would be no speed reduction?
 Lastly how much is the extra fusion reactor you're adding going to weigh? What about its shielding? What about the store rooms and bunks for engine crews to look after it?

Up, down, left and right seem to be unknows concepts for you, don't htey?

We cleary seen warship entering and exiting the node across all of it's "surface". The very center is not the only way to go.

Okay then. Explain why all the NTF ships in Kings Gambit leave the node on exactly the same vector then?

That was WW2.. before the modernization. And by FS2 time, they'll be even more modernized.
And where do you get that Deimos crew figure? I checked all the FS2 game sources and couldn't find that mentioned nowhere.

My bad. Wrong corvette. It's the sobek that has a crew number of 6000. Seems reasonable that the Deimos would have similar numbers though. 

But it allso helps my argument that you can clear up even MORE space for other stuff - like armor, redundant system, back-up generators and stuff

Except I'd already explained why space is not the limiting factor on the number of turrets you can install.

simple - becoause [V] can't account for every invention, every weapons and every ship ever created by terrans. Look at it realisticly - how many fighter classes do we have today in service? How many ship classes? Heck, mroe than you and I can count.
And somehow, in FS 2 the whole terran fleet has the "vast" diversity of 2 destroyers, 3 cruisers and a dozen fighter/bombers.
If they were to maek things real, we would have 1000 differnt ships...but then again, who would ever model or invent all of them?
the question is not "does it currently exist in FS2" but rather, does FS2 permit it to exist?

So once again you're back to inventing. The GTVA has hidden lasers of unimaginable power but didn't use them against the Shivans at any of the major decisive points at which the player was present. For ****s sake Trashman you really need to know when you've lost one.

For a design example I would use my Archangel (only scaled down aand with the firepower scaled down accordingly..after all, I did design it with post FS2 era in mind, so it does have more a bang-per-buck than FS2 would allow).

2.5 x the hitpoints of a Orion
8 main turrets, positioned on the top and below, 4 beam cannons on the sides, and another undefined anti-cap weapon below....and the rest is pretty much point-defense weaponry. Extreemly strong subsystems and main weapons. Ability to concetrate at least 60% of it's anti-cap firepower at any point in space.
2 small fighterbays with a squad of interceptors each.

So your ultimate battleship turns out in the end to be a ridiculously overpowered destroyer!

[TrashMan]

13 anti-capital weapons is more than the Colossus boasted, and you're somehow fitting that into a 3km-long frame, that has fighterbays?  I'm familiar with your archangel design, and there is absolutely no way it has as much space as the Colossus did inside it, even if it does only have a quarter of the armor.

And besides, you throw fighterbays, no matter how small, into the mix and it basically invalidates your entire argument.  It automatically becomes a FS destroyer, with more concentration on anti-cap weaponry than carrier capabilities but a destroyer just the same.

No it doesnt. unless yo udefine anything that can carry fighters and shoot a destroyer..

SMALL fighterbays is the key here and hte fact that it only has a HANDFULL of INTERCEPTORS. No bombers whatsoever. It delivers it's damage with cannons. A completely different design, use and modus operandi than a destroyer.

Oh..and it can fit into that frame:
Hecate - 2120m, 150 spacecraft, 5 beam cannons
Orion - 2060m, 120 spacecraft, 7 beam cannons
BB - 3000m, 20 spacecraft, ??? beam cannons

And not I said anti-cap weapons, I didn't specify their power or kind. For the main batteries I would sue plasma turrets, and of course some beam cannons (4 to be exact)

By Aldo_14
Twice the armour, and, 2 fighterbays?!  I presume this is the size of an Orion.... you'd have massive energy and cooling issues to deal with (NB: give proper turret numbers; how many flak, how many missiles, how many beam, how many laser, how many AAAf).

Havn't specified, but those weapons use very little energy. I would say around 12 AAAf, 20 flak, 10 missile lunchers and 10 terrna turrets off the top of my head.

As the Fenris/Leviathan shows, you'd lose masses of speed and maneuverability as well as space to the increased armour mass (these things aren't shielded by energy; that's pure metal that goes there, and if you're not building out you're building it inwards).  Also appears you'd have vulnerability to disabling (like any other capship) due to rear attacks; probably also a vulnerability to attacks from the direct top by other large vessels (you'd need to belly-role 90 degrees to counter, and with all that extra weight.......).  2 fighterbays probably represents a structural weakness, too; that area isn't covered by the mass of metal forming the extra armour.

