[karajorma]

Dammit. Delete this post!

[TrashMan]

Easily. Look at the cruisers -
Fenris - 10 000 HP
Leviathan - 35 000 HP
Aeolus - 35 000 HP

And Aeolus is faster AND has a killer AF defense...

Yes, and it's also so expensive that only a very limited amount have been manufactured, and it's still just a goddamn cruiser. It's a powerful cruiser, but it's ****ed against a concentrated fighter/bomber/assault fighter assault or a corvette.

"The GTC Aeolus is the first cruiser class ever produced by the RNI shipyards orbiting Laramis II. Only two dozen of these cruisers were put into service in GTVA fleets, with production ending in 2365. Allied Command assigns Aeolus-class ships primarily to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings, as these cruisers are severely out-gunned by most capital ships in service today. Their flak and AAA turrets serve as marvelous deterrents to smaller craft, however."

I don't see the cost mentioned anywhere..

i.e. a launch preparation area.

Are you sure it's not the fighterbay? It has all those fighters stacked up on those shelf-like things and that area looks very big.
And if it's not, then it mean it must be somewhere else on the ship taking up even MORE room..

I didn't say less, I said roughly equivalent, i.e. not 60 times as much or so. Not having the weapons tbl hand, I can't check damage figure.  Albeit, did you consider the miss ratio as well?

Albeit, did you consider the range? (BGreen has 4000 range, does 1200 damage, stays on for 4 secs)

AAF
$Fire Wait:                     5.5             
$Damage:                        14
+Weapon Range:       1500

So that's 3x14 = 42 every 5.5 seconds
or 458.1818181818181 over 60 seconds

not even remotely close.

Lasers? (technically, you could launch without lock, but that'd be unlikely in actual combat)  If you want a vis-a-vis comparison, you have to launch the bombers as well, because they are the main firepower of a destroyer.  And do you have the lock/refire time rates for a beam turret?

I told you - just warp in a beam-freed destroyer next to a potential target and see how long it will take it to fire.. 3-4 seconds Max.

Quite possibly, yes.  Why else would they be omitted? I mean, Volition would have picked the most logical classes to add to the game.  Fighter/bomber power is the most important, so there are destroyers.  Beams are the new main weapon for capship attack, so we have the corvettes.  And the Colossus, because everyone loves a 5km or so long monster ship.

How about development time? costs? Personal preferences?
Ever taught of that?

how do you account for the difference between the Iceni and the Deimos. The Deimos is only slightly smaller than the Iceni and yet the Iceni is vastly superior to it. What made the difference between the two?

Different design? [V]'s wish? I don't have answers to everything, nor do I have to have them. Like we don't have vastly different ship of same classes today?
All I know is that half the stuff you're holding against a BB are speculations with no real confirmations.

But seeing as you are ignoring economics completely and refusing to even accept that they may have an importance then you should be comparing like with like and that mean uber money is no object destroyer vs your loadsamoney BB.

And seeing that neither you or I have any idea of how the economy in FS works, nor how much certain things cost, all you're throwing right now are speculations. For instance - for all we know I-S fighter drives can cost as much as a cruiser!

On the other hand you've taken the destroyer. Ripped out the hangar bays (which based on your own picture are mostly empty space!) and replaced them with heavy and bulky reactors and heat sinks. You've refused to accept that the BBs engines are more expensive or bigger than those on the destroyer. In fact as far as I can tell they are the same ones as the destroyer. Yet despite that fact you somehow believe that the BB should move at the same speed as the destroyer or faster?

Wrong - first my pic of the hangarbay is very nenerous towards needed space, as I explained above 8and which you seem to ignore).
Secondly, we havo no idea just how big reactros in FS are. We never seen one. So that as an argument is pointless.
Secondly, I never stated BB engines are small. Obviously the size and quality is a major issue.

Since when have the Shivans given a flying **** about fair battles? Are you trying to tell me that an invasion of Shivan space would be successful because the Shivans would try to make it a fair fight? Are you trying to tell me that when storming Shivan nodes the Sathanas Juggernauts would turn their arse to face the BBs so as to give them a sporting chance?

Have you been taking some drugs or something, becouse you're not making any sense. What has this gotta do with anything?
I'm pointing out that even smaller ships can destroy a Sath if proper tactics is used.
And I'm allso pointing out that pitting a BB against a Sath and calling it useless is a moot point, since any GTVA  vesses in a head-on asault on a Sath is doomed.

