[aldo_14]

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.

You know why they call it 'overkill', don't you?  Because it's an excessiveand expensive waste of an unecessary amount firepower. i.e. inefficient and bad value-for-money.  And it may cross entire star systems, but can it cover entire star systems?  Nope; it can cover about 4km, the max range of it's beams.  This relates the title, really; usefulness.  Not a small investment, this battleship (even if it is possible with your specs, which I doubt).  And it has a short effective range, relying upon allies for scouting/long range fighter cover.  Not good value for money, that.

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.

THTs use 0.3 energy per shot.  Comparison to other turret types indicates the velocity/refire time also affects the energy usage.  So you need to have heavy energy usage or sacrifice all your shot velocity/massively increase refire time.

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.

Firstly, having +10k posts on a board for a 5 year old game does make one rather obsessed, and I admit that freely.  However, did you spend all those years contemplating the pros and cons of the battleship, or contemplating how to justify one in Freespace?  Because it seems to me the latter is more likely.

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.

Actually, I didn't say it was impossible but that it would require massive armour plating taking up space beyond that of an Orion or Hecates armour plating; i.e. if you wish to bump up the Orions armour you need to increase the density - i.e. size/thickness - of it and thus affect internal space.  Also, we have canonical evidence (Fenris/Leviathan - not just figures but ref bible descriptions) that there is a definitive tradeoff in terms of speed and maneuverability in increasing armour quantities.  Finally, if you are to apply this thicker armour to your battleship and lessen the impact through some hypothesised technology, then we can apply same armour to destroyers to protect them against..well, battleships.  This is what kara was referring to about you cherry picking technology and combat situations but not considering what the enemy would do to counteract - like fitting more armour on their destroyers.

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

Really?  The number of mistypes in a post is usually a good indication of how....enthusiastic a person is about it.  At least with native english speakers; I suppose I can't make the same judgement for non-natives.

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 Big grin

No-one can prove anyone wrong in a hypothesis.  But we can determine the most likely scenario based on various things like common sense and tactical logic.

Your scenario; the GTVA under-armours it's destroyers deliberately, and armour can be fitted to a battleship that vastly increases its hitpoints without a consequential lack of space or loss of speed.  Despite being the head of a fleet, responsible for fighter cover of entire systems as well as participating in blockades, the primary frontline class, a substantial financial investment, and able to be engaged at point blank range by jumping-in ambushers (as you define it), the GTVA decides it's better not to put their best armour on it for reasons of (you'll have to fill in this bit).  Moreso, in a universe that does have a battleship class able to attack with pin-point precision at will, with turrets 10-20 times more powerful than the (actually rather rare) Terran huge turret, the GTVA makes absolutely none of these absolutely cost-free changes of fitting heavier armour to their destroyers as a defensive measure.  (nor uses a few of these purportedly low-energy super-THTs)

My scenario; the GTVA armours its frontline warships as heavily as is technically or economically feasible; this especially applies to destroyers that act as the heads of the fleet.  Armour values progress in a non-linear fashion as they do not represent the armour strength as combined across every square foot or so, but rather the amount of (for lack of a better term) kinetic force needed to fatally compromise the ships' structural integrity (NB: this is really difficult to phrase/explain right, BTW).   Whilst 2.5 times the armour is possible, it represents a tremendous financial and technical burden that makes it unfeasible for any sort of mobile ship.

[Ghostavo]

*throws some random facts in hope they may be picked up*

FS1 descriptions:
Orion - "The mother of all Terran ships. Measuring a frightening 2.1 kilometers in length, the cost to build one of these far outweighs the cost of paying its crew for 3 years."

Ursa - "These ships cost more to make than it takes to buy a small moon."

FS2 descriptions:
Bakha - "Over 6,000 Bakhas have been produced in the orbiting shipyards around Vasuda Prime."

[karajorma]

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.

You haven't even provided circumstancial evidence! You need to do better not me. If you believe what you have is possible within the FS2 universe you need to prove it. You continually claim I have no evidence and then invent stuff with no evidence. If you can't find evidence to support your claims in the game then it's probably because your claim lacks validity.

 :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.

No the uberness was yours.

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.

I would say around 12 AAAf, 20 flak, 10 missile lunchers and 10 terrna turrets off the top of my head.

On top of that you've then claimed that your ship has less than 10,000 crew members, and is faster than a destroyer's top speed of 15m/s.

Nothing new would ever be addid if it all boils donw to what can and cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Who's asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt? I'm asking for some proof that actually stands up. It doesn't have to be concrete it just has to be enough that people can say "hmmm. He could be right if you think about it this way" You've singularly failed to do this. And it's not like myself and Aldo are people who refuse to acknowledge other peoples points of view. You can check any other discussion in this forum for proof of that.

If you want to show that the BB is a viable class in the FS2 universe why don't you provide some evidence that isn't an assertion with no backup or outright flim-flam.

Yes, many thing I myself suggest are ASSUMPTION. But I don't call them canon.

Of course you don't. Canon contradicts them. Repeatedly.

 
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.

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't hold up. We're back to the giant pink wildebeests again. Prove using canon evidence that the Shivans didn't blow up Capella because a heard of wildebeest ships were coming.

When I made a similar argument previously you tried to claim that the ridiculouslessness of the argument meant that the rules of debating didn't hold there but you're wrong. They're not rules if they bend around you and your battleships.

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

Where did 2 wings a minute come from? That wasn't your original argument now was it?

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!

Funny how you completely changed your argument when backed into a corner.

And how does a DD win agains 3 BBs based on fighter numbers?

I've been describing exactly how since this thread began. Long range attacks with trebs and maxim cannons.

the DD might have 150 fighters but he can't launch them all at once nor can he affor to be left without foightercover.

Who says? This is a straight battle between 3 BBs and one destroyer. Hell the destroyer can retain 30 ships for fighter cover and still have enough 120 to the BBs 72. Even if you assume several squadrons of bombers the DD still has a fighter coverage advantage.

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.

No I wasn't. I was assuming that you'd say they would. IF they don't that's even better. From 3km away they can't do more than engage in a war of attrition with the DD's fighters using trebs and maxims. That's a battle the DD fightercraft are going to win. They have more fighters. At 4km both sides would launch volleys of trebs. 72 ships on both sides die. The remaining fighters denude the BBs and then the bombers kill them.

Even if the BBs do manage to track down the Destroyer and kill it then what? You have a draw. Neither side prevailed.

And this is all with the ridiculous supposition that the DD costs 3 times the amount of the BB.

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

The sath was killed after having been denuded by bombers. The Colossus was killed after being disabled and prevented from launching fighters bu unknown Shivan forces.

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?

 

Thing is that they weren't always useless. And even now they do still have a role even if it wasn't the one that they were originally designed for (basically guard duty and convoy escort).

We can jsut assume the GTVA built a few of htem earlier and they now have them.

If you want to claim that the GTVA have a few old, largely toothless BBs knocking about I won't dispute it. They'd have to be from the great war because the asendency of the fighter pretty much began then but fine I have no objection to that. It's the BB as the potent engine of destruction I take exception to. No one in their right minds would build a BB in post-capella FS2. No one would put it on the frontlines unless they fancied losing it. Any old BB from that day and age would be sitting in mothballs as the useless relic it was.

[StratComm]

Trashman, I've tried reason.  I've tried subtily pointing out when you're letting your emotions override logic without having to come out and say it.  I've tried not posting for a while in the hopes that you let it rest.  None have worked.  So I'm going to be totally honest here.

First, FORMATTING!!!  The new quote system isn't as forgiving as the old one was, so if you don't get it right please, please, please use the edit button to clear that up.  You've stopped doubleposting, for the most part, which is good.  Now take the 2 minutes it takes after you make a post to go back and format it correctly, as I can hardly make heads or tails of your point-by-point responses with the quote spacing that screwed up.

Now on to my actual point.  You're acting like a 2 year old who's been told he can't have a candybar.  Grow up.  I've noticed in the last couple of pages especially you've resorted to "hugegrin" and "" or direct attacks against other people's intelligence instead of actually justifying yourself.  That's no way to have a civilized argument.   I don't claim to be a genius but I'm certainly not stupid, and the only person consistantly posting an incoherent an illogical argument in this thread is you.  You've failed to back up any one of your assertions with evidence that's in any way relevant to Freespace, except for the fighterbay pic which IMHO only served to weaken your argument.  And you've refused to even acknowledge the irrefutable evidense brought against you.  If you really want people to give you the time of day, for god's sake act like their opinions are valid because like it or not, they are.  And they just might make more sense than your own beliefs.

You can keep thinking whatever you want, and if you want to actually make a campaign that features your Battleship-o-Doom, no one is stopping you.  Hell, I strongly encourage you to do so.  I don't think it will work well, but I want you to prove me wrong.  But if you aren't making that campaign (and even if you are and are discussing things outside the realm of that campaign), then you have absolutely no right to assert that your assumptions are any better than anyone elses, especially when you don't even provide good logical supported-by-canon evidence for them.  Maybe your infatuation with the battleship concept (or dare I say it again, name) is blinding you to reason, but we are not going to respect you any more or think it's any better of an idea for your standing by it to the bitter end.

I don't like calling people out for crap like this, but enough was enough about 8 pages ago.  I'm going to leave this one alone from this point on, as I've had about enough of arguing with a brick wall.

Now to change tangents a tiny bit...

Were I a moderator, I would deem that this thread has run its course as nothing good is going to come of further argument.  We've been on repeat for the last couple of pages, so the only things changing at this point are our typing skills and our postcount.  Of course I am not, so this will stay open.  Everyone please try to make this debate civil (no matter how much the other side aggrivates you) so that it stays that way.

AlphaOne, I'm afraid that you are thinking everyone is slamming your idea, but you want to do a campaign and I hope this discussion does not discourage you from trying.  Careful with balancing those BFGreens with the rest of the fleet, as no current Terran ship actually mounts them.

[Flipside]

I'm inclined to agree.

Fraid you'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

AlphaOne, just make the campaign and enjoy yourself, that's what it's all about, if you want my advice, if you are planning to make the BB's yourself, then go ahead and make some untextured models etc and post pics, let people see what you are getting at, and give people a taster of what you have planned, you don't need to justify the 'why' outside of the campaign itself.