5 engines reduce the disabling weakness... and no, it's not vulnerable from attacks from the top - quite contrary.
2 fighterbayys are a structural weakness (but then again they are alls oby destroyers..even more so since they are bigger), but not a big one, as they are small and relativly unimportant to the ship. Besides, they are on different sides of hte ship so the chances that both get destroyed are slim.

Then you have a reduction of internal space for your subsystem shielding and/or space used for redundancy (this'd also need crew for maintenance).

And less beam weapons than the humble Orion (which has 6) and the same as the Hecate (4 TerSlash, 1 Big green), so it's not exceptionally powerful.  So it's a big slow target with only enough fighter cover to protect itself.

Orion has 7.... and I havn't even stated the beam type..and like I said - think outside the box for a seconds, who said beam cannosn are it's main weapons?

NB: Deimos numbers are being derived from (probably) the 6,000 crew of the Sobek, as stated in Lion At The Gates.

In other words an asumption. the Sobek probably carried a lot of scientists and last-minute persoonel lthat had to evac the area. And even if 6000 is totaly accurate for the Sobek, it can be way off for hte Deimos.

[StratComm]

I want to know how you can deduce anything about the rest of the hanger from the Galatea mainhall anyway.  There's one small corner of a room with a fighter in it, so how is that representative of the rest of the hanger space?  Or the flight deck, not the hanger, of the Bastion?  The FS2 mainhall is a better source, as you actually see racks of fighters (in relatively close proximity to one another at that) in a space that can be better estimated.

My bad. Wrong corvette. It's the sobek that has a crew number of 6000. Seems reasonable that the Deimos would have similar numbers though.

Especially since the Deimos is significantly larger than the Sobek, has more visible living space, and more turrets.  And because Terran and Vasudan destroyers require almost the exact same crews, you can't go arguing that it's a species difference.

No it doesnt. unless yo udefine anything that can carry fighters and shoot a destroyer..

SMALL fighterbays is the key here and hte fact that it only has a HANDFULL of INTERCEPTORS. No bombers whatsoever. It delivers it's damage with cannons. A completely different design, use and modus operandi than a destroyer.

Oh..and it can fit into that frame:
Hecate - 2120m, 150 spacecraft, 5 beam cannons
Orion - 2060m, 120 spacecraft, 7 beam cannons
BB - 3000m, 20 spacecraft, ??? beam cannons

And not I said anti-cap weapons, I didn't specify their power or kind. For the main batteries I would sue plasma turrets, and of course some beam cannons (4 to be exact)

You'll notice that I said anti-capital ship weapons as well.  If they aren't beam cannons but cause equivalent damage, then they will suffer the same design limitations that prevents beam cannons from being installed in mass numbers.  If they are projectile (missiles, railguns, torpedos), then we get into ammo magazines, which you've dodged completely.

And a destroyer in Freespace is any large (2-3km) warship containing significant anti-capital weaponry and a fighterbay.  So it is a destroyer.  It carries fighters, it's not your "pure battleship".  If you want to go get technical and drag in the wet-navy analogies as you did when you added your fighterbays into the mix, then I'll reply to that.  The helipad on an Iowa is for resupply or reconissance, and you damn well know it.

Havn't specified, but those weapons use very little energy. I would say around 12 AAAf, 20 flak, 10 missile lunchers and 10 terrna turrets off the top of my head.

I'll give you the 10 terran turrets, but 12 AAAf, 20 flak, and 10 missile launchers raise all sorts of concers, both power and ammo.  We've been saying that for this entire thread.

5 engines reduce the disabling weakness... and no, it's not vulnerable from attacks from the top - quite contrary.
2 fighterbayys are a structural weakness (but then again they are alls oby destroyers..even more so since they are bigger), but not a big one, as they are small and relativly unimportant to the ship. Besides, they are on different sides of hte ship so the chances that both get destroyed are slim.

Then you have a reduction of internal space for your subsystem shielding and/or space used for redundancy (this'd also need crew for maintenance).

That's got nothing to do with a battleship designation, and everything to do with how you laid out that particular ship.  5 engines is stupid overkill, especially when they are all located at tha back of the ship.  One could argue that the Orion has 4, they are just all tied together.

And less beam weapons than the humble Orion (which has 6) and the same as the Hecate (4 TerSlash, 1 Big green), so it's not exceptionally powerful.  So it's a big slow target with only enough fighter cover to protect itself.

Orion has 7.... and I havn't even stated the beam type..and like I said - think outside the box for a seconds, who said beam cannosn are it's main weapons?

So it's got as many beams as a Hecate and something more powerful?  And this is not overpowered how?

NB: Deimos numbers are being derived from (probably) the 6,000 crew of the Sobek, as stated in Lion At The Gates.

In other words an asumption. the Sobek probably carried a lot of scientists and last-minute persoonel lthat had to evac the area. And even if 6000 is totaly accurate for the Sobek, it can be way off for hte Deimos.

Now just who's making assumptions?  Why the hell would a Sobek in a war zone be carrying a bunch of scientists and last-minute personnel anyway?  And as I just said, personnel numbers for Terran and Vasudan destroyers is a perfect match, so you'd have to make something up to say it was not the same in the case of a Deimos.

[TrashMan]

The reduction in speed is not just a matter of the Leviathan stripping out its engines. It's more to do with the fact that armour is ****ing heavy! I very much doubt the Leviathan had different engines from the Fenris. It moves slower because of the weight of the armour it's carrying.

Weight would affect acceleration, not speed...realisticly.

When you look at a destroyer the stuff you're stripping out is mostly open space and therefore lightweight. Especially if we are to believe your claims that the destroyers hanger bays look like those in the FS1 mainhalls. The armour you are replacing it with though is bloody heavy. Furthermore you kept claiming that beams are big and heavy too. Have you now revised this opinion in order to fit with your claims that there would be no speed reduction?
 Lastly how much is the extra fusion reactor you're adding going to weigh? What about its shielding? What about the store rooms and bunks for engine crews to look after it?

I never tough a hangar bay light..especially when filled with fighters and bombers. and the fighter/bomber weaponry..and spare parts..and pilots bunks..and mantainance crews..and all the heavy hangar machinery....

And I never claimed beams are heavy or big...

In any case while you are putting a lot of weight in, you're alls ofreeing a lot of room. It balances out..

Okay then. Explain why all the NTF ships in Kings Gambit leave the node on exactly the same vector then?

Smae vector..not the same location

But it allso helps my argument that you can clear up even MORE space for other stuff - like armor, redundant system, back-up generators and stuff

Except I'd already explained why space is not the limiting factor on the number of turrets you can install.

Did I even mention turrets in the above post?

The question is not "does it currently exist in FS2" but rather, does FS2 permit it to exist?

So once again you're back to inventing. The GTVA has hidden lasers of unimaginable power but didn't use them against the Shivans at any of the major decisive points at which the player was present. For ****s sake Trashman you really need to know when you've lost one.

Of courtse I'm inventing! (in the realms of hte FS2 universe) If I didn't invent there would be nothing to add. Every time you add a new ship you ARE inventing. A
Adda missle cruiser - you're inventing! Tehre are no long-range-anti-cap missiles in FS2!
Make a dreadnought with a huge, forward fixed beam cannon! - again, no such beam cannon exists in FS2.
A fighter with subspace gliding engines? - again, such engines don't exist.
By following your train of though, most of the stuff made for FS2 by fans shouldn't be used or allowed..ever..

And lasers are not an integral part of the BB...they never were...that's just something I threw as a response to the Maxim - which I belive to be a fluke still...

So your ultimate battleship turns out in the end to be a ridiculously overpowered destroyer!

Becosue it can carry a few interceptors?
So, a large ship with 1 SGreen and 300 fighters would allso be a destroyer?
How about 2 BGreens and 600 fighters?
And of course, the Sathanas and Collie fit in there too, only a bit bigger?

[karajorma]

In other words an asumption. the Sobek probably carried a lot of scientists and last-minute persoonel lthat had to evac the area.

Yeah. Cause you get huge evacuations from an uninhabited system!

Tragically, the 6,000 Vasudan officers and crew on board the Dahshor were not so lucky.

for good measure.

[StratComm]

Trashman, post 1 post at a time.  You've been warned by an admin not to do this.

I'll leave the rest of this to someone else, but these two things that really need responding to.

Weight would affect acceleration, not speed...realisticly.

Realistically, speed in space would not be capped at anything measured at 10s of meters per second.  Realistically, none of this would be possible.  In the context of the Freespace universe, more armor equals more weight equals lower top speed.  Those are the rules.  Play in the Freespace universe or get out of the debate.

I never tough a hangar bay light..especially when filled with fighters and bombers. and the fighter/bomber weaponry..and spare parts..and pilots bunks..and mantainance crews..and all the heavy hangar machinery....

And I never claimed beams are heavy or big...

I'm sorry, but the weight of one man doesn't compare to the weight of one cubic meter of reactor core shielding.  Extrapolate, and the fighterbay will still have a lower density than a reactor in its place.

Oh, and...
 

And lasers are not an integral part of the BB...they never were...that's just something I threw as a response to the Maxim - which I belive to be a fluke still...

They are not a fluke in the Freespace universe.  Just like Helios in a Myrmadon is not a fluke.

[karajorma]

The reduction in speed is not just a matter of the Leviathan stripping out its engines. It's more to do with the fact that armour is ****ing heavy! I very much doubt the Leviathan had different engines from the Fenris. It moves slower because of the weight of the armour it's carrying.

Weight would affect acceleration, not speed...realisticly.

Since when has anything in FS2 been realistic! Big, heavy ships in FS2 have a lower top speed than small, light ones. Stop attempting to deflect attention away from your ridiculous assumptions with nonsense about acceleration.

I never tough a hangar bay light..especially when filled with fighters and bombers. and the fighter/bomber weaponry..and spare parts..and pilots bunks..and mantainance crews..and all the heavy hangar machinery....

It's a ****load lighter than pure armour. Seeing as how armour is something tough enough to laugh off nuclear explosions it's not a huge stretch to say that it's undoubtably heavy.

And I never claimed beams are heavy or big...

You spent a whole page arguing exactly that last time we went through this.

Okay then. Explain why all the NTF ships in Kings Gambit leave the node on exactly the same vector then?

Smae vector..not the same location

So? They'd still pile into each other. Especially if you send the big, slow destoyer in first and then send in something lighter like a destroyer.

Of courtse I'm inventing! (in the realms of hte FS2 universe)

But you're not in the realms of the FS2 universe. You're claiming that the GTVA has a long range laser technology. We have never seen hide nor hair of this tech and yet you insist that the GTVA have it and have been developing it since present day inspite of the fact that FS1 and FS2 seem to directly contradict this assertion.

Furthermore you only ever invent in favour of your beloved BBs. You never invent technologies to balance them out. You're attempting to claim that a BB would be useful in the current FS2 universe. So kindly stick to that universe rather than skewing the entire thing in one direction to favour the argument you're trying to make.

By following your train of though, most of the stuff made for FS2 by fans shouldn't be used or allowed..ever..

Oh hear we go again with the tired old "no fan is allowed to invent" argument. You did exactly the same thing last time so I'll give you the same response. You can do whatever the **** you like in Trashmanverse. You can have beam cannons that shoot out 50 foot tall hungry bunny rabbits if you like. However if you want to claim that the BB could exist in the FS2 universe that means that you are constrained by what is present in the universe.
 There is no mention, nor hint of this laser tech in FS2 and in fact what mention there is of lasers in the game directly contradicts it. Let it go. It's nothing to do with the FS2 universe.

And lasers are not an integral part of the BB...they never were...that's just something I threw as a response to the Maxim - which I belive to be a fluke still...

You can believe what the **** you like but the range of the maxim is canon.

And of course, the Sathanas and Collie fit in there too, only a bit bigger?

The Juggernaut class has always had a fighterbay. That's what differenciates them from a destroyer is simply their size.

[Prophet]

My bad. Wrong corvette. It's the sobek that has a crew number of 6000. Seems reasonable that the Deimos would have similar numbers though.

Crew numbers for Deimos were mentioned during radio chatter...
I was something like "..the ???? crewmembers aboard the Warspite are counting on your success!..."
Note that I am not sure about the crew numbers, but I am sure it was the Warspite command was talking about. Go dig that up.

[TrashMan]

Yeah. Cause you get huge evacuations from an uninhabited system!

Scientist observing the portal, and the techs overseeing the meson deployment.. And since both of those projects are very important to the GTVA, I would say a fain number of extra personell.

They are not a fluke in the Freespace universe.  Just like Helios in a Myrmadon is not a fluke.

That's you oppinion.
Maxims break balance for any capship, making fighter assault redicolously easy. Two wings of fighters with Maxims and Trebs and you'll ccripple the enemy destroyer before it's fightercover can react and close...
Wait a sec...that just makes the destroyer calss totaly obsolete...hey, and the cruisers too - they can be taken out by 1 fighter...talk about a useless class..

It's a ****load lighter than pure armour. Seeing as how armour is something tough enough to laugh off nuclear explosions it's not a huge stretch to say that it's undoubtably heavy.

I never said armor was light - jsut tahat hangarbays aren't as light as you would suggest.

So? They'd still pile into each other. Especially if you send the big, slow destoyer in first and then send in something lighter like a destroyer.

This post makes no sense whatsoever... even if you put some other ship class for the second ship.

You constantly think of node travel like a train..
Picture a destroyer with one cruiser on each side and one corvette above and below.
All of that can fit into a node nicely.

But you're not in the realms of the FS2 universe. You're claiming that the GTVA has a long range laser technology. We have never seen hide nor hair of this tech and yet you insist that the GTVA have it and have been developing it since present day inspite of the fact that FS1 and FS2 seem to directly contradict this assertion.

Furthermore you only ever invent in favour of your beloved BBs. You never invent technologies to balance them out. You're attempting to claim that a BB would be useful in the current FS2 universe. So kindly stick to that universe rather than skewing the entire thing in one direction to favour the argument you're trying to make.

Except for lasers (which, as I said are NOT part of hte BB desing concept) everything else is completely plausable.
So I AM sticking to the FS2 universe.

[karajorma]

Crew numbers for Deimos were mentioned during radio chatter...
I was something like "..the ???? crewmembers aboard the Warspite are counting on your success!..."
Note that I am not sure about the crew numbers, but I am sure it was the Warspite command was talking about. Go dig that up.

It just said thousands without saying how many thousand. Not that it matters. I can just as easily substitute Sobek for Deimos in all my earlier arguments.

Scientist observing the portal, and the techs overseeing the meson deployment.. And since both of those projects are very important to the GTVA, I would say a fain number of extra personell.

What the **** are you on about. The comment is made in Lion at the Door. The mission were the Knossos is first mentioned. There were no extra personnel. Especially not anyone doing anything with meson bombs

For ****'s sake Trashman try checking your sources before going off on a wild flight of fancy. In your haste to try to invent some spurious reasoning to explain why the number of vasudans on board doesn't fit with your ridiculous theory about crew numbers you've gone off and invented a wild theory explaining details from a completely different mission to the one where the comment was made.

Maxims break balance for any capship, making fighter assault redicolously easy. Two wings of fighters with Maxims and Trebs and you'll ccripple the enemy destroyer before it's fightercover can react and close...
Wait a sec...that just makes the destroyer calss totaly obsolete...hey, and the cruisers too - they can be taken out by 1 fighter...talk about a useless class..

They're canon. No one gives a flying **** whether you think they unbalance the game. They're canon

I never said armor was light - jsut tahat hangarbays aren't as light as you would suggest.

They're a lot lighter than armour is.

So? They'd still pile into each other. Especially if you send the big, slow destoyer in first and then send in something lighter like a destroyer.

This post makes no sense whatsoever... even if you put some other ship class for the second ship.

It makes perfect sense. If you have several ships exiting very soon after each other in the exact same direction from points very close together you stand a very good chance of having them all bang into each other or get in each others way. If you send out the slowest of those ships first you increase that risk.

You constantly think of node travel like a train..
Picture a destroyer with one cruiser on each side and one corvette above and below.
All of that can fit into a node nicely.

Except that you have no proof whatsoever that you can exit a node like that. Kings Gambit seems to prove you can't because all the large ships in the NTF train all left the node from roughly the same point travelling in the same direction. Only the cruisers are able to jump out at any point other than the centre of the node. And they are all forced to come out on the same vector which makes it a field day for enemy slash beams.

Except for lasers (which, as I said are NOT part of hte BB desing concept) everything else is completely plausable.
So I AM sticking to the FS2 universe.

So you admit that the laser stuff you were talking about is implausable? Well that's a start. As I've said before it's one thing to extrapolate possible technology within the universe but the problem is that you favour one side. You've added new long range weapons to your BBs. You're using numbers of turrets unheard of even in ships 3 times the size of your BBs. You're using armour that is ridiculously light for the effectiveness you've given it. 
 And then you've taken this monster of inovation and said it must be better because it can be a destoyer with fighter escort which you haven't upgraded at all!

So what do you think, every other ship class is going to stand still while the BB is invented? What absolute nonsense.  Even if I accept the technological upgrades you've made for the BB the only fair course is to give the destroyer access to the same technology. That means that the new Uber Orion would have twice the hit points, at least 30 more turrets and the maxim would also have tripple the range.

So your BB would still be ****ed over. The difference between it and the new Orion would mean that it wasn't cost effective to build them. The GTVA would just build more uber Orions.

[wgemini]

All these can be easily solved by shielding. Make it as large as the Colossus, so heavily shielded that it could survive a supernova, The ship is covered with Shivan Super Lasers and a new kind of Flaks that shoot out primed Meson bombs. 

[karajorma]

Shhhh. Don't tell Trashman. He'll add them to his next ship and then tell us it's perfectly in line with the FS2 universe!