[Flipside]

The problem is that, whilst Terran destroyers are not the biggest threat to Shivan capships, even with beams, the Shivan Capships are a threat to Terran fleets, commnd made the mistake of locking horns with the Shivans at first, and lost a good few ships before reverting back to more subtle tactics (The engagement with the Ravana was a good example of how out-classed Terran capships and weapons are against Shivan equivalents). The problem with Destroyers is they can't get out of the way, in a fighter it doesn't matter how powerful a gun is if it can't hit you, but when it's used on something 2km long, you don't have to worry much about speed or accuracy, only power.

Why fluff about with stolen alien tech when it's patently obvious that our skill as a race lay with making things you launch at enemies and goes boom when they hit. Nearly all the Terrans' finest weapons in FS have been 'Terran' in nature, be they bombs, missiles or Maxims etc, almost all our weapons made by Terran style thinking have been extremely effective against the Shivans, we fall down when we try to rely on what aliens are good at, the Subach, a less-effective version of Vasudan Tech, Beam Lasers, assumed to have been researched from the remains of the Lucifer etc, all fall down when compared to the 'real thing'. I say build the FS equivalent of MTB's, small enough to manouver, fast, capable of launching a barrage of missiles, possibly with, say 8 launchers and only one bomb in each, warp in, fire, warp out. It wouldn't make much of a game, but it would be the best tactical solution

[karajorma]

Come on you guys were the ones that jumped me and almost ripped mi head of for sugesting somehting similar to this BB but a lot more powerfull it was almost the perfect warship. Now that I've cut off a piece of its arms and legs you state that its useless..???

If you bothered to read my reply I said that your ship was possible but not economically feasible. That the GTVA would probably be moving away from juggernauts. In fact that's pretty much what everyone said.

And btw. how is this BB more useless then the Hecate class destroyers wich aside from providing fighter/bommber support it is useless as a warship.

How is a gun useful except for the bullets it shoots? The Hecate's raison d'etre is to launch fighters and bombers.

 It cant take in damage , it cant dish out damage in adequate fashion soo......what is its use?? I mean you could have 2 deimos and a dedicated small carrier do the same job. and they would be more versatile at least that is what i believe. They can cover a larger area at the same cost of a destroyer !

Have you not been reading the discussion. If you attempt to build a small carrier you end up with the Hecate. You can build one without the beam cannons but quite frankly why bother? At least with the cannons it has it can make some effort to defend itself against other capital ships.

Tell me please when your ships  are totaly *****'d up because well lets see.....they engines were disabled and theyr fisghterbays and you have a strong enemy force headed for them and some of theyr beam cannons have been taken out can you wait till you gather a sizebla force to counter that threat??

I have no idea what you just said. 

Also here is a stupid question: Why did the C burn out most of its reactors when it was nowhere near using all of its beamcannons??? I mean how much power do ypu need to power up those beamcannons?

The colossus burnt out it's beam cannons because it pushed them past their safety point in order to kill the Sathanas quickly. In normal usage the beam cannons probably work perfectly fine. It's worth noting that the beam cannons on the Colossus are actually LESS powerful than those you want to put on your ships.

[bfobar]

But the subachs are great though, especially at higher difficulty levels where the primary weapons really drain your energy reserves. I often find myself flying a myrmadon with 6 subachs and edged up engine and shield power for most missions. Subachs in banks of 6 or 8 let you take advantage of the damage output/power consumption ratio.

Anyway, I think the problem with battleships is that that design only does one thing well which would make it a liability for the GTVA since they would be wasting too much money for not enough effectiveness. Shivans would probably counter a battleship with a wing of raksashas and those speedy bombers of theirs and it would be toast.

Asuming that a battleship is built, I think the difference in hitpoints, firepower and size between a corvette and a destroyer gives good guidelines on a battleship's firepower. So a Vasudan battleship would probably be stronger than the comparable terran one, Hull strength would probably be about 50% higher, and it would probably have like 4 primary beams, 4 secondary slashers, and a number of turrets, missle launchers and flak making it maybe 20-50% more heavily armed than a destroyer but nowhere near the 72 gun, 12 beamed, 1000000 hit point colossus to stay resonable with FS2 around or just after the great war. Whatever its setup, it should win against but be significantly damaged in a 1 on 1 slug fest with a hatshepsut. I would recommend an even match between either of the shivan destroyers.

Also since it's getting brought into the fray, I just want to say that Hecates are really cool destroyers in my opinion. Sure all the other destroyers win in a 1 on 1 slugfest but the hecates have really good firing arcs all around and good anti fighter guns, and good fighter capacity. They do a great job of the multi role thing.

[karajorma]

The the problem is hasn't updated the universe for 6 years. People are getting bored. People are creating new campaigns. Inventing new ships and even new governments. sold their Universe already.

I take issue with that comment. The FS2 universe is 's They made it. It belongs to them.

If you make your own campaign it's set in your own universe based on 's. You can do whatever the **** you like in your own universe but if you want to claim that something can exist in the FS2 universe you have to stay true to 's intents. If your claim was correct I could have Captain Kirk appear in a sequal to 2001 and claim that since Kubrick is dead that it's valid.

Huh, which side are you arguing for? It was you who claim that we can have fighters no matter what. I said no, because there's not enough space, we will have to strip the fighter bay to add reactors and new beams. Now you are telling me that "It's nowhere near as much as you may have claimed"? I am confused.

You're confused? I haven't got the faintest clue what you're on about!

I never argueed that sticking the entire BB in the line of fire. That's the problem of replying too many people using the same post, you get confused. I think BBs need to be supported by other ships so that there's minimum risk for themselves. Never leave your warships without fighter cover, that's the proven rule in this game.

But where does that fighter cover come from? A BB can't launch enough fighter cover to protect it from massed long range attacks so who the hell is protecting it? If you're assuming that a destroyer is going to cover the BB then it is reducing its own fighter cover making it more susceptible to attacks. 

How would you feel that if instead of NTF destroyer jumped in to save their cruisers, all your careful plans were rendered useless by the NTF cruisers jumping out right before it exploded? It's not a claim, it's a suggestion. I am sure you know FS2 inside out, I love your FAQ. I don't care what intended though, is not making FS3 anymore. Delayed jumps make more sense, IMO.

My feelings have bugger all to do with this. Ships can jump in less than 30 minutes. There is canon proof of this. That is the way the universe works. You can't arbitarily change the rules of the universe just to suit yur own arguments. If you're not prepared to argue within the universe's bounds I can just as easily say that BBs are useless cause the space bunny eatsf them but leaves destroyers alone.

The bottom line is would it be interesting to have battleships in a new campaign? I think it would if it's designed carefully.

If you want them in your universe that is your choice. But don't claim that they are a sensible choice in the FS2 universe.

Allied Command assigns Aeolus-class ships primarily to guard slow-moving convoys against fighter and bomber wings, as these cruisers are severely out-gunned by most capital ships in service today. Their flak and AAA turrets serve as marvelous deterrents to smaller craft, however."

I don't see the cost mentioned anywhere..

Read between the lines. The Aeolus was cancelled. They say that it's good at its job. Why else did they cancel it?

Wrong - first my pic of the hangarbay is very nenerous towards needed space

No it isn't. Both Aldo and myself have commented on the rather large amount of open space in it. You've assumed that just because the small part of the Orion's bay that is visible is open that all of it must be. Not only is that one hell of an assumption it's also very bad design in military terms. A single fighter could fly into the Orion's bay and wipe out the ship's entire complement of fighters!

Secondly, we havo no idea just how big reactros in FS are. We never seen one. So that as an argument is pointless.

Lets suppose that they are small then. The size of a single fighter. Does that mean if the Hecate carried 149 instead of 150 fighter that it too can carry the number of weapons you're claiming a BB can? You're the one who assumed you needed to gut the inside of a destroyer in order to fit all the extra weapons in yet whenever anyone comments on the size of those weapons you claim that we have no information about their size.
 So if we have no information about their size how can you possibly say that the Hecate can't lose say 10 fighters and carry enough weapons to equal your BB?

It's not a pointless argumnent. It's an argument you've already had in your head, decided on a winner and then refuse to have again.

Secondly, I never stated BB engines are small. Obviously the size and quality is a major issue.

So they're big then? That would eat into that space you gained by ripping out the fighter bay then wouldn't it? And seeing as how you're giving your BB several seperate engines that's going to eat into it a lot.

since any GTVA  vesses in a head-on asault on a Sath is doomed.

Which is exactly the point I was making to ngtm1r till you decided to stick your oar in! 

Have you been taking some drugs or something, becouse you're not making any sense. What has this gotta do with anything?
I'm pointing out that even smaller ships can destroy a Sath if proper tactics is used.

 You've obviously not understood the point I was making and decided to jump in with both feet to defend your precious BBs with an argument that is completely irrelevent to what I was talking about.
  Nothing can take on a sath and win. Ngtm1r was attempting to justify the existance of the BB class by claiming we could use them to invade Shivan space. I take it that you believe that idea to be as silly as I do.
 I didn't say that the BB is useless cause it can't take on a Sath. Nothing can take on a sath unless as you did you stack the battle in the other ship's favour. That's fun as a textbook exercise but I very much doubt that the Shivans are going to let you do that repeatedly in order to invade Shivan space.

I said that invading Shivan space is nonsense so using the fact that BBs would do better at it is an absolutely useless justification for the existance of the BB class. Next time get the context of the discussion before you leap in.

[TrashMan]

Read between the lines. The Aeolus was cancelled. They say that it's good at its job. Why else did they cancel it?

The problčem with readin between the lines is reading what isn't there. The cause for the cancellation is nowhere mentioned. Maby the constructor had a gripe with the GTVA or vice-versa. Maby [V] toguht is sounded good in the ship description.
The poibt is - NOBODY knows. Not me, not you.
So claiming it was bacouse of cost is as redicolous as me claming Command is acting stupid coause it's being paid by shivans to do so.

No it isn't. Both Aldo and myself have commented on the rather large amount of open space in it. You've assumed that just because the small part of the Orion's bay that is visible is open that all of it must be. Not only is that one hell of an assumption it's also very bad design in military terms. A single fighter could fly into the Orion's bay and wipe out the ship's entire complement of fighters!

Actually you're wonrg. I only ordered the fighters approximately how they would be ordered insude (on those shell-like platforms) - there are no machinery or platforms or elivators or pillars inside, as I was going just for an approximation of the volume used. If I were to add all that in (and I can if you isist) and still leave enough room for hte ship to move freely around, the size would increase.
Nor did I ever say that the hangarbay is just one big room - hell it might be several rooms devided by thick metal doors (and probably it is so), but then those thick walls increase the overall volume again, don' they?
Allso note that I used mostly perseus fighters in that pic, and that a destroyer complement in surely more varried than that.
I havn't even put a single Ursa in there.


Oh - about the reactors. Before you can even BEGIN to claim that a BB is impossible, you'd need to know the size, type, output and requirements of a rector. Now I never said tey are as small as a fighter nor as big as a cruiser. I simply don't know.

and now you're probably asking - ok, if the reactor type is allso important, whyy not put uber-reactors in all ships?
I don't know. Why don't they put the best engines, the best reacotrs, the best armor or the best weaons on ALL ships today? They simply don't. They put wha'ts needed to do they job and meet the specs. Not to mention that some component simply work well with some and not so good with others.
AS much as some things may seem illogical to you, it's simply how it's done today..And I have no reason to belive itwon't be done liek that in the future. Granted, it's a speculation - but then again, saying it's not like that is allso a speculation.

Simply the fact that there's so much in the FS universe that we don't know, leaves more than enough room for new thing or different approaches.

So they're big then? That would eat into that space you gained by ripping out the fighter bay then wouldn't it? And seeing as how you're giving your BB several seperate engines that's going to eat into it a lot.

Less engines than the Heacte anyway.. but probably better ones... And don't quote subsystem numbers, Im talking about those separated glowing parts - as behind each glow there must be a engine.

I said that invading Shivan space is nonsense so using the fact that BBs would do better at it is an absolutely useless justification for the existance of the BB class. Next time get the context of the discussion before you leap in.

Ivading Shivan space is a redicolus concept alltogether, alltough BB's would fair better in a slug-fest with shivan warships. Mind you, that we never seen shivan destroyers actually run away from close combat...

[StratComm]

Read between the lines. The Aeolus was cancelled. They say that it's good at its job. Why else did they cancel it?

The problčem with readin between the lines is reading what isn't there. The cause for the cancellation is nowhere mentioned. Maby the constructor had a gripe with the GTVA or vice-versa. Maby [V] toguht is sounded good in the ship description.
The poibt is - NOBODY knows. Not me, not you.
So claiming it was bacouse of cost is as redicolous as me claming Command is acting stupid coause it's being paid by shivans to do so.

That hardly invalidates his argument though.  Cost is indeed a determining factor in any construction project, as no one has an infinite pool of resources to draw on.  And the Aeolus was, for a ship that was combat ineffective in it's charter role (light anti-cap, like the Fenris and Leviathan in FS1), too expensive to continue producing.

That said, we actually do know why the Aeolus line was canceled.  It is in the tech description, at that; it is severly undergunned compared to "modern capital ships", i.e. corvettes.  Though the difference in crew leaves that somewhat open to interpretation, the fact of the matter is an Aeolus cannot stand up to anything larger than itself and have a prayer of survival, much less victory.  That's almost explicitly stated.

No it isn't. Both Aldo and myself have commented on the rather large amount of open space in it. You've assumed that just because the small part of the Orion's bay that is visible is open that all of it must be. Not only is that one hell of an assumption it's also very bad design in military terms. A single fighter could fly into the Orion's bay and wipe out the ship's entire complement of fighters!

Actually you're wonrg. I only ordered the fighters approximately how they would be ordered insude (on those shell-like platforms) - there are no machinery or platforms or elivators or pillars inside, as I was going just for an approximation of the volume used. If I were to add all that in (and I can if you isist) and still leave enough room for hte ship to move freely around, the size would increase.
Nor did I ever say that the hangarbay is just one big room - hell it might be several rooms devided by thick metal doors (and probably it is so), but then those thick walls increase the overall volume again, don' they?
Allso note that I used mostly perseus fighters in that pic, and that a destroyer complement in surely more varried than that.
I havn't even put a single Ursa in there.

Well, you used Perseus fighters, which are longer but narrower than most other fighters, and Boanerges bombers.  Seems reasonable enough, except that you're still choosing a false mix.  There's no way a destroyer's bomber compliment consists of exclusively heavy bombers, so while the size of the bombers would increase in the case of Ursas, that is offset by the smaller size of the Artemis bombers that take at least as many places.  I don't think destroyers have more than maybe 2 wings of Ursas in their hangers, ever.  And there's no reason to claim that anything significant would change if you swapped out the Perseus fighters for something else either, because you're only talking about a couple of meters extra (which you already have in spacing alone).

And still, your "huge" hangerbay occupies only the small extrusion off the side of the Orion that you're mapping in to.  Which means that the vast majority of the Orion is already dedicated to weapons, reactors, engines, and crew space.  Remind me how this favors there being lots of extra room to expand in to for a battleship?

Oh - about the reactors. Before you can even BEGIN to claim that a BB is impossible, you'd need to know the size, type, output and requirements of a rector. Now I never said tey are as small as a fighter nor as big as a cruiser. I simply don't know.

and now you're probably asking - ok, if the reactor type is allso important, whyy not put uber-reactors in all ships?
I don't know. Why don't they put the best engines, the best reacotrs, the best armor or the best weaons on ALL ships today? They simply don't. They put wha'ts needed to do they job and meet the specs. Not to mention that some component simply work well with some and not so good with others.
AS much as some things may seem illogical to you, it's simply how it's done today..And I have no reason to belive itwon't be done liek that in the future. Granted, it's a speculation - but then again, saying it's not like that is allso a speculation.

Simply the fact that there's so much in the FS universe that we don't know, leaves more than enough room for new thing or different approaches.

But you can't canonically base a new class off of them unless you stick to established technology.  I cannot stress this point enough.

And to assume that simply because there may be better equipment available means that the better equipment makes economical sense to mount on your new class when the current flag ships of the fleet, the destroyers, don't get the tech makes even less sense than to say it exists in the first place.

So they're big then? That would eat into that space you gained by ripping out the fighter bay then wouldn't it? And seeing as how you're giving your BB several seperate engines that's going to eat into it a lot.

Less engines than the Heacte anyway.. but probably better ones... And don't quote subsystem numbers, Im talking about those separated glowing parts - as behind each glow there must be a engine.

The number of exhaust ports on the Hecate is irrelivant.  All an engine really needs is a reactor to power it, so the smaller engines on the front of the Hecate may just be taking advantage of extra power in that portion of the power grid.  Or placed there to reduce stress on the questionably stable Hecate frame.  There's absolutely nothing to go on why those auxilary engines are there.  The point is that you're trying to argue in favor of five major engine subsystems, which is completely unprecidented in Freespace.  Nevermind that it isn't necessarily fundamental to the battleship class, it's just what happens to be on your "pride and joy" POF, that you happened to make yourself, that you still consider to be the best thing since sliced bread.  I'm not getting in to the merits and shortcomings of your archangel mod, but I'm going to ask that you seperate your arguments about the class from the way you happened to end up designing your ship.  The two are not fundamentally the same.

I said that invading Shivan space is nonsense so using the fact that BBs would do better at it is an absolutely useless justification for the existance of the BB class. Next time get the context of the discussion before you leap in.

Ivading Shivan space is a redicolus concept alltogether, alltough BB's would fair better in a slug-fest with shivan warships. Mind you, that we never seen shivan destroyers actually run away from close combat...

But you're still ripping a fundamental aspect of Freespace combat out of your design that the shivan ships still have in their favor, which returns us to the fighters.  A battleship against a shivan destroyer would be screwed, because it would be unable to defend itself from both the shivan destroyer's main beams and the bombers launched by said destroyer.

[karajorma]

The problčem with readin between the lines is reading what isn't there. The cause for the cancellation is nowhere mentioned. Maby the constructor had a gripe with the GTVA or vice-versa. Maby [V] toguht is sounded good in the ship description.
The poibt is - NOBODY knows. Not me, not you.
So claiming it was bacouse of cost is as redicolous as me claming Command is acting stupid coause it's being paid by shivans to do so.

So no one is allowed to infer anything except for you? The entire battleship concept you've given us is fundementally flawed right from the start by your logic. You've infered that you can hack out the fighterbays and put in reactors and guns and all kinds of things. Where is the evidence for that? Who's to say that all the parts you want to put in aren't the size of a matchbox and could be added without losing one iota of fighterbay space? Nobody knows about that either but you've infered it's true. I happen to agree it's true but if you're going to start pulling out the nobody knows argument then you've basically invalidated almost every single comment you've made on this thread.

Actually you're wonrg. I only ordered the fighters approximately how they would be ordered insude (on those shell-like platforms)

You've assumed that the entire fighter bay looks exactly like the tiny portion which you can see in the mainhall. What if those are the alert fighters and bombers? What if those are fighters under maintence? There are several reasons why you could have some but not all of your fighters up on racks like that. You haven't considered any of them.

Oh - about the reactors. Before you can even BEGIN to claim that a BB is impossible, you'd need to know the size, type, output and requirements of a rector. Now I never said tey are as small as a fighter nor as big as a cruiser. I simply don't know.

You've already made the assumption that reactors are big and bulky in the first place. If they weren't big why would you need to hack out the fighterbay? I could just as easily say that before you can even BEGIN to claim that a BB is possible, you'd need to know the size, type, output and requirements of a reactor.

Don't be upset with me saying that reactors are big. You made that claim first. I happened to agree with the inference so I didn't question it but seeing as how you're now all of a sudden insisting on only going on what is canon let's take a look at the initial assumption. Lets say reactors are small. In that case the BB is now completely impractical. If reactors are teeny-tiny you don't need to hack out the fighterbay. You can simply add reactors and turrets to a ship where ever you want cause there's nothing to them.

and now you're probably asking - ok, if the reactor type is allso important, whyy not put uber-reactors in all ships?
I don't know. Why don't they put the best engines, the best reacotrs, the best armor or the best weaons on ALL ships today?

Money. Filthy lucre.

But you completely refuse to acknowledge economics at all in this discussion as a limiting factor on your uber BB so why should I accept it as a limiting factor on any other ship class? Play fair now.

They simply don't. They put wha'ts needed to do they job and meet the specs. Not to mention that some component simply work well with some and not so good with others.

But you've only built your BB with the best, most expensive components. So when I'm building a destroyer to compete with it I'm going to use your rules too.

AS much as some things may seem illogical to you, it's simply how it's done today..And I have no reason to belive itwon't be done liek that in the future. Granted, it's a speculation - but then again, saying it's not like that is allso a speculation.

It's not illogical at all. In fact I've been arguing in favour of what you state the entire time. You're the one who has posted an argument saying Ship x has the best engine proportional to its size so my BB can also be proportional too. And Ship y has beam cannons that are the best proporional to its size so my ship has them too. You've made your BB out of the best features of every single ship class in the GTVA. You've written off the Colossus as a complete failure in every single component and refused to believe your BB could ever be anything but the best it could ever be.

This is exactly what I mean about you always stacking things in favour of the BB. It's unfair and I'm going to point it out every time I catch you doing it.

[AlphaOne]

Well In regards to the small detroyer thing I was refering to a much smaller ship then a Hecate posibly a little larger then a Deimos say 300 metters longer. I mean such a ship would carry what.. about 100 or more spacecrafts since it is specificly designed to be a carrier and other then PDF it would have no other way to defend itself against beamcannon fire! But then again it does not have to since the BB would do the beam fights.

And dont tell me that you will track the carrier down and attack it with some cruiser or something because as we have see things dont happen that way in the FS2 universe. There are a lot of things that should of been done another way but they dont get done that way!
You guis keep saiing that if a BB would apear then the enemy would this or that and the BB would be toast.

Come on if the GTVA HighCommand(a.k.a. The GTVA most Stupid and Incompetent People) was that smart it wouldnt of lost the seccond shivan war. They woud of gathered 30.000 fighters and bommbers posted all of its warships so that they face the ass of the sath, and blasted the hell out of that entire Sath fleet. but they dont do that do they!

And if you have somthing against mi previous argument lets not get started gain on the whole Ravana blowing to hell almost an entire fleet bi itself. where were the fighters and bommbers to swarm the blasted thing?? Oh yeah they did eventualy used that tactic because they couldn spare ani more ships against that thing.

Because at the level at wich the HighCommand think(which in mi opinino is very limited) they would of sent the entire GTVA fleet to tackle on the Ravana and ended up losing god knows ho many destroyers and so onand so on.
Those shivans must of laughed theyr ass off when they saw the stupiditi of those captains triing to take it out with beam fire and almost blinded by the nebula!

So no I will not take these simple "logical" facts into acount because they are that solid so as not to be dismantled.

This ship ideea would be the least   stupid thing that the GTVA would do then tring to go head on with the shivans which from what we have seen seem to be a constant through out the whole game and with devastating consequences.

Sure you will say that they have learned theyr lesson but we all know that that is not the case.

[aldo_14]

Um..not to intrude into your baffling incoherence, but you do realise that Shivans have - shock - fighters and bombers as well?

[karajorma]

So wait a second AlphaOne. Is your entire argument that Command are so stupid that they wouldn't realise that the battleship is a really dreadful idea and would build one anyway?

To be honest I do have to give you an award for that one. It's the first justification for the BB class that actually does fit with FS2

[TrashMan]

That said, we actually do know why the Aeolus line was canceled.  It is in the tech description, at that; it is severly undergunned compared to "modern capital ships", i.e. corvettes.  Though the difference in crew leaves that somewhat open to interpretation, the fact of the matter is an Aeolus cannot stand up to anything larger than itself and have a prayer of survival, much less victory.  That's almost explicitly stated.

That's a whole other matter. That's a valid reason, as it was stated in the description. The cost however, was not.

I'm not claiming cost is irrelevant in ship construction - quite the contrary - but the fact reamins we don't know what certain things cost in FS2 universe, so it's next to impossible to put a price tag on ships.

Well, you used Perseus fighters, which are longer but narrower than most other fighters, and Boanerges bombers.  Seems reasonable enough, except that you're still choosing a false mix.  There's no way a destroyer's bomber compliment consists of exclusively heavy bombers, so while the size of the bombers would increase in the case of Ursas, that is offset by the smaller size of the Artemis bombers that take at least as many places.  I don't think destroyers have more than maybe 2 wings of Ursas in their hangers, ever.  And there's no reason to claim that anything significant would change if you swapped out the Perseus fighters for something else either, because you're only talking about a couple of meters extra (which you already have in spacing alone).
And still, your "huge" hangerbay occupies only the small extrusion off the side of the Orion that you're mapping in to.  Which means that the vast majority of the Orion is already dedicated to weapons, reactors, engines, and crew space.  Remind me how this favors there being lots of extra room to expand in to for a battleship?

24 bombers alltogether.
I'd reckon that there would be at least 12 spacecraft of each type (as 12 is hte squadron size). If I were a guessing man I would say a Orion would carry maby 1-2 squads of heavy bombers, 1-2 squads of light/medium ones, 3 squads of interceptors and 3 squads of heavy fighters.
That said, the pads which house fighters/bombers are made to fit all (as for different assigments you might take a completely different complement on board, and there's no telling were a specific spacecraft wouldbe docked), so the pads are bomber-sized. Not to mention the machinery to repair, refuel them and everything else. According to the mainhalls, FS2 hangarbays are very spacious, with lots of room between craft.
So I don't know about you, but for me that's a lot of used space..

One more thing - hasn't anyone noticed how the Orion is actually bettter suited to ferry spacecraft becouse of it's shape and volume? Wierdness.

But you can't canonically base a new class off of them unless you stick to established technology.  I cannot stress this point enough.

And to assume that simply because there may be better equipment available means that the better equipment makes economical sense to mount on your new class when the current flag ships of the fleet, the destroyers, don't get the tech makes even less sense than to say it exists in the first place.

Wouldn't be the first time in history that happened. Ships get the tech that's needed to do the job according to specs.
And economicly, why do you think BB's would be more expensive than destroyers?
After all, fighters/bombers (and their mantainance and the paychecks of the flight crew) are included in a DD's price as they are an integral part of it. Hell, look at todays carriers - tehy are the most expensive warship afloat.

The number of exhaust ports on the Hecate is irrelivant.  All an engine really needs is a reactor to power it, so the smaller engines on the front of the Hecate may just be taking advantage of extra power in that portion of the power grid.  Or placed there to reduce stress on the questionably stable Hecate frame.  There's absolutely nothing to go on why those auxilary engines are there.  The point is that you're trying to argue in favor of five major engine subsystems, which is completely unprecidented in Freespace.  Nevermind that it isn't necessarily fundamental to the battleship class, it's just what happens to be on your "pride and joy" POF, that you happened to make yourself, that you still consider to be the best thing since sliced bread.  I'm not getting in to the merits and shortcomings of your archangel mod, but I'm going to ask that you seperate your arguments about the class from the way you happened to end up designing your ship.  The two are not fundamentally the same.

:LOL: that's rich!
How can the number of exhaust be irrelevant? One exhaust port  = one engine! That's glow must come from somewhere. Granted, the engines might not be big, but they are still tehre.
If you're only going to argue about the number of subsystems then fine - how many would you deem acceptable on a BB? One? three? Becosue it really doesn't matter. According to you I can put exhaust all over and litter it with engines, but as long as several of those are represented by one subsystem (no matter how far apart they are) they are one engine!

P.S. - when I said 5 engines, I ment 5 distinct glow clusters with visible exhausts. But they can all be one subsystem...however, I consider 3 a nicer number.

But you're still ripping a fundamental aspect of Freespace combat out of your design that the shivan ships still have in their favor, which returns us to the fighters.  A battleship against a shivan destroyer would be screwed, because it would be unable to defend itself from both the shivan destroyer's main beams and the bombers launched by said destroyer.

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.

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

By Karajorma
So no one is allowed to infer anything except for you? The entire battleship concept you've given us is fundementally flawed right from the start by your logic. You've infered that you can hack out the fighterbays and put in reactors and guns and all kinds of things. Where is the evidence for that? Who's to say that all the parts you want to put in aren't the size of a matchbox and could be added without losing one iota of fighterbay space? Nobody knows about that either but you've infered it's true. I happen to agree it's true but if you're going to start pulling out the nobody knows argument then you've basically invalidated almost every single comment you've made on this thread.

Flawed logic. You have never been ina debate group, now have you?
You can't prove to me that it's impossible to hack out the fighterbay and put gunz and reactors. The opposite should allso hold true for me, but knowing that  - how can you even claim that I'm "going against canon" and "making impossible thing" when you yourself now now admit that there's no evidence to support either view?
It's up to the side that wans't to forbid or disprove something (that would be you) to prove the other one is wrong, not vice-versa.

Money. Filthy lucre.

But you completely refuse to acknowledge economics at all in this discussion as a limiting factor on your uber BB so why should I accept it as a limiting factor on any other ship class? Play fair now.

You're the one not playing fair. A DD with the best tech would be several times as expensive as the best BB you could build.
As I said - fighters are included in a BB's price (and carirers ar the most expensive ships in the world mind you).
the onyl way to disprove that is to acknowledge that we have no idea how mush certain things cost in FS2 and if you do that all of your cost arguments go down the drain

Um..not to intrude into your baffling incoherence, but you do realise that Shivans have - shock - fighters and bombers as well?

Not of much use if hte GTVA did a smart thing and blockaded the node with more than just empty air.
Hell, position half your fleet arund the node and NOTHING will get trough (especially if you stand by the assumption that ships must exit the node one by one)
 

[Ghostavo]

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.

And with this we can conclude that a BB like that is not possible in the FS2 universe! Quite ironic if you think about it.

[Shade]

In the carrier+fighter vs battleship+turrets cost analogy you're making one crucial mistