[aldo_14]

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.

Absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that energy calculation, moreso bearing in mind that's more anti-fighter turrets than the Colossus had (18 terran turret, 12 flak, 10 missile, 10 AAAf beam), in a ship that's less than half the size.  So not only do you have a reactor the size of that of the Colossus, but you have under half the internal volume; you really think that can be made up by just removing the (larger) fighterbays?

And the fighterbay on the Colossus would have had very low power requirements in comparison to weaponry (again, consider what you actually need to power using the main reactor on a fighterbay....it's not going to be exponentially bigger than the 2 fighterbays you want, anyways)

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.

2 fighterbays represent a gap in the armour of the vessel; 2 gaps (compared to a single bay on a destroyer) to be precise, where there are structural joins, pressure seals, etc.  For a destroyer, that's not a major issue as it is designed for hands-off attacks, focusing on using fighters to keep threats at bay.  For a battleship...well, it's been described by you as being a close-in fighter against large ships, so that's lost.  You only need to lose one, anyways; the whole issue of a structural weak point is that it can be destroyed and thus compromise the entire vessel hull.

5 engines; again imposes issues of size, how you engineer that redundancy, and the number of crew required for each engine.  More engines; increases the chance of a single fault (increasing complexity), also structural issues of bracing and shielding (because you need to move these to be physically apart or they're just as vulnerable to explosion damage as one big engine).

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 you've not stated the main weapons?  Given that beams are the most effective form of energy weapons in Freespace, you could only have missiles/projectiles as a main anti-cap weapon then.... and, guess what - ammo!  Which needs space, no?

And it has less beams than an Orion.......

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.

NB: typo, mission was A Lion At the Door, not Gate.  Apologies; although maybe you should have actually checked the text yourself.....

Anways..... a corvette is sent in order to attack and blockade a node from Shivan space to GTVA, and they add personnel?!   Moreso, the debrief explicitly says "6,000 Vasudan officers and crew".  And these ships were combat-deployments to intercept & destroying deploying Shivan forces following the destruction of the Vigilant & discovery of the knossos, not perform and scientific or evacuation task.

Of course, the Deimos could quite conceivably carry over 6,000 crew;  it does have more turrets (26 vs 22) and is over 100m long (obviously not done a volume comparison, though).  It's more likely than less; especially as Vasudans appear to be physically larger (Thus probably requiring more living space, slightly taller ceilings, etc)

I'd note your battleship also has a pifflingly small amount of defense fighters, which means that it is still useless operating at a system-wide level (it can't provide escort or cover for anything beyond itself). Plus the battleship doesn't have bombers, which means it surrenders any control of how far ranged the battlefield is; any fighter carrying capship can sit at beyond the battleships gun range and wear it down with bomber attacks until it (the attacker) has a tactical edge.  Unless, I suppose, you equip your magic-o-ship with a vast amount of long range torpedos (as they're the only FS2 weaponry with the type of range to even come close to matching the range of a bomber force), in which case you have, again, issues of storage for those munitions.

(A destroyer based force can pretty easily strip away a 20-fighter defense; namely it sends bomber wings to use Trebuchets to disarm/disable the battleship, with the intent of either wearing it down or drawing out the fighters to beyond AAAf range - at which point the space superiority wings from the attacking destroyer can engage and destroy those interceptors.)

[Shade]

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

Yes, maxims eat capital ships for lunch, but that does not render capital ships obsolete or useless.

Destroyers still have their fighter cover, and they don't need to close if they're properly equipped, such as with trebuchets. As any self respecting fighter escort should be. So to assault a destroyer, you still need to be able to overpower or at least distract it's fighter escort. Further, you disregard one of the major disadvantages of the maxim: It's an energy hog. You don't get to shoot for very long before you have to wait for energy to recharge again, giving time for defenders to respond even if they don't have trebs.

And maxim or no, all capital ships are vulnerable to bombers, yet this still does not render them useless. It comes down to something that was discussed a lot of pages ago, which was the real point of capital ships in FS2. And it wasn't firepower or survivability, it was the ability to operate independantly for long periods of time. If fighters could do this, cruisers would be largely useless, as would any other warship not capable of carrying and supporting fighters and bombers. But fighters can't do this, so all these capital ship classes do have a place, regardless of their vulnerability.

[bfobar]

My 2 cents on the origional topic:

Super massively huge destroyers with a bazillion anti cap weapons and maybe 6 fighters crammed in the back somewhere near the trash jettison chutes is not sensible. If the army and is spending your money wisely, the capital ships need to be versatile. With pirate interdiction, patrol, rescue, and location defense taking up most of their time, the cap ships need big hangar bays. Those get constant use while the uber gun on the nose maybe gets shot at something serious maybe 10 times in the ship's career.

To draw a parallel, in the WWII pacific theater, most of the american naval military might, sorties, etc was wrapped up in the bazillion baby aircraft carriers we had deployed. Sure the missouri battleship was impressive, but most japanese vessels were sank and islands captures with air support from the baby carriers. The biggest battleship in the world was fielded by the Japanese during this time (the Yamoto -- totally huge too), and it was sent straight to the bottom by american aircraft without ever shooting its main guns at an american target. (I think. I'm pulling this all from memory. It's in wikipedia anyway.)

So in freespace, I think the alliance should look at the shivans to realize what does and does not work. A sathanas can make mincemeat out of anything the GTVA dreams of unless a little bomber with 4 helios bombs knocks out its four forward pointing beams of doom. Then a fenris with a CAP can take it out. The really useful shivan ship IMO was the Moloch. This thing had a nice little pack of missles, flak, and beams with good firing arcs, and a fighter bay -- all packed into a corvette chassis. A similar Terran corvette would be much cheaper than a destroyer to make and man, and far more versitile for filling out battle groups, exploring, whacking pirates, whatever. Sure a big new vasudan destroyer could smoke one, but I doubt it could smoke 20 at once, which is probably how many such corvettes you could build with the cost to make and man one superdestroyer.

I think the alliance would start building more corvette class ships. I would guess two new models would be needed. 1 slightly larger than the deimos carries similar armament and houses maybe 3-4 wings of interceptors and light bombers. 2 similar size but has the firepower similar to an aeolus carrying 6-8 wings of various light and heavy fighters and bombers. Round this out with a couple deimos corvettes refittied with one LRGBeam instead of two slashes in the nose, and you've got a nasty little battle group.

[NGTM-1R]

Wikipedia needs itself checked then...Yamato fired its main battery at the planes. Type 93 San Shiki shells.

[bfobar]

nope that would be my brain that needs checked. But my point still stands. It sank. And cap ships can't target fighters with the primaries, everyone knows that! 

[Wanderer]

Yamato fired its main guns also against US (escort) carrier group during the battle of Samur Sea and destroyed atleast one destroyer and one escort carrier before withdrawing undamaged. And those San Shiki shells (sort of flak shell) were quite nice invention if they had worked properly which they didnt.. I think many people at that time would have wanted 460 mm flak cannons, designed to drop a whole formation of airplanes with a single shot...

[aldo_14]

(as an aside...) The Yamatos sister ship, the Musashi, was also sunk by aircraft.

[NGTM-1R]

Yamato fired its main guns also against US (escort) carrier group during the battle of Samur Sea and destroyed atleast one destroyer and one escort carrier before withdrawing undamaged. And those San Shiki shells (sort of flak shell) were quite nice invention if they had worked properly which they didnt.. I think many people at that time would have wanted 460 mm flak cannons, designed to drop a whole formation of airplanes with a single shot...

Gambier Bay was sunk by 14-inch and 8-inch shells. (Attributed to the Kongo and one of the heavy cruisers; probably one of the three that was sunk, since no one seems to know which exactly.) The DDs and DEs were sunk by cruiser main battery or battleship secondary battery fire. (Several of them took hits from battleship shells, but were not fatally damaged by them. That makes a rather impressive testament to the sturdiness of the ships and the STS steel they were built out of.) Yamato, in fact, was almost a non-factor in the battle, as it ended up caught between torpedo spreads and could only head north (away from the enemy) at top speed for 10 miles and hope a torpedo didn't crawl up its stern.

Yamato is generally not credited with having actually hit an enemy with its main battery. Musashi is believed to have killed one or two aircraft with main battery fire before she was sunk. Thus the largest naval rifles that ever were used in combat probably inflicted, at best, six casualities on the enemy.

[Wanderer]

Different sources.. i have seen Yamato been credited variably from 0 to 2 sinkings but i dont which is the truth though.

[TrashMan]

I recally the Yamato actually being flooded and run aground near the harbor, to be used as a static defense..

But enough military history for now  

---------------

Absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that energy calculation, moreso bearing in mind that's more anti-fighter turrets than the Colossus had (18 terran turret, 12 flak, 10 missile, 10 AAAf beam), in a ship that's less than half the size.  So not only do you have a reactor the size of that of the Colossus, but you have under half the internal volume; you really think that can be made up by just removing the (larger) fighterbays?

And the fighterbay on the Colossus would have had very low power requirements in comparison to weaponry (again, consider what you actually need to power using the main reactor on a fighterbay....it's not going to be exponentially bigger than the 2 fighterbays you want, anyways)

Nor is there anything to disprove them.

Think of it this way - the Colossus dumped far more power trough his cannons that they were designed to take - obviously it had power to spare.
Secondly, just how many guns you *could* mount on a ship frame is questionalbe. Just coause the Collie has 12 beam cannons and the Orion 7, doesn't mean that the Collie couldn't carry more - it jsut mean that it was designed with 12 in mind. After all, why plump 30 cannons if 12 are more than enough to do the job, as evident by hte breaking of hte NTF.
Sicne hte Collie was designed to fight several light vessels, it really didnt need more guns, or especialyl mroe powerfull guns. Alltough we all know that you can allways make a more powerfull gun, it the collies's case it wasn't needed.

Allso consider one other fact - teh common fighter has a power plant of it's own that powers the shield, engines and weapons. It provides a lot of power as 6 Subachs are more dangerous and powerfull than a terran Turret.

Now, strip that fighter of hte engines, hte cockpit and the shield generator.. add armor and place it on a swiveling mount, attach it to hte warship hull.
Congratualtions - you just got a self-powered PDS turret.

Of course, the Tryinity suggest that even small turrets are powered from the main reactors...at least for cruisers that is....that, or they needed every bit of power they could get.
Whatever the case, self-powered light turrets are possible. Big guns on the other hand.....

2 fighterbays represent a gap in the armour of the vessel; 2 gaps (compared to a single bay on a destroyer) to be precise, where there are structural joins, pressure seals, etc.  For a destroyer, that's not a major issue as it is designed for hands-off attacks, focusing on using fighters to keep threats at bay.  For a battleship...well, it's been described by you as being a close-in fighter against large ships, so that's lost.  You only need to lose one, anyways; the whole issue of a structural weak point is that it can be destroyed and thus compromise the entire vessel hull.

5 engines; again imposes issues of size, how you engineer that redundancy, and the number of crew required for each engine.  More engines; increases the chance of a single fault (increasing complexity), also structural issues of bracing and shielding (because you need to move these to be physically apart or they're just as vulnerable to explosion damage as one big engine).

Some destroyers have 2 bays you know...like hte Hatspthuh  - and it allso has the most HP.

anyway, Immagine the fighterbay on the BB more as a modular attachment that actually a gap in it's armor. If the bay get's blown off a new one can be installed.  

and engines... most shivan ships have more than 5 engines... the Hecate has 7. I'd consider 5 a optimalnumber...especially if they aren't clustered together.

So you've not stated the main weapons?  Given that beams are the most effective form of energy weapons in Freespace, you could only have missiles/projectiles as a main anti-cap weapon then.... and, guess what - ammo!  Which needs space, no?

I was actually thinking the main armament being beam cannons and heavy plasma blob guns. No ammmo.

I'd note your battleship also has a pifflingly small amount of defense fighters, which means that it is still useless operating at a system-wide level (it can't provide escort or cover for anything beyond itself). Plus the battleship doesn't have bombers, which means it surrenders any control of how far ranged the battlefield is; any fighter carrying capship can sit at beyond the battleships gun range and wear it down with bomber attacks until it (the attacker) has a tactical edge.

20-24 interceptors is enough of a defense force, but you're right - they only serve to protect it and do recon. A BB's role is to complement other ship classes - so a BB would practicly allways be following a destroyer, serving as a bodyguard of a sort.
And like I said - the range analogy is useles in FS2 due to subspace jumps. Destroyer is to far aways? - either jump to safety or jump right next to it.

And maxim or no, all capital ships are vulnerable to bombers, yet this still does not render them useless.

True...but bombs can be intercepted, maxim shots can't... For bombing to be effective you'd need to come close and let them go at the last possible second, thus exposing yourself to enemy fire. With a maxim you're well out of range of capship weapons.

and given the fact that a wing of fighters can rape any cruiser WITHOUT A SCRATCH, I'd say they are useless.  

460 mm flak cannons,

now there's an idea for FS2!!! I'll get right on it!

[aldo_14]

I recally the Yamato actually being flooded and run aground near the harbor, to be used as a static defense..

But enough military history for now 

The Yamato was sunk in 300m of water 200km off Okinawa.  The Mushasi was sank at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, and the 3rd Yamato class vessel - the Shinano - was converted to an aircraft carrier during construction (following the Battle of Midway), and sunk by 6 torpedos from the USS Archerfish (sub); this was before the ship had its hull compartments completed.

Nor is there anything to disprove them.

Think of it this way - the Colossus dumped far more power trough his cannons that they were designed to take - obviously it had power to spare.
Secondly, just how many guns you *could* mount on a ship frame is questionalbe. Just coause the Collie has 12 beam cannons and the Orion 7, doesn't mean that the Collie couldn't carry more - it jsut mean that it was designed with 12 in mind. After all, why plump 30 cannons if 12 are more than enough to do the job, as evident by hte breaking of hte NTF.
Sicne hte Collie was designed to fight several light vessels, it really didnt need more guns, or especialyl mroe powerfull guns. Alltough we all know that you can allways make a more powerfull gun, it the collies's case it wasn't needed.

Allso consider one other fact - teh common fighter has a power plant of it's own that powers the shield, engines and weapons. It provides a lot of power as 6 Subachs are more dangerous and powerfull than a terran Turret.

Now, strip that fighter of hte engines, hte cockpit and the shield generator.. add armor and place it on a swiveling mount, attach it to hte warship hull.
Congratualtions - you just got a self-powered PDS turret.

Of course, the Tryinity suggest that even small turrets are powered from the main reactors...at least for cruisers that is....that, or they needed every bit of power they could get.
Whatever the case, self-powered light turrets are possible. Big guns on the other hand.....

You have a self-powered turret with a substantially larger blast radius when destroyed than a normal turret, too.  It's also not made clear if there is an operational lifetime for fighter reactors (thinking about this....is it ever explicitly stated what powers a fighter?); it's a lot easier to replace or alter a fighters' reactor in the engineering bay every couple of weeks than to take a point-defense cannon offline.

It's pretty obvious the GTVA wouldn't have weakened the Colossus in any way beyond necessary; the 5-6km frame would not have been designed prior to deciding the armament of the vessel (That'd be an insane way to set down a design), but as a consequence as to 'how do we make a juggernaut?'  And you can't always make a more powerful gun; there are always limiting factors on what becomes feasible and - even more important - economical in terms of heat, space, power.

Also, IIRC the Colossus wasn't using all it's weaponry attacking the Sath; so there'd be a degree of freedom to re-route it, although doing so had clear and damaging consequences; put it this way, it strained the hell out of that vessel to 'upgrade' the beams; even if it had the spare energy (and we don't know if it did, or it shut down half the systems and near-overloaded the reactor), there were structural consequences to that level of output.
 

Some destroyers have 2 bays you know...like hte Hatspthuh  - and it allso has the most HP.

anyway, Immagine the fighterbay on the BB more as a modular attachment that actually a gap in it's armor. If the bay get's blown off a new one can be installed. 

and engines... most shivan ships have more than 5 engines... the Hecate has 7. I'd consider 5 a optimalnumber...especially if they aren't clustered together.

As I said, destroyers have better point defense (Escort fighters - and lots of them), so a single structural weakness is less at risk.  There's no way you could attach a 'modular' fighterbay without making that fighterbay even more suusceptible to destruction (because it will have deliberate 'weakness' in the engineering to reduce the impact of its destruction upon the frame in that case); so you're effectively making your main source of ranged defense deliberately vulnerable.

AFAIK the Hecate only has, what, one or 2 engine subsystems.  Don't confuse the issue of the engine controls with the physical engine apertures;  if you have multiple engineering depts, again you have structural issues there in integrating them; yes, you reduce the vulnerability to disarmament, but you have to wire up and isolate the departments.  Otherwise, based on FS, attacking individual engine thrusters doesn't really make much difference.  In any case, again, the Hecate isn't really intended to fight close in to targets.

I was actually thinking the main armament being beam cannons and heavy plasma blob guns. No ammmo.

So heavy energy requirements & heat, approximating or exceeding the Colossus' across a frame about half the size.  Especially if you want those plasma turrets to be any cop; because they are pretty useless as is, and you were talking about an effective point defense for when this thing is ambushed by multiple mobile foes.....

20-24 interceptors is enough of a defense force, but you're right - they only serve to protect it and do recon. A BB's role is to complement other ship classes - so a BB would practicly allways be following a destroyer, serving as a bodyguard of a sort.
And like I said - the range analogy is useles in FS2 due to subspace jumps. Destroyer is to far aways? - either jump to safety or jump right next to it.

Then why don't we see every FS1/FS2 capship battle punctuated by micro-jumps into exact flanking positions every 5 seconds?  Of course, actually jumping into subspace isn't risk free; based on the players' jumping, you have something like 5-10 seconds when you can't maneuver or (possible - not checked with capships) fire.  So each time your battleship jumps to reposition (unless it runs away, of course), it'd be exposing the rear to prolonged fire.  And if you make the fighters cover that, then you isolate them from the protection of the bulk of the BS whilst it's in-transit, and physically seperate the two.

And in what way is a battleship any better than a corvette or cruiser battlegroup, then?  All it is in that case, is a bigger and less maneuverable single target replacing multiple units able to flank and destroy targets.  Especially given that the only real value of a battleship in that context is as heavy-weapons support (which cruisers and corvettes have; hell, they can just ramp up the beams like the Colossus did, based on your suggestion, and they can tactically jump out independently, covering each others arses).

True...but bombs can be intercepted, maxim shots can't... For bombing to be effective you'd need to come close and let them go at the last possible second, thus exposing yourself to enemy fire. With a maxim you're well out of range of capship weapons.

and given the fact that a wing of fighters can rape any cruiser WITHOUT A SCRATCH, I'd say they are useless. 

Not much different than any capship, is it?  Couple of trebs to knock out an area of turreting, and they're all screwed; and that's ignoring the obvious ability to use the blind spot provided by the thrusters (and for something as heavy as a ship with 2.5 times the armour plating of an Orion, you'd need pretty damn big thrusters; the Leviathan lost over half it's speed vis-a-vis the Fenris, and it didn't have the doubling of turrets).

[StratComm]

Nor is there anything to disprove them.

Think of it this way - the Colossus dumped far more power trough his cannons that they were designed to take - obviously it had power to spare.

Wrong!  Try again.

We're having difficulty stabilizing the power grid, Command. Shutting down non-essential systems.

...

Heat sinks were not made for this kind of abuse, Command! We'll melt down our cannons if we push any harder.

...

Secondary and Tertiary reactors are down! Fire control is on the verge of redline! We're giving it all we got!

So yeah, the colossus basically blew out most of its power plants just to ramp up the power on 4 of its 12 beams.  And it could sustain those power levels for a very short time only.

Secondly, just how many guns you *could* mount on a ship frame is questionalbe.
Just coause the Collie has 12 beam cannons and the Orion 7, doesn't mean that the Collie couldn't carry more - it jsut mean that it was designed with 12 in mind. After all, why plump 30 cannons if 12 are more than enough to do the job, as evident by hte breaking of hte NTF.
Sicne hte Collie was designed to fight several light vessels, it really didnt need more guns, or especialyl mroe powerfull guns. Alltough we all know that you can allways make a more powerfull gun, it the collies's case it wasn't needed.

That's retarded.  So the ship was designed for 12 beams.  Sure.  I'll buy that.  But then by extension the consequences of mounting that much firepower was that the hull had to be 6km long and the requirement for 30,000 crew.  Think about that, because (other than the armor) your "ideal battleship" sounds almost exactly like the Colossus but occupying less physical space.

Some destroyers have 2 bays you know...like hte Hatspthuh  - and it allso has the most HP.

anyway, Immagine the fighterbay on the BB more as a modular attachment that actually a gap in it's armor. If the bay get's blown off a new one can be installed. 

and engines... most shivan ships have more than 5 engines... the Hecate has 7. I'd consider 5 a optimalnumber...especially if they aren't clustered together.

Say it with me now, "Hatshepsut."  It's not that hard   Anyway, don't think of the Hatshepsut as having two fighter bays, think of it as one bay with two launch/recovery ports.  Like the Typhon before it, there's rather strong implications that the bay is actually located deep inside the vessel, where it's more heavily protected from incidental fire.  Sure, the launch tubes can get destroyed, but the many valuable fighters and pilots within would not be.  And having that redundant launch corridor helps ensure that they do not get trapped in the belly of their ship should one tube become disabled in the heat of battle.

The only FS ship with more than 5 engines is the Sathanas, and there's no stated reason for why it needs all of them (6).  The Hecate, like many other ships, has (I believe) 3 engine subsystems, none of which are particularly resiliant to damage.

I was actually thinking the main armament being beam cannons and heavy plasma blob guns. No ammmo.

...

20-24 interceptors is enough of a defense force, but you're right - they only serve to protect it and do recon. A BB's role is to complement other ship classes - so a BB would practicly allways be following a destroyer, serving as a bodyguard of a sort.
And like I said - the range analogy is useles in FS2 due to subspace jumps. Destroyer is to far aways? - either jump to safety or jump right next to it.

As has been said repeatedly, if you've got 12+ heavy anti-capital energy weapons on a Destroyer-size spaceframe, then you've got more firepower on a smaller frame than the Colossus.  You just can't do that.

And jumps: that really would apply to every ship in Freespace if it were true (including the target and any strike craft in the area).  The trouble is that making a subspace jump requires a non-trivial amount of energy to accomplish, and on a ship that's already putting more strain than normal on its reactors to power the bazillion weapons you've got it bristeling with that could easily be asking too much of the reactor.  Or it would mean taking your weapons offline to acomplish a jump.  Never mind that jumping in-mission is pretty canonically impossible.

And I might add, you're now redefining the role of your battleship.  It's gone, over the course of this thread, from being the be-all, end-all weapon of destroyer doom to a support ship for a destroyer, a roll for which a pair of Corvettes seem more than adequately suited.

[TrashMan]

It's pretty obvious the GTVA wouldn't have weakened the Colossus in any way beyond necessary; the 5-6km frame would not have been designed prior to deciding the armament of the vessel (That'd be an insane way to set down a design), but as a consequence as to 'how do we make a juggernaut?'  And you can't always make a more powerful gun; there are always limiting factors on what becomes feasible and - even more important - economical in terms of heat, space, power.

And the desing for the Collie was made 20 years ago.
12 beam cannons must have sounded redicolously overpowered back then.
I very much doubt it used the latest tech, due to the long time of it's construction.

AFAIK the Hecate only has, what, one or 2 engine subsystems.  Don't confuse the issue of the engine controls with the physical engine apertures;  if you have multiple engineering depts, again you have structural issues there in integrating them; yes, you reduce the vulnerability to disarmament, but you have to wire up and isolate the departments.  Otherwise, based on FS, attacking individual engine thrusters doesn't really make much difference.  In any case, again, the Hecate isn't really intended to fight close in to targets.

Let me put this another way - the hecat has 5 distinct engine - 2 large ones, 2 on the fin and 1 on the front....No wait - it has two more on the front section, behind those strange structures...

As has been said repeatedly, if you've got 12+ heavy anti-capital energy weapons on a Destroyer-size spaceframe, then you've got more firepower on a smaller frame than the Colossus.  You just can't do that.

Sez you:D

And jumps: that really would apply to every ship in Freespace if it were true (including the target and any strike craft in the area).  The trouble is that making a subspace jump requires a non-trivial amount of energy to accomplish, and on a ship that's already putting more strain than normal on its reactors to power the bazillion weapons you've got it bristeling with that could easily be asking too much of the reactor.  Or it would mean taking your weapons offline to acomplish a jump.  Never mind that jumping in-mission is pretty canonically impossible.

So who said the BB would be shooting when it jumps out - by your own example, the destroyer would be out of range, sending it's fighters, so where exactly is the danger? If the DD is out of range of the BB's guns, the opposite is allso true, and by the time the DD's fighters reach the BB, ti will alrleady have jumped without fireing a shot.
Result - boths ships get out undamaged.

However, if both ships are close enough and in cannon range, the destroyer is the one that get's f****. Put an Orion vs a Hecate and in two salvos the Hecat is gone. Now if hte BB has moe firepower than the Orion, than the enemy destroyer (Orion OR Heacete) gt's pulverized in a single salve...which would take about...6 seconds? And it takes more for a destroyer to jump out.



-------------------------------
And you all seem to forget that th BB doesn't exist as a class in FS2...nor does a missle corvette..nor a gunship.
In order to put them, you have to invent them. and in order for them to work you have to invent something else too - in the case of missle corvettes you need powerfull-capship torps... Or in case of a BB, heavy plasma cannons or something else

Unless of course you want to limit new calsses to only those which use only standard FS2 weapons.

Of course, that ship wouldn't be set in FS2, but shortly after (since the prospect of such a ship existing, and not being seen at all is redicolous).
The exact power requirements of those plasma cannons are debatable as is the power and number of the reactors are not set and depend on multiple factors.
For instance, a weapon might have far more effective power usage (less power is lost), thus increasing it's damage without increasing power requirements. Or it could have saome ammo-dependant weapons.

Either way, the space cleared by the huge fightrbays leaves a lot of room for reactors and ammo storage. Given the fact that you know about FS2 internal ship design and technical components as much as I do (read - zilch), you can't stand there are claim with any certanty (or validity) that such a class is impossible in the FS2 universe at all.

After all, we sen the Gigas, the Odin, that uber-faustus fomr Trascend, that Corvette with beefed-up beam cannons from Depsperation, etc, etc...

Interesting how you go on a merry little crusade against a ship class, while ignoring 100000 other ship classes that display teh same (or more) things you claim to be impossible.

[karajorma]

And the desing for the Collie was made 20 years ago.
12 beam cannons must have sounded redicolously overpowered back then.
I very much doubt it used the latest tech, due to the long time of it's construction.

Very well then why not compare it with the Hecate. Your BB has more firepower and hitpoints than two Hecates. Yet the Hecate IS new. It does feature the best the GTVA can do. The same is true when you compare it against the Hatshepsut which is also fairly new. Your BB is ridiculously overpowered even when compared against ships that are built very close to the time it supposedly will be.

Interesting how you go on a merry little crusade against a ship class, while ignoring 100000 other ship classes that display teh same (or more) things you claim to be impossible.

It's not a crusade against the BB. It's the fact that

a) You only put new weapons on the BB and refuse to give the same advantage to other new ships.
b) You refuse to see that once you do give the same advantage to the other new ships the BB starts to look woefully inadequate.

I'd be just as scathing if anyone else did the same thing with another class.

Look at the other ships you mention and you'll see what I mean. The Gigas may be new but the other ships in the GTVA have also been upgraded. It's also worth pointing out that Inferno is set some time after FS2 so it's not like these ships popped up out of nowhere. Similar comments can be made for all the other ships you mention.

You're now putting uber plamsa cannons on the BB. There's nothing like that in the GTVA. The blob turrets on the GTVAs destroyers are only really useful for shooting down bombs and bombers\gunships. Yet you've suddenly invented this brand new super powered version which can do serious damage to capship out of nowhere and stuck it on your BB. Where are the new superweapons for destroyers then? Where is the version of the new super dense armour you're putting on the BB for them? Where is the destroyer's turret upgrade so that it can have a number that isn't based on old tech like the Colossus (and presumably the Hatshepsut and Hecate)?

[aldo_14]

And the desing for the Collie was made 20 years ago.
12 beam cannons must have sounded redicolously overpowered back then.
I very much doubt it used the latest tech, due to the long time of it's construction.

Thus the same applies to your miracle ship-o-doom.

Let me put this another way - the hecat has 5 distinct engine - 2 large ones, 2 on the fin and 1 on the front....No wait - it has two more on the front section, behind those strange structures...

How many engine subsystems does it have?  Because those are what you have to destroy ingame, aren't they?  Shooting the glows has no effect upon the engines in Fs, does it?

Sez you:D

Says any form of logical reasoning by looking at existing examples.

So who said the BB would be shooting when it jumps out - by your own example, the destroyer would be out of range, sending it's fighters, so where exactly is the danger? If the DD is out of range of the BB's guns, the opposite is allso true, and by the time the DD's fighters reach the BB, ti will alrleady have jumped without fireing a shot.
Result - boths ships get out undamaged.

However, if both ships are close enough and in cannon range, the destroyer is the one that get's f****. Put an Orion vs a Hecate and in two salvos the Hecat is gone. Now if hte BB has moe firepower than the Orion, than the enemy destroyer (Orion OR Heacete) gt's pulverized in a single salve...which would take about...6 seconds? And it takes more for a destroyer to jump out.

You weren't reading, were you?  The destroyer - if it's even in the area - has bomber and fighter wings attacking the BS at close range.  The BS only has a limited degree of point defense and a minor force of interceptors for defense.  Bombers and fighters can close down the BS a lot quicker than it can maneuver, and probably before it can jump - and if they can't, any ship that it jumps in close to can similarly jump out before it can even fire (because those jumps can be predicted accurately; as seen in FS2s' first mission).  Even assuming such precision microjumps (and their required millisecond timing) are even possible, which we have never seen, even when they'd be battlewinners in FS1/2.  Presumably, because if they were canonically possible, you'd never have battles; ships would just pop in and out of existance, dancing around each other without ever being able to warm their beams to fire.

And the whole point of a destroyer is it can stay out of beam cannon range if it is at risk.  It only needs to close in to fire once the bomber wings have done their job and stripped the BS of offensive weaponry and maneuvering capacity.

And you all seem to forget that th BB doesn't exist as a class in FS2...nor does a missle corvette..nor a gunship.
In order to put them, you have to invent them. and in order for them to work you have to invent something else too - in the case of missle corvettes you need powerfull-capship torps... Or in case of a BB, heavy plasma cannons or something else

Unless of course you want to limit new calsses to only those which use only standard FS2 weapons.

Of course, that ship wouldn't be set in FS2, but shortly after (since the prospect of such a ship existing, and not being seen at all is redicolous).
The exact power requirements of those plasma cannons are debatable as is the power and number of the reactors are not set and depend on multiple factors.
For instance, a weapon might have far more effective power usage (less power is lost), thus increasing it's damage without increasing power requirements. Or it could have saome ammo-dependant weapons.

Either way, the space cleared by the huge fightrbays leaves a lot of room for reactors and ammo storage. Given the fact that you know about FS2 internal ship design and technical components as much as I do (read - zilch), you can't stand there are claim with any certanty (or validity) that such a class is impossible in the FS2 universe at all.

After all, we sen the Gigas, the Odin, that uber-faustus fomr Trascend, that Corvette with beefed-up beam cannons from Depsperation, etc, etc...

Interesting how you go on a merry little crusade against a ship class, while ignoring 100000 other ship classes that display teh same (or more) things you claim to be impossible.

Firstly, most ships are well balanced.  Offhand, the Gigas is the only one I know offhand, and that's huge and Shivan.  Kind of different paradigm - you can get away with pretty much anything if it's Shivan.  Perhaps even a capship with the armament of a Sathanas at half the size.

Secondly, this is an arguement for the feasibility of ships within Freespace 2, not the divergent branch of canon that a campaign represents.  You can invent any sort of exotic uber-ship you want in your own little campaign-defined reality - that's different from applying it in general to freespace. 

Thirdly, this is also about the lack of consideration for the multitude of weaknesses that a ship such as a BS has and how the enemy would exploit them.  The more you have to invent new and unknown technology to justify not just the tactical use but very existence of such a ship, the further you move away from plausibility either within Freespace or even within your own universe.  For all the justification you can place in your own made up background, regardless of how divergent from FS, there is still always going to be a point where people look and think 'wait, that's totally unbelievable'.

Fourthly; the Freespace 2 universe.  Note - 'Freespace 2'.  Not 'post Freespace 2', not 'Freespace 2 if xx happened and we discovered superbeams powered by a 9V duracell'.

Finally; I can't think, offhand, of a ship class as infeasible as the BS proposed here, nor one which as blatantly displays the 'MORE BEAMZZ!!!' type attitude that fails to consider such elementary things as balance, believability, plausibility, and key weaknesses.  I'm sure if I did see one being pushed, I'd have the same attitude to it as here.  If I shoved a Super BFGReen on the Damocles and justified it as 'being powered by an exotic new GTVI reactor', I'd expect to be - rightly - castigated for it.   Same as if I shoved more than 6 (max) light slashers on the thing.

Hell, the Pellestrom beam in CoW was probably the same case; the only reason I got away with that was probably because it had a huge installation (more or less) dedicated to powering the thing,.

[TrashMan]

Very well then why not compare it with the Hecate. Your BB has more firepower and hitpoints than two Hecates. Yet the Hecate IS new. It does feature the best the GTVA can do. The same is true when you compare it against the Hatshepsut which is also fairly new. Your BB is ridiculously overpowered even when compared against ships that are built very close to the time it supposedly will be.

Actually, no. The Hatesputh is a heavy hitter and a BB compared to it wouldn't be redicolously overpowered. After all, in exchange for 120 fighters you get approx. twice the armor and firepower. A fair trade.

It's not a crusade against the BB. It's the fact that

a) You only put new weapons on the BB and refuse to give the same advantage to other new ships.
b) You refuse to see that once you do give the same advantage to the other new ships the BB starts to look woefully inadequate.

Not really. Like I said, the plasma turret isn't a requirement, and no where have I said that other ship wouldn't have it..at lesat not in that calibre.

Look at the other ships you mention and you'll see what I mean. The Gigas may be new but the other ships in the GTVA have also been upgraded. It's also worth pointing out that Inferno is set some time after FS2 so it's not like these ships popped up out of nowhere. Similar comments can be made for all the other ships you mention.

You're now putting uber plamsa cannons on the BB. There's nothing like that in the GTVA. The blob turrets on the GTVAs destroyers are only really useful for shooting down bombs and bombers\gunships. Yet you've suddenly invented this brand new super powered version which can do serious damage to capship out of nowhere and stuck it on your BB. Where are the new superweapons for destroyers then? Where is the version of the new super dense armour you're putting on the BB for them? Where is the destroyer's turret upgrade so that it can have a number that isn't based on old tech like the Colossus (and presumably the Hatshepsut and Hecate)?

Not uber.. Less damage than a beam cannon, but better fire rate. Comparable to a BGreen, possibly weaker.
Oh - did i forgot to mention the fact that in my own ship tables (which I used play and test the BB) the Terran Huge Turrets do 1000 damage and have a far greater range? And that the Orion and HEacat are both beefed up (Orion 27 turrets - more AF power, the Heacte 4 moe turrets, but gets more THT's)

And armor - well it's not just what typ of armor you use, but allso what quality it is (as evidenced by the fact that the 406mm armor of the Iowa proved better than the 460mm of the Yamato), how much of it you put, WHERE you put it and in how much layers...

by Aldo_14
You weren't reading, were you?  The destroyer - if it's even in the area - has bomber and fighter wings attacking the BS at close range.  The BS only has a limited degree of point defense and a minor force of interceptors for defense.  Bombers and fighters can close down the BS a lot quicker than it can maneuver, and probably before it can jump - and if they can't, any ship that it jumps in close to can similarly jump out before it can even fire (because those jumps can be predicted accurately; as seen in FS2s' first mission).  Even assuming such precision microjumps (and their required millisecond timing) are even possible, which we have never seen, even when they'd be battlewinners in FS1/2.  Presumably, because if they were canonically possible, you'd never have battles; ships would just pop in and out of existance, dancing around each other without ever being able to warm their beams to fire.

And the whole point of a destroyer is it can stay out of beam cannon range if it is at risk.  It only needs to close in to fire once the bomber wings have done their job and stripped the BS of offensive weaponry and maneuvering capacity.

If the DD is out of BB's cannon range (but is in visual range) that it will take the fighters/bombes FAR more time to close the distance than it will take the BB to jump (unless you think you cna close 6000meters in 10 seconds). And I wasn't talking about micro-jumping next to the destroyer that was previosuly 10klicks away - I was talking eiher about jumping to safety OR jumping next to the DD when the DD is FAR away.

If the DD is way out, and just send bombers in, again, torpedos are utterly slow. The second the bombers start jumping in the BB can start the jump-out sequence. Given the typical bomb lock time, speed and fire distance, from the moment the bomber jumps in to the moment the bomb reaches the hull (if not intercepted) a lot of time passes - more than enough time for the ship to jump out. Bombs are slow weapons, and bombers aren't realyl fast either.

We know the jumping time for capships is roughly 6-7 seconds. The time from when a cap emerges from subspace to when it opens fire is 3 seconds. So the DD can't escape in time to avoid 1 salvo from the BB, as those are direct and near-instant hit weapons.

