[aldo_14]

About the siphs HP - have you ever toguh of hte reason WHY ships have specific HPs'..

Ok, what if hte Deimos has 80000 (or was it 70000) HP becouse it's heavily armored.. and normally, a ship with lighter armor of that size would have...let's say 50000 hp?
And that the destroyers have so little HP compared to a corvete becosue they aren't heavily armored?
Makes sense, doesn't it?
Now, the prospect of a 250 000 HP BB looks more real, doesn't it?

Let me summarise what you've specified.

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.

As many turrets as the colossus, including what would appear to be more powerful beam weapons ('extremely strong main weapons' - which can destroy a destroyer within a few seconds).  Magic heat sinks able to take more heat than the Colossus main guns could vs the Sath, and yet which do not have any negative impact on the internal structure or environment of the ship.  These heat sinks and also extra reactors are apparently all located 'where the fighterbay would be', which means you have a minor, teensy little problem of shifting heat hot enough to melt a starships' hull all the way down there.

20 fighters on a horizontally spanning dual-fighterbay.   2.5 times the armour with absolutely no consequences on the space requirements (we assume some form of magic ultra-dense armour, or even more magical placement of selective plating that somehow, no other designer has ever considered.  Invented plasma turrets. 

Additional reactors to power said weapons, somehow fitting in the assumed space savings for removing fighters, yet accounting for neither the need to shield/protect those reactors internally, introduce a new power grid, house the many crew for the new turrets (as evidenced by all vis-a-vis comparions of both modern naval vessels and stated freespace 2 crew figures), or handle the logistical issues of having those reactors (as seen with escorting supplies to the Colossus).

An ability to somehow only attack when a destroyer does not have any defensive forces around, at a pin-point distance, and yet somehow also manage to avoid any form of attack from roving patrols by jumping out.  Capable of jumping in, destroying a capship, and jumping out before fighters can reach it.  Immune from detection by enemy ambush forces, yet is able to track bombers back to their capships at will (who are remarkably willing to lead the enemy to them), if not track the capship itself (shame they never thought of that in attacking the Iceni/Repulse/every other FS enemy ship, eh?).  Oh, and never, ever attacked in open space by forces taking advantage of its weaknesses in terms of lack of bomber defense (well, when it does it can just skip away merrily into subspace, as we see in every battle in FS2 when the outnumbered and damaged ship just jumps to safet....oh, wait).

Every major functional system housed deep within the core of the ship, yet absolutely no consequences to the destruction of the outer hull with reference to subsystems wiring up, for example, turrets.  Able to sit and be pounded for ages at a blockade, by enemies who have positioned themselves just right in order to be hit by the BS' main guns (and in contradication to every blockade seen in FS2.... you'd think they wanted the battleship to win or something....waittamo!), and with a crew who really don't mind atall being sent in as a beam-sponge and have no objections to sleeping in the hallways or going without food when their quarters and mess hall is destroyed.

Absolutely no speed penalty whatsoever from all these added turrets and armour.  Indeed, it actually goes faster!

Saving a large amount of space, of course, because the GTVA stores it's off-duty fighters in the most wasteful layout possible when they are not being prepped for deployment.

Using an amalgamation of technology from all the best ships; like Deimos reactor, Iceni armour, Orion/colossus weaponry, which no other ship uses or would be allowed to use (as a hypotetical competitor) because...er.......er.....help?

5 individual, autonomous engines (because you'd need 5 subsystems to justify that sort of scheme; hence autonomous), which have no impact on reactor or space requirements despite effectively duplicating the engines 'engineering subsytem' 5 times over.

Able to destroy a Ravana in 30-40 seconds without even coming under attack from the fighters/bombers of said ship, something which the best part of a GTVA battlegroup failed to achieve.

Several times cheaper than a destroyer of the same technological era, despite all that super-strong-but-light armour and loads of extra reactors.  No reason why - apparently beam cannons come for free in cereal packets nowadays.

Able to increase range of weapons with absolutely no consequences.  Just like when the Colossus overloaded it's beams and power grid trying to fire for too long.... ah.

And, on top of this, one of the primary justifications is the WW2 battleship, which has been rendered obsolete by all modern navies in favour of...shock, horror!....aicraft carriers and whose sole purpose in warfare is shore bombardment.  Oh, and ignoring all those naval analogies about stuff like crew numbers for carriers, etc, where they contradict the magic battleship-o-doom.

Oh, and any contradictory Volition stated facts from the game are mere 'titbits', unless you can twist them to infer support for your little uber-ship, in which case they become the holy word of the god of ship design - as we see in the quoted bit at the top.

What else... oh, Volitions ship designs are all illogical and you could do it better.  That was the 2nd last post, wasn't it?

Errr excuse me but why is putting a BB to go head to head with a Ravana an unfair fight??? I ahve yet to see the logic of this arguement.

i dunno.  Perhaps it being twice the size and armament might have something to do with it.

And how the hell does a DD launch all of its fighter/bommber/interceptors complimnet in uder 1 minute?? I have yet to see it launch enithing more the a wing or 2 in this time. Sure you will say that the DD has fighter escort which is permanantely out there but then again that fighter cover consists of nothing more then one or 2 wigs of fighters or interceptors.  To simply asume that a DD can swarm a BB the instant it exits subspace, with its fighters, is a lot of rubbish. That would mean that the DD would not only know wich class of warship is coming at it but from where and at what time. Hey this isnt a plane schedjuale that you can just chech and say..hey a BB would come to kick by but all over this sistem at 12:00:30 sec on the x day! Come on! These arguemnt are totaly subjective!
I expected much more from some of the people over here!