And the BB doesn't have pitifull Point-defense. It has more Point-defense than any destroyer (during WW2, BB's had the most AF guns, and even the modified Iowa has more point-defense weapons than a carrier). Mostly flak guns (since they practicly don't use any power, they'd be ideal..ammo storage really isn't a problem)

Finally; I can't think, offhand, of a ship class as infeasible as the BS proposed here, nor one which as blatantly displays the 'MORE BEAMZZ!!!' type attitude that fails to consider such elementary things as balance, believability, plausibility, and key weaknesses.  I'm sure if I did see one being pushed, I'd have the same attitude to it as here.  If I shoved a Super BFGReen on the Damocles and justified it as 'being powered by an exotic new GTVI reactor', I'd expect to be - rightly - castigated for it.   Same as if I shoved more than 6 (max) light slashers on the thing.

Then you ain't thinking hard enough...or not thinking at all.
There's not reason to invent any new gizmo for a BB to work...the long-range AF lasers are just an (feasable) idea, not a requirement. An the heavy plasma cannons are everything but far-fetched ... GTVA has that technology for god knows how-long. Capships like the Orion don't even use capital-grade only versions (thy shoot THT's at fighters for crying out loud, so it can't be a capship-only weapon lik a BGreen).
But even without it the BB could still work.

It has it weakneses, such as speed and suceptability to AMASSED figter attacks. It complements some other classes while at the sam time not making anyone of them obsolete. I'd call that balanced.

And uber-ship-of-doom? You got some crazy ideas there..what's so uber about it?
Size?  - There are bigger
Fightercapacity? - there are FAR better
Speed? - there are better
Power projection - there are better
Armor and firepower (in it's size class) - now there's where it shines (alltough Collie or Sath would still pulverize a BB of destroyer size)

the uses of BB are breaking blockades, direct assaults against hardened targets and battlegroup support.

[aldo_14]

Actually, no. The Hatesputh is a heavy hitter and a BB compared to it wouldn't be redicolously overpowered. After all, in exchange for 120 fighters you get approx. twice the armor and firepower. A fair trade.

Not when every evidence seen is that armour and firepower would logically have far more of a negative effect on the same frame and reactor (specifications) than those fighters, as evidence by pretty much any comparison you can make between capships. You've massively overestimated the weight, power requirements and space of fighters (or underestimated that of armour and turreting) in order to self-justify.  We can see by the Sobek-vs-Orion/Hecate exactly how little crew, in actuality, fighters require (for an example).

Not really. Like I said, the plasma turret isn't a requirement, and no where have I said that other ship wouldn't have it..at lesat not in that calibre.

So any advantage that the enemy can have becomes 'not a requirement'.  Doesn't that mean your super-new beams, ultralight armour, massively parallelised yet somehow spaceless engines, gigantically powerful lunchbox sized reactor, etc, are 'not requirements' then?

Not uber.. Less damage than a beam cannon, but better fire rate. Comparable to a BGreen, possibly weaker.
Oh - did i forgot to mention the fact that in my own ship tables (which I used play and test the BB) the Terran Huge Turrets do 1000 damage and have a far greater range? And that the Orion and HEacat are both beefed up (Orion 27 turrets - more AF power, the Heacte 4 moe turrets, but gets more THT's)

And armor - well it's not just what typ of armor you use, but allso what quality it is (as evidenced by the fact that the 406mm armor of the Iowa proved better than the 460mm of the Yamato), how much of it you put, WHERE you put it and in how much layers...

Your little quasi-universe is not FS2 canon, regardless of what you change to the Orion or Hecate.  Thus it's of no relevance unless we're solely debating the BS within your universe, which we're not doing, because you make up the rules for that whole kit and kaboodle.  I'm sure I could table up a situation where your BS got raped by a co-ordinated flanking cruiser attack; that wouldn't be any more valid.  In any case, it's not exactly hard to 'rig'  a FRED test; in every other post in this thread you've been eager to dismiss or ignore the tactical problems raised with a BS.

And armour can't just be summed up as something as simple as 'quality'; you can't just invent some super-armour that's lightweight and strong yet never, ever seen anywhere else and use that as a justification.... if anything, it's even worse as a justification because it can be extrapolated to apply to every ship, thus removing any sense of advantage.  The only canonical, same tech era (later era, in fact, if only by months) comparison of increased armour strength is the Fenris-Leviathan, and that has very obvious results upon speed and maneuverability.

Not to mention you kind of ignored the whole multiple reactor+shielding issues (as well as various power/heat related constraints) when considering internal mass to suit yourself.

The 'where' is also pretty much irrelevant as we don't have a locality based damage model to use when comparing hitpoints; you can't say that xx of a Hecate is well protected but yy isn't, so you can't do that for any sort of other ship either (only exception being physical or otherwise subsystems which do have seperate percentage damage modifiers).

[TrashMan]

Not when every evidence seen is that armour and firepower would logically have far more of a negative effect on the same frame and reactor (specifications) than those fighters, as evidence by pretty much any comparison you can make between capships. You've massively overestimated the weight, power requirements and space of fighters (or underestimated that of armour and turreting) in order to self-justify.  We can see by the Sobek-vs-Orion/Hecate exactly how little crew, in actuality, fighters require (for an example).

I havn' seen no conclusive evidence. What you have is assumptions and estimates.
I do not overestimated the space requred for fighters - I calculatd it back home. Or do you want me to post a pic of it?

So any advantage that the enemy can have becomes 'not a requirement'.  Doesn't that mean your super-new beams, ultralight armour, massively parallelised yet somehow spaceless engines, gigantically powerful lunchbox sized reactor, etc, are 'not requirements' then?

No uber-beams, no uber-armor, no uber-engines. They are your constructs, not mine.
The only thing that can be debated about is th reactor power.

Your little quasi-universe is not FS2 canon, regardless of what you change to the Orion or Hecate.  Thus it's of no relevance unless we're solely debating the BS within your universe, which we're not doing, because you make up the rules for that whole kit and kaboodle.  I'm sure I could table up a situation where your BS got raped by a co-ordinated flanking cruiser attack; that wouldn't be any more valid.  In any case, it's not exactly hard to 'rig'  a FRED test; in every other post in this thread you've been eager to dismiss or ignore the tactical problems raised with a BS.

I don't get you..maby it's my english..
first you say that I game the BB a weapon other ships don't have. Then when I say otehr ships have the same weapon you are allso not satisfied? If you fear that that's not cannon, you don't have to worry.. that's a special table set I use when making my campaign..I do have the standard FS2 tables and hte BB works with them too.
There is NO NEED for new weapons, alltough it would be nice to have the plasma gun.
But one simple thing that seems to elude your grasp is ---- the shi pis not supposed to be cannon. It can't be canon. It's just supposed to be able to function in the limitations of the canon universe. And large caliber Plasma Turrets are everything BUT impossible.

And armour can't just be summed up as something as simple as 'quality'; you can't just invent some super-armour that's lightweight and strong yet never, ever seen anywhere else and use that as a justification.... if anything, it's even worse as a justification because it can be extrapolated to apply to every ship, thus removing any sense of advantage.  The only canonical, same tech era (later era, in fact, if only by months) comparison of increased armour strength is the Fenris-Leviathan, and that has very obvious results upon speed and maneuverability.

Not to mention you kind of ignored the whole multiple reactor+shielding issues (as well as various power/heat related constraints) when considering internal mass to suit yourself.

I have over 2500 books at home...half of those fall to naval ship...most of those about naval warship and their different aspects. And they do go into VERY much detail about armor....the same pinciples work in space too.
Being heavily armored doesn't mean to have armor that is thicker than everything else - but to have it devided and placed optimally and an armor of suficient thickness and quality to witstand most of that the enemy is supposed to throw at you.

I never said anything about a "new" armor type - you're (again) putting words in my mouth.

The 'where' is also pretty much irrelevant as we don't have a locality based damage model to use when comparing hitpoints; you can't say that xx of a Hecate is well protected but yy isn't, so you can't do that for any sort of other ship either (only exception being physical or otherwise subsystems which do have seperate percentage damage modifiers).

No we don't have localy based damage but the overal armor effectivnes must be approximated with a HP count, regardelss how inssuficiant it is. Suffice to say that BB would have an overall better armor placement (and slightly thicker armor too) and thus this can only be represented by increase of HP. If you find antehr way, please tell me.

b.t.w. - tehre are obviously different types of armor in FS2. The Deimos is stated as having a specific armour type, suggesting that maby older ships don't - either becouse or design, age or cost issues.

[aldo_14]

I havn' seen no conclusive evidence. What you have is assumptions and estimates.
I do not overestimated the space requred for fighters - I calculatd it back home. Or do you want me to post a pic of it?

By all means do.

No uber-beams, no uber-armor, no uber-engines. They are your constructs, not mine.
The only thing that can be debated about is th reactor power.

So you either have a huge set of additional reactors and all that entails, or magic beams and engines - uber in fact - with bugger all power and cooling requirements.   Or both; this is a Colossus reactor and turret set in a hull half the size, after all.

I don't get you..maby it's my english..
first you say that I game the BB a weapon other ships don't have. Then when I say otehr ships have the same weapon you are allso not satisfied? If you fear that that's not cannon, you don't have to worry.. that's a special table set I use when making my campaign..I do have the standard FS2 tables and hte BB works with them too.
There is NO NEED for new weapons, alltough it would be nice to have the plasma gun.
But one simple thing that seems to elude your grasp is ---- the shi pis not supposed to be cannon. It can't be canon. It's just supposed to be able to function in the limitations of the canon universe. And large caliber Plasma Turrets are everything BUT impossible.p.

And it can't function as you describe it within the canon universe.  That's the whole point.  It requires these hypothetical weapons to defend itself, justified by a purely hyopthetical assumption about the power, cooling, crew and space requirements for those weapons that is, if anything, contradicted by the required size for the big C and the canon crew numbers for the Sobek vs a destroyer.  Not to mention an enemy that is wilfully ignorant of the inherent weaknesses of such a design, or the imaginary super armour that is somehow over twice the strength with no consequences whatever.

I have over 2500 books at home...half of those fall to naval ship...most of those about naval warship and their different aspects. And they do go into VERY much detail about armor....the same pinciples work in space too.
Being heavily armored doesn't mean to have armor that is thicker than everything else - but to have it devided and placed optimally and an armor of suficient thickness and quality to witstand most of that the enemy is supposed to throw at you.

I never said anything about a "new" armor type - you're (again) putting words in my mouth.

No, you did; because by implication it would be used in FS2 ships including the very-recent Hecate design; and thus it wouldn't pose any sort of advantage for a Bs using it but in actuality exactly the same restrictions as it does upon any other ship type.  Maybe if you thought a bit more about your statements, I wouldn't have to point out the logical problems in them.

No we don't have localy based damage but the overal armor effectivnes must be approximated with a HP count, regardelss how inssuficiant it is. Suffice to say that BB would have an overall better armor placement (and slightly thicker armor too) and thus this can only be represented by increase of HP. If you find antehr way, please tell me.

It means you can't claim armour placement in one place would result in an overall increase in HP as the enemy would ignore that segement and concentrate upon the weakest area of the ship; as we can't represent that targeting in FS2, the ship is only as strong as the weakest area of its hull.  Now, if you want the BB to have thicker armour overall, then fine, except you need to factor that in and either increase reactor size and space use, or slow it down.

b.t.w. - tehre are obviously different types of armor in FS2. The Deimos is stated as having a specific armour type, suggesting that maby older ships don't - either becouse or design, age or cost issues.

So it's your benchmark for the supportable turrets-per-metre of hull, speed, etc, then?  The Deimos is described at the most advanced ship in the fleet; "their Vasudan-designed reactor core provides more energy per ton than any other allied ship class".  You can't suppose anything that is stronger, faster, etc than the Deimos (within context of scale) without exceeding FS2 canon.  Albeit the armour is described as designed for better beam protection, which isn't really reflected in actual gameplay as there's no 'armour damage' type modifier to alter the affect of different weapon types.

[karajorma]

I do not overestimated the space requred for fighters - I calculatd it back home. Or do you want me to post a pic of it?

Post a pic of your assumptions of armour and turret weight and power restrictions (Which you may have noticed that Aldo said was possibly your mistake).

That said you might as well post the pic anyway. It proves nothing but it would be nice to see.

No uber-beams, no uber-armor, no uber-engines. They are your constructs, not mine.

But they are uber. You've got more than twice the armour, beams which use less power and generate less heat than anything else in the entire FS2 universe and engines that can push your ridiculously heavy monstrocity at the same speed as a destoyer (or from your previous thread faster!)

That's not Aldo's constructs. That's your inability to come up with something that fits sensibly with anything else in the universe.

first you say that I game the BB a weapon other ships don't have. Then when I say otehr ships have the same weapon you are allso not satisfied?

You've given the other capships a THT upgrade while giving the BB upgrades to power, engines, beams, armour and fighter capacity. That's unfair.