What?  Pat.rol.Wi.ngs.  Broken up for easy digestion.

The fact is that since the big C failed in the end at its role (to be the uber ship that delivers the GTVA from the shivans) everyone keeps comapring every new big shi ideea to that one. Things are not that simple!

You can argue all you want that it would be an unfair fight to put a BB against a Ravana but then again so could I argue that the shivan beams are unfair and that actualy the GTVA had it not been for the shivan beams could of won the war! And hell i would go so far as to say that it SHOULD of won the war since it was an unfair fight from the begining!

what the hell are you on about?  The BB is bigger.  Do you think putting a Colossus against the Ravana is any fairer andarguement of the relative merits of the destroyer and juggernaut?

Come on you guis I rememberd a comunity with a lot more imagination and a lot more opened to new ideas! What happened. Sure maibe just maibe this design is flawed but then again I don see anyone sugestin anithing else!

We're still busy pointing out how stupid this one is.  Anyway, I did suggest something else.  just double the Colossus' size and build a new one.  After all, it's not like anyone is 'sugestin anithing else'.

Oh and TM while i do agree with you on some of the arguements you have for a BB some of them are completely out there..if you get mi point! You can not invent over night everithing this ship needs.

Oh and to reply to a post wich said that I wouldnt be able to get much tech from existing designs I propose an exercise:
-The engines would have to be of new design I admit
-the armour tech would be taken from the Deimos which as far as I remember is the latest in terms of armour tech and protection
-the beams..welll........need I say more?
-the same goes for AAAF protection
-the fighters could be taken from everywhere depending on which tipe you want or you could design a new tipe just for the BB which would be more versatyle or you could just pack this thing with 24+ TerranMaras an be done with it!
-engine subsitems reactors and stuff like that could be modified or designed using the big C's sistems as a template!
- shipyards that could actualy build this thing..well we do have the C shipyards dont we??? also who says that you can not build a ship like this in a destroyers shipyards sure with some modifications but its far better then to buil new ones just for this thing.
So you see much of the tech  already exists all you have to do is put it toghether!

I wasn't aware Scrapyard Challenge built spacefaring destroyers.........

 Give me a sec and I'll build a super-fighter with the nose of an F-15, the wings of a B-52, the cockpit of a Spitfire and the engines of an SR-71.

And don't get me started on the stupidity of '24 Terran maras'.  What, are we carjacking Shivans now?

[Ghostavo]

 

[AlphaOne]

What are you on about...?? Where did the big C's shypyard went too?? and since when is giving this thing 24 maras an absurd ideea ?? Surely the GTVA must have a lot more maras then just 2 or 3 wings I mean come on surely the GTVA has more of these things and if they dont I WILL BET they wil reverse enginier them and come up with an equivalent or something that is better. as far as I remember they they managed to improve the Mara!

We all know the GTVA is very skilled at reverse engeniering other tech!

[karajorma]

Which are jsut reference numbers - nothing more, nothing less. Jsut coause A sobek has X poersonell doesn't mean that a ship it's size MUST have X too. Oh no, it doesn! The sky wil lfall down!

It must have close to that number though must it not? If the Sobek requires 6000 personnel does it not seem silly if the Deimos runs using say 3000? What are the extra 3000 on the Sobek doing! Besides it was

a) You who brought up crew numbers
b) You who tried to justify that fact using wet navy figures even though you now claim that there is so much variance between ships that the crew numbers mean nothing.

No you havn't. You havn't provided any canon proof of the size and power of reacotrs nor the size and power of weapons, nor anything similar.

I've provided canon proof to back up my assertions. You do not. In many cases you contradict canon and in many cases yourself (see the crew number argument above for instance).

When will you understand that you can't for one simple reason:
When [V] made theri warships they really didn't think about logical design - the bulkheads, placings of internals devices, power requirements and weapons - those thing really weren't on the top of their mind - so we have ships who's construction really isn't logical, but we TRY to make it logical by deducing and assuming a whole lot of things based on a few numbers.
So you can't really look at me in they eyes and claim that BB's can't be in and citing things that you DEDUCED as 100% accurate.

If my deductions are incorrect then prove it. I've got an open mind and I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong. In fact I've already admitted that AlphaOne has come up with one very good justification for the existance of the battleship class if not your version of it. I'm perfectly willing to believe that one might be built due to GTVA stupidity or it being some admirals pet project. I don't think it would last very long since it's a flawed concept but I'm perfectly happy to accept an argument that one could get built.

Besides it's not like I'm the only one deducing things. I've continually pointed that out to you. You've deduced that the BB is more powerful based on the assumption that if you strip out the fighterbay you can put more weapons in the space. That's an assumption based on very little (read no) canon evidence too so why the hell are you trying to say that you can claim something can happen based on your assumptions but I can't say it can not happen based on mine?

Hell, Fs2 is a game. If you want canon I can cite a canon fact that we never seen a destroser launch more than 4 wings. According to that, a BB would rape it every day of hte week, since it will ever launch more than 4 wings!
Faulty logic? perhaps, but this whole thread is full of it anways...

It's faulty because the game directly contradicts this in several places. Does the game directly contradict any of the evidence I'd pointed to in a similar fashion?

Count  - the BB has 24 fighters MAX.. a Destroyer has 120-150. And like I said before you DON'T know how much a FS2 fighter costs. You ASSUME.

Faulty logic. Let me explain why. Lets take a best case senario. Lets say that a BB actually costs 1/3 what a destroyer costs. That you can build 3 BBs for the price of one destroyer. That's a ludicrously low figure but lets go with that for a bit and see where it takes us.

That gives the BB 72 fighters in total vs 150 bombers and fighters for the destroyer. The BBs lose again! Best case senario is that they find and wipe out the destroyer after it's launched all its fighters and sent them out to kill the BBs but the destroyer's fighters mop up their own fighters, park up and wipe out the BBs with maxims and trebs. That's a draw! And it relies on the BBs actually finding the destroyer (something they will find hard to do with so few ships for making reccies with).

In every single case you have stated that the BB doesn't act alone but you refuse to include the cost of the fighters that must come to its aid to defend it against situations like the one I just described. That's a false economy. 

Le'ts anyalyze this once again. FS2 is a game. Game universe, game rules.. logic is thrown out of the window.

So basicly the BB just has to be balanced withing the game universe. Given that the fighters are so totaly uber as you all claim, that menas that to balance this class it MUST have more armor and firepower..probabaly even mroe speed.

No it doesn't. FS2 has always been about fighters and bombers killing much larger ships. It's actually you who want to change that dynamic with your BBs of death that can stand up to fighters and capships.

now someone said that he's not against a BB concept in FS, but again my "uber-battleship-of-doom" tm. And that it was said that even my "uber-BB" would be pawned by this and that and that is practicly uselsss.
So if my uber BB is useless and pawned by everything, just how much more useless would be a weaker and less uber BB that you claim not ot be against?

Not my argument so I don't particularly care what was said. I've said that AlphaOne's BB along with every other suggestion apart from yours is possible but impractical. Yours varies from impractical to impossible depending on how uber you're making it.

And lastly, before yozu start dismising a BB as useless, I want you to justify the cruiser class.
Waht the hell can a cruiser do that wing of heavy fighters(trebs, maxims, harpoons, prommies) can't do better?

The cruiser is basically useless for front line combat. That's why the GTVA stopped making them! That's why the Aeolus was cancelled in favour of the Deimos. The Deimos is small and cheap enough to be useful but isn't so small and cheap that it gets completely pwned by smaller craft.

When we see cruisers in combat they are generally being used for attacking poorly defended target with fighter back up. It's a case of since you have them you might as well use them but not building any more.

[aldo_14]

What are you on about...?? Where did the big C's shypyard went too??

I don't know.  Maybe the GTVA have to, y'know, built other ships?  Although I'm sure building another overblown super-ship that will take years to complete and has bugger all fighter-projection capability is far more important than replenishing the decimated corvette and destroyer components of the fleet - why have ten Deimos when you can have a mini-Colossus?

Of course, god forbid that the Colossus shipyard might not actually be designed for building a smaller ship in its current configuration.  In fact, why the hell would even they keep a perfectly good set of Ganymedes in that arrangement after the Colossus was built?

and since when is giving this thing 24 maras an absurd ideea ?? Surely the GTVA must have a lot more maras then just 2 or 3 wings I mean come on surely the GTVA has more of these things and if they dont I WILL BET they wil reverse enginier them and come up with an equivalent or something that is better. as far as I remember they they managed to improve the Mara!

We all know the GTVA is very skilled at reverse engeniering other tech!

Yes, because it's so easy to disable a Mara and there would never, ever be any risk of friendly fire.   Nor have the Shivans ever destroyer their own ships to stop them falling into enemy hands.

 Why, I bet they have thousands of them!  And piles of Seraphim!  , maybe that's why the Shivans don't have any Shaitan left - the GTVA nicked them all!  And let's not even consider the slight issue of.... can you guess?...... spare parts!  Because, as we all know, just grab some combat debris, couple of dunts with the hammer, and it's a perfectly serviceable and not atall unreliable fusion reactor!

[Flipside]

My own argument against BB's is the simple question of resources. Until the Nebula was found, the GTVA were limited in materials, the C was a massive investment as far as resources were concerned, and after the War, they had lost yet another system to the Shivans.

I don't see them being politically ready to invest that kind of resource or manpower into the 'bigger is better' line of thinking for quite a while. If the C could not take down a single Sath without serious assistance, and the GTVA knows there are at least 80 of them, then why build ships that would suffer the same fate? If you want Shivan destroyers dead, stick to bombers

That said, if the resources were available, I don't think the GTVA thinking would go in that direction anyway, too much to lose in one go, I think they would diversify. However, it's your campaign, make any damn ship you want for it, if it's a good campaign, no-one will complain, after all, look at Inferno

[AlphaOne]

Well to the end I see one MAJOR disadvantage of the BB and that is that it does not carry at least 100 spacecrafts!
Fine if you could fit that many spacecrafts in its hulls would take it all better? Posibly not because then again you could simply have a DD wich is far more cheaper and has a greater fighter capacity then the BB. Oki then i'l with this to but then agin what a destroyer doesnt have is sheer personal (beam) firepower to defend and attack when needed enemy warships.

The arguement regarding the whole fighter cover is flawed...can you guess why..??? yeah thats right its NOT MEANT TO BATTLE THE GTVA BUT THE SHIVANS. God why is it so hard for people to understand this?
Sure the GTVA could devise all sorts of tactics even lauch 150 fighters and bommbers from a destroyer in just a minute(dont ask me how I have yet to figure that out but hey some people think of it as proof against BB) but then again the GTVA would not do this! Want to know why?? sure thats it they are colpete idiots whose grasp of tactics are the same of a 4 year old child. Oh and lets not forget the BB was suposed to be constructed by the GTVA to be used against the SHIVANS but if you take a look at the arguement you might think that this thing is beeing contructed by the GTVA to be used against the GTVA or by the shivans using GTVA tech to be used gues what against the GTVA!

Oh well what can I say i'm sure the shivans would apreciate the help!

People please try and remember that we are dealing with the SHIVANS come on you guis i'm sure you remember the little bastards! No? Let me referesh:they have multiple legs they are red,have a bug like apearence, as are they ships oh oh oh..lets not forget they HAD an uber fleet of doom (sath fleet anyone???) with which they blew up a star...oh..i see how they could be forgotten they nothing more then a footnote in history.....! 
Oh wait those were the Ancients that became that at the hands of....come on all togheter now...T H E S H I V A N S!

We all know that the shivans prefere the up close and personal aproach to a battle..so please try and find arguement why this BB would be eaten alive or would be uselelss against the shivans shall we ???

Remember the GTVA tacticians are a bunch of IDIOTS  and most important  the GTVA are Not repeat are Not the Shivans!
Thank you for participating in this lecture! Remember to eat you cereals and if you meet a bunch of red bugs on you way home they are not humans or vasudans they are SHIVANS so do yu best to step on them! Remeber any dead bug means one less hivan we have to worry about!

[Shade]

Shivans have bombers too, not to mention their ships can actually stand up to such a battleship in a fight, so whether it's designed for killing Humans, Vasudans or Shivans is not all that relevant.

Actually on the topic of Shivans, I'd put 3 Lilith cruisers up against a realistic battleship (not Trashman's wondership) any day, and I'm quite sure they would win. Hell, even 2 might pull it off if they got positioning just right so they could minimize the number of beams that could target them. This goes to show why a battleship, especially against the Shivans, would be in trouble. On the other hand, those same Liliths could be dealt with quite comfortably by a relatively small bomber force from a destroyer, as their anti-fighter defenses are lacking.

[AlphaOne]

Why do I even bother! People please I beg you stop tryng to put human/vasudan thinking or tactics in the shivans! It just doesnt work! I ahve yet to see the shivans pitting 3 cruisers agains a ship. But then again the GTVA would do something like that! Oh well GTVA or shivans what doest it matter lets all just be ona happy famaly!

And how the hell are 3 cruisers suposed to beat a BB?? You get like what 3 large reds all together agains 6 or more BGreens. hell not to mention the fighters or heavy fighters that the BB has and wich cand be deployed to assist the BB by taking out the beam cannon. and then what do you have?? shivans splated all over the sistem!

[Shade]

Have you ever seen what a Lilith does to a capital ship in front of it? It's nasty. An LRed is actually 50% more powerful than a BGreen with the same range. And they would not be up against 6+ BGreens, unless all of those are mounted on the same side of the battleship, making it completely helpless against anything attacking it from anywhere else. Finally, look at how strong a hull the Lilith has, it is nearly as strong as a corvette. In short, the Lilith is not just a cruiser, it is a monster too.

So, realistically, the 3 Liliths would be up against 2-3 BGreens and perhaps a slasher for good measure, which is far less firepower than they can dish out themselves. And I find it interesting that the moment I use a non-carrier as an example, fighters are going to win the day. How come this is never the case when carriers with far more fighters than a battleship could ever dream of are involved?

Regardless, you probably will need bombers when there are 3 of them, just a wing of fighters will get into trouble against even the Lilith when there are that many in close proximity. It's not so much the single AAA they carry, it's the cluster bombs... those can be a real pain when you're forced to get up close for cannon work as you would be without a bomber's missile capacity. Granted, one could use Maxims, but it seems to me the whole battleship concept rides on not accepting those as being realistic, fair, or whatever. And even then, it would be close due to the sheer durability of the things.

One last thing: No need to get upset over a discussion. I disagree with you, but that doesn't mean you can't do whatever you want with a battleship. Just do it, and enjoy it, and don't let disagreements like this get to you If you think it's right for what you have in mind, then it is right for what you have in mind.

[Taristin]

I intend to some day make a capship that makes good use of the maxim cannon >..>

[Wanderer]

Why bother? Maxims wont fit in with other weapons in the game in any way.. Better just ditch the whole overpowered balance breaker from the game (from custom missions and mods, not from the main campaign) totally..

[Flipside]

Replace all the turrets on an Orion with Maxims and then get it attacked by waves of Mara and you'll see why... it looks fecking great!

Oh, and I do mean it about being nice to each other, I don't want this to end up with the satire turning to flames and having to lock this.

[aldo_14]

Why do I even bother! People please I beg you stop tryng to put human/vasudan thinking or tactics in the shivans! It just doesnt work! I ahve yet to see the shivans pitting 3 cruisers agains a ship. But then again the GTVA would do something like that! Oh well GTVA or shivans what doest it matter lets all just be ona happy famaly!

And how the hell are 3 cruisers suposed to beat a BB?? You get like what 3 large reds all together agains 6 or more BGreens. hell not to mention the fighters or heavy fighters that the BB has and wich cand be deployed to assist the BB by taking out the beam cannon. and then what do you have?? shivans splated all over the sistem!

How about, I dunno, putting sensible characteristics upon the Shivans?  I don't think Volition intended them as a cipher for people justifying their most rabid inanity.

[AlphaOne]

Look its not that i dont find some if not most of the arguements in this post te be of great use to me and mi plans for the whole campaign its just that some of the arguements simply feel, look, and taste all to subjective to take into consideration!

As fot the Lilith cruiserthing..well you might be right but then again those monsters (yes I agree with them beeing called monsters they even look like something out of HELL  ) would have to be all facing the BB from a side and well thats not gooing to happen quite soon.
Also regarding the fighter thing all i did was make use of the BB small fighterbay. hey if its good enoygh to provide fighter/bommber protection for the BB then its good enough to help it take out multiple enmyes at once.
Simply put you have a ship that can do almost the same job as the big C but at only a fraction of the build/time cost!

What about placing 1 BFGreen in the front and the rest of the beam cannon to be placed one almost at the top of the ship but on the side one near the bottom and so on and so on ! This would ensure that the BB has a good forword beam and good beam coverage on top on the bottom and on the sides! Also did I mention that such warships would be build in a time scale equal to that of the big C?? I mean build 5 or 6 or 8 of them in a time span of 20 years! Support this with the new sleek powerfull much more advanced destroyer ideea I submited ( and i mean build them like 3 or 4 per year if you can) Doubt that you can actualy do this but you get the point. Aranged it so that you benefit from new corvettes and friggates also some small dedicated carryers the size of a corvette (in lenght) but with a carrier capacity of a DD and there you have it a massive fleet composed of new sleek fast very powerfull warships add to this the firepower from the conventional destroyers such as the HEcate and the hatshepsuit (sp?) and combine this with the BB and you have a fleet ready to take on the shivans! Granted they do not pop up agin with another 80+jug.fleet!

Also I ahve yet to see the input on the dreadnought class of warships:

at a max of 3 km they are basicly a much larger and more heavely armoured and armed version of the DD! Think of it as adding 50% more armour on the most heavely armoured DD the GTVA has (I believe that is the Hathepsuit)
 some more powerfull weapons not too powerfull but lets say powerfull enough to do more damage the the Orion at close range! The fighter bay I believe should be at about 200 spacecrafts! since a normal destroyer carrier 150 of the with the added 500 metters in leght 50 more fighters seems like a reasonable figure! Right??? Corect me if im wrong!

You would say that its just a bigger destroyer with BB influence and you could probably right! But very likely to happen if you ask me!

I mean the GTVA needs a platform (other the the known DD) which is stable and can provide aditional command and suport for the fleets. Also such a platform would have to powerfull and tough to beat! Its of you will a combination of an orion with a Hecate! Loads of fighters(atributes of the HECATE along with command and support which the hecate does as long as it does not have to actualy figh for its life)  coupled with the Orions armour and sheer firepower.

Please tell me what you think! Do not confuse this with the BB because they are 2 diferent things.

[TrashMan]

As many turrets as the colossus, including what would appear to be more powerful beam weapons ('extremely strong main weapons' - which can destroy a destroyer within a few seconds).  Magic heat sinks able to take more heat than the Colossus main guns could vs the Sath, and yet which do not have any negative impact on the internal structure or environment of the ship.  These heat sinks and also extra reactors are apparently all located 'where the fighterbay would be', which means you have a minor, teensy little problem of shifting heat hot enough to melt a starships' hull all the way down there.

:LOL: nice fairy tale. How abotu you try something classica instead?

I said or specified none of those things...an overall of 14 anti-cap weapons... however I havn't specified how powerfull!
Basicly the 8 turrets I did mentioned would jsut be buigger blob turrets, with 1000-2000 damage per shot. Does that sound overpowered to you compared to a beam cannnon? no? Good....

Since there are no uber gunz of doom, there are neither magical heat sinks.. Just realyl good normal ones

20 fighters on a horizontally spanning dual-fighterbay.   2.5 times the armour with absolutely no consequences on the space requirements (we assume some form of magic ultra-dense armour, or even more magical placement of selective plating that somehow, no other designer has ever considered.  Invented plasma turrets. 

Well, the fighterbay can a be a modular external attachment or a small internal one, burried deep inside the ships armor. Whatever works better.

Better armor yes..however it does have spece consequences, just not as big as you would LIKE or WANT.

Additional reactors to power said weapons, somehow fitting in the assumed space savings for removing fighters, yet accounting for neither the need to shield/protect those reactors internally, introduce a new power grid, house the many crew for the new turrets (as evidenced by all vis-a-vis comparions of both modern naval vessels and stated freespace 2 crew figures), or handle the logistical issues of having those reactors (as seen with escorting supplies to the Colossus).

Everything is accounted for. I spent more time devising a BB concept than you breathing. I even have a deck layout and similar old sketches stashed away somewhere.
Now before you go criticizing every aspect of hte BB concept such as internal power grid and placement, I DEMAND you to provide me with the same for the allready present FS2 ship. You can't? Too bad.
Untill you KNOW (not assume) to know how the inside of the FS2 starship works your so called arguments are as much worth as a condome machine in Vatican.

An ability to somehow only attack when a destroyer does not have any defensive forces around, at a pin-point distance, and yet somehow also manage to avoid any form of attack from roving patrols by jumping out.  Capable of jumping in, destroying a capship, and jumping out before fighters can reach it.  Immune from detection by enemy ambush forces, yet is able to track bombers back to their capships at will (who are remarkably willing to lead the enemy to them), if not track the capship itself (shame they never thought of that in attacking the Iceni/Repulse/every other FS enemy ship, eh?).  Oh, and never, ever attacked in open space by forces taking advantage of its weaknesses in terms of lack of bomber defense (well, when it does it can just skip away merrily into subspace, as we see in every battle in FS2 when the outnumbered and damaged ship just jumps to safet....oh, wait).

Hehehe.. .wrong again. I never mentioned ANY of that above, you are soooo fond of twisting my words you must realyl like me
I never said that it can micro-jump at uber precisions or that it can avoid patrols or stuff.. And especialyl that it can destroy a capship and jump out before the enemy fighters reach it. They will reach him allright (after all, it does take 60 seconds at least for the jump drives to re-charge) and do some damage, but by the time his drives re-charge, the enemy capship will be only a cloud of debris. Neither have I ever said it cannot be tracked or attacked or anything similar.
Oh - the fact that FS commanders are stupid is not my problem. Sicne we're dealing with theoretical aplication I can assume the commanders are smart (and I did so for DD's too)



[quote
Every major functional system housed deep within the core of the ship, yet absolutely no consequences to the destruction of the outer hull with reference to subsystems wiring up, for example, turrets.  Able to sit and be pounded for ages at a blockade, by enemies who have positioned themselves just right in order to be hit by the BS' main guns (and in contradication to every blockade seen in FS2.... you'd think they wanted the battleship to win or something....waittamo!), and with a crew who really don't mind atall being sent in as a beam-sponge and have no objections to sleeping in the hallways or going without food when their quarters and mess hall is destroyed.

I don't know where you dig up this crap but you seem to be REALLY good at it. Ever though of running for congress?

Now..major systems are armored/shielded/whatever, but I never said there are no consequences to anything. And allso, one of hte thing I mentioned at the begining is hte BB's Field of Fire - it can shoot with the majority of it's anti-cap weapon anywhere in a 360° sphere. It doesn't have blind spot, only a SLIGHTLY weaker side.
Hmm...the crew of hte Aquitane must be really pissed off then, since i recal lti getting pounded really bad TWICE. Seems to me the crew quit the service after theri bunks have been blasted by a shivan bomb...

Absolutely no speed penalty whatsoever from all these added turrets and armour.  Indeed, it actually goes faster!

Never did specify the speed as I recall..and there are clearly armored ships that do go fast.

5 individual, autonomous engines (because you'd need 5 subsystems to justify that sort of scheme; hence autonomous), which have no impact on reactor or space requirements despite effectively duplicating the engines 'engineering subsytem' 5 times over.

quick! Someone call [V]!!! According to Aldo, they messed up with the Hecate! The thing should have 7 engine subsystems!!!
b.t.w. -  I said 3 or 5 engine clusters..not subsystems. However, if you equate the two then my above line is accurate.

Able to destroy a Ravana in 30-40 seconds without even coming under attack from the fighters/bombers of said ship, something which the best part of a GTVA battlegroup failed to achieve.

This is geeting borin..never said that, that is a priduct of your mind.

Several times cheaper than a destroyer of the same technological era, despite all that super-strong-but-light armour and loads of extra reactors.  No reason why - apparently beam cannons come for free in cereal packets nowadays.

Never specified a cost, I just argued against your flawed reasoning that it MUST be  uber expensive, while at hte same time you treated DD's like they awere on special discount.

Able to increase range of weapons with absolutely no consequences.  Just like when the Colossus overloaded it's beams and power grid trying to fire for too long.... ah.

????

And, on top of this, one of the primary justifications is the WW2 battleship, which has been rendered obsolete by all modern navies in favour of...shock, horror!....aicraft carriers and whose sole purpose in warfare is shore bombardment.  Oh, and ignoring all those naval analogies about stuff like crew numbers for carriers, etc, where they contradict the magic battleship-o-doom.

My my...weren't you the one who constantly claimed no Naval references whatsoever?
I never ignored no naval analogies tough as I know the navy inside out. However yo useme to forget that hte greatest weakness of a BB is effectivly removed in FS2.

Oh, and any contradictory Volition stated facts from the game are mere 'titbits', unless you can twist them to infer support for your little uber-ship, in which case they become the holy word of the god of ship design - as we see in the quoted bit at the top.

Tehre are solid fact and there are solitary numbers. numbers that do tell you something about the FS unverse but aren't at all specific. For instance the HP of an Orion. Does it have 100000 HP becosue it's heavily armored OR lightly armored? You can't answer that just looking at the number and I can safely assume that they aren't heavily armored.
If you assume something else - it 's your right to do so, but can't call that canon any more than I can my assumption. Which effectivly means that the armor of my BB doesn't break cannon since we don't know the sepcifics well enough to determine that in the first place.

What else... oh, Volitions ship designs are all illogical and you could do it better.  That was the 2nd last post, wasn't it?

Frankly, yes.  (Did I say that? HERESY!!! ) Not in the ships shape department, but they could have put more tough behind their internal systems and the like.

What?  Pat.rol.Wi.ngs.  Broken up for easy digestion.

And how many patrol wings would there be in the air at any given time? 2? 4? 6? All the 150 fighters?

[aldo_14]

Can't be bothered doing a point-by-point rebuttal, but everything I said can be traced back from your prior posts in this thread. 

Amazing, though, you cast judgement on internal systems when you can't even see them. Hell, you even had a go at Kara for speculating on their size and whatnot - and there you go not only speculating, but damning them!

Albiet, I was wrong on the Ravana one; you said 30-40 seconds to destroy it and escape!  That, I believe, is better than a Colossus can manage.  Not an uber-ship, indeed..........

I'm not forgetting anything. A BB would be able to defend itself long enough to wax the shivan destroyer and high-tail it out of there. Something a destroyer like Hecate can only dream about as it would have to run the second a Ravana pops up.
While a Hecate can keep enemy bombers at bay, at least for a while, it's powerless against Ravana's main cannons. It would be dead in two salvos, and given the speed of shivan beams, I doubt his fightercover could take them out in time.
the BB on the other hand is more than a match for a Ravana in a open slug-fest, but the bombers it brings with her are the problem. However, the BB's defenses should be strong enough to keep it alive for 30-40 seconds, which should be enough to destroy the Ravana and then escape.

NB: the greatest weakness of a battleship vis-a-vis a carrier - mobility and force projection - is magnified in FS2.  And your blob turrets are ridiculously overpowered; 10 times as powerful as a Terran Huge Turret?!  And that's at the low range.  So you've increased the power use for those 8 turrets by a fairly vast amount; and yet reactors never enter your consideration.  Not magic, indeed.

Oh, and a special reply

Everything is accounted for. I spent more time devising a BB concept than you breathing. I even have a deck layout and similar old sketches stashed away somewhere.
Now before you go criticizing every aspect of hte BB concept such as internal power grid and placement, I DEMAND you to provide me with the same for the allready present FS2 ship. You can't? Too bad.
Untill you KNOW (not assume) to know how the inside of the FS2 starship works your so called arguments are as much worth as a condome machine in Vatican.

Y'know, just because you spend a lot of time obsessing over an idea doesn't make it right.  It just make you obsessive.  Your entire attack upon assumption is built on a house of cards; your entire justification is not oly assuming the internal outlay of a 'volition design', but that you can magic up these vast gains in capability because you're better than they are.  From what I can tell, you can barely acknowledge the fundamental uselessness of the naval equivalent because you like the concept - and that's been proven time and time again.  IT's no wonder you're getting so hot and sweaty under the collar about this.

[TrashMan]

It must have close to that number though must it not? If the Sobek requires 6000 personnel does it not seem silly if the Deimos runs using say 3000? What are the extra 3000 on the Sobek doing! Besides it was

a) You who brought up crew numbers
b) You who tried to justify that fact using wet navy figures even though you now claim that there is so much variance between ships that the crew numbers mean nothing.[q/uote]

Crew number allways mean something. Or does 2000 people more being on the payroll or dying sounds insignificant?
One more thing - different ship classes, different crews. I don't know what 6000 people are doing on the Sobek (nor how accurate that number is for that matter..never saw that debriefing) and I don't even care. Hell they might have have been having a poker night.
If I decide that my BB has 8000 crew it will be so.  The crew number is something that has been known to varry drasticly from ship to ship and is alls oaffected by various factor. How much automation systems are there? How much of hte internal volume is actually devoted for living and working in? And similar jazz.

I've provided canon proof to back up my assertions. You do not. In many cases you contradict canon and in many cases yourself (see the crew number argument above for instance).

Nope. You provided a big fat 0 in terms of actual solidity of those so called proofs. Liek people in the courts would say - circumstancial evidence - interestin, but not enough for a conviction You need to do better.

If my deductions are incorrect then prove it. I've got an open mind and I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong. In fact I've already admitted that AlphaOne has come up with one very good justification for the existance of the battleship class if not your version of it. I'm perfectly willing to believe that one might be built due to GTVA stupidity or it being some admirals pet project. I don't think it would last very long since it's a flawed concept but I'm perfectly happy to accept an argument that one could get built. f/quoteg

 :wtf:My version is practicly indentical to his. All those uberness factors are your contribution, not mine. Dang it! I guess I'll just have to MAKE a FS2 version of it and put it up for download, so you judge for yourself jsut how much of the "impossible uberness" was only in your head.

Besides it's not like I'm the only one deducing things. I've continually pointed that out to you. You've deduced that the BB is more powerful based on the assumption that if you strip out the fighterbay you can put more weapons in the space. That's an assumption based on very little (read no) canon evidence too so why the hell are you trying to say that you can claim something can happen based on your assumptions but I can't say it can not happen based on mine?

Nothing new would ever be addid if it all boils donw to what can and cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Yes, many thing I myself suggest are ASSUMPTION. But I don't call them canon. I addmit that I assume some things
 and that's exactly why you can't disprove the BB's existance. Becouse your'e doing the same thing!
Since I am trying to create a new class I have the privelige to go into some assumptions stemming from cannon data to allow it
to exist. On the other hand, you who want to prevent such a class should try to fight with only 100% cannon stuff.
Yes, that does mean  I have a unfair advantage, but so does everyone who want to add new stuff..otherwise nothing would ever be added.

It's faulty because the game directly contradicts this in several places. Does the game directly contradict any of the evidence I'd pointed to in a similar fashion?

When does it contradict it?
Show me one mission where a destroyer launches more than 2 wings a minute.

Faulty logic. Let me explain why. Lets take a best case senario. Lets say that a BB actually costs 1/3 what a destroyer costs. That you can build 3 BBs for the price of one destroyer. That's a ludicrously low figure but lets go with that for a bit and see where it takes us.

That gives the BB 72 fighters in total vs 150 bombers and fighters for the destroyer. The BBs lose again! Best case senario is that they find and wipe out the destroyer after it's launched all its fighters and sent them out to kill the BBs but the destroyer's fighters mop up their own fighters, park up and wipe out the BBs with maxims and trebs. That's a draw! And it relies on the BBs actually finding the destroyer (something they will find hard to do with so few ships for making reccies with).

In every single case you have stated that the BB doesn't act alone but you refuse to include the cost of the fighters that must come to its aid to defend it against situations like the one I just described. That's a false economy. 

BB's have thier own fighter complement. Fighters from the battlegroup can come to its' aid, but that's not a requirement.

And how does a DD win agains 3 BBs based on fighter numbers? That actually means that the mantainance of the DD for the fighters only is 6 times more costly than for a BB.the DD might have 150 fighters but he can't launch them all at once nor can he affor to be left without foightercover. Ships jumping can be tracked and that works both ways. So it's not realyl as straightforward a fight as you would like to belive. DD's have more fighters but BB's have batter AF defense and armor.
You're just assuming that the BB defense fighters will go off chaisin the DD fighter complement, instead of staiyng in the vicinity of the BB's and thier PDS systems. And as I said before - jumping out and running can be done by both parties and thus, the battle can end either way.

No it doesn't. FS2 has always been about fighters and bombers killing much larger ships. It's actually you who want to change that dynamic with your BBs of death that can stand up to fighters and capships.

and how does a Colossus come into that equation? or the Sath?

The cruiser is basically useless for front line combat. That's why the GTVA stopped making them! That's why the Aeolus was cancelled in favour of the Deimos. The Deimos is small and cheap enough to be useful but isn't so small and cheap that it gets completely pwned by smaller craft.

When we see cruisers in combat they are generally being used for attacking poorly defended target with fighter back up. It's a case of since you have them you might as well use them but not building any more.

So you admitt they are useless but are still in FS2. So exactly HOW does that make the BB impossible to place in the Fs uiverse then? Or any other useless or impractical class you can think of?
We can jsut assume the GTVA built a few of htem earlier and they now have them.

[aldo_14]

At least kara is providing some logical, factual evidence to support his statements.  all you've come up with is dismissing any criticism as 'assumption' whilst bolting your own assumptions on top of wilfull ignorance to build a monster.

[TrashMan]

Shivans have bombers too, not to mention their ships can actually stand up to such a battleship in a fight, so whether it's designed for killing Humans, Vasudans or Shivans is not all that relevant.

Actually on the topic of Shivans, I'd put 3 Lilith cruisers up against a realistic battleship (not Trashman's wondership) any day, and I'm quite sure they would win. Hell, even 2 might pull it off if they got positioning just right so they could minimize the number of beams that could target them. This goes to show why a battleship, especially against the Shivans, would be in trouble. On the other hand, those same Liliths could be dealt with quite comfortably by a relatively small bomber force from a destroyer, as their anti-fighter defenses are lacking.

Ever tough that a ship is a tool jsut like anything else and that it's best to have a wide arrangement of different tools?
The DD isn't the alpha-and-omega or warships. Different ships for differnt purposes. There are situations in which the BB would be porrer choice than a DD or vice versa. Same can be said for any two calasses as a matter of fact. Point is, best to have a wide array of options available and a bunch of tools to deal with any problems that might arrise.

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

OH - about that Lilith thing. A DD would fare a lot worse when ambushed by 3 Liliths. It would be dead in the first salvo before even launching bombers (or before it's escorts manage to disable the Liliths). A BB would at least dish out some damage, possibly taking a few of the bastards with him.

By Aldo_14

NB: the greatest weakness of a battleship vis-a-vis a carrier - mobility and force projection - is magnified in FS2.  And your blob turrets are ridiculously overpowered; 10 times as powerful as a Terran Huge Turret?!  And that's at the low range.  So you've increased the power use for those 8 turrets by a fairly vast amount; and yet reactors never enter your consideration.  Not magic, indeed

Nope. It's reduced. Subsapce equals unparaleled mobility - being able to cross the whole star system in several seconds is VERY mobile. and force projection is the carriers thing. BB's thing is more in the lines of commiting overkill on it's targets.
Terran Huge Turrrets are not anti-cap (they can target fighters.. they don't have the cap tag), so a anti-cap versio of them would be needed.
b.t.w. - do you nkow how much power a THT uses? Nope.? Though so.

If we go by damage/second  (which rougle equates to spent power) ratio than a double barrled heavy turret (the capital veriosn with 1000 damage) would use approx half the power BGreen.

Y'know, just because you spend a lot of time obsessing over an idea doesn't make it right.  It just make you obsessive.  Your entire attack upon assumption is built on a house of cards; your entire justification is not oly assuming the internal outlay of a 'volition design', but that you can magic up these vast gains in capability because you're better than they are.  From what I can tell, you can barely acknowledge the fundamental uselessness of the naval equivalent because you like the concept - and that's been proven time and time again.  IT's no wonder you're getting so hot and sweaty under the collar about this.

Such harsh words.. tsk, tsk, tsk..
The word is not obsessed, it's contemplating. I do give a lot of tought to sci-fi and some toehr thing in general. As I do giva a lot of tough to HLP. Does that make every older forum member here obsessed?
Am using just as much assumptions as you are, except I don't hide them behind hte words "100% cannon.

Please, explain to me how the differnt interpretation ofhhte same number doesn't imply assumption. You assume that the armor increase I proposed is impossible in fS2 since you interpret the 10000 HP of a Orion as that of a hallready heavily armored ship. I on the otehr hand interpret that 100000 is the value an lightly armored ship of that size gets and that's my assumption. However, I have the right to make that assumption, but you don't have the right to proclaim me breaking cannon based on yours.

and I'n not hot unde the collar. I'm amused. I like this discussion and I could go on forever 
Beats watching the dull program on the TV anyway.

At least kara is providing some logical, factual evidence to support his statements.  all you've come up with is dismissing any criticism as 'assumption' whilst bolting your own assumptions on top of wilfull ignorance to build a monster.

Prove me wrong in my upper statement about armor and I'll concede to your point. But than again, I'm saying this only becouse I know you can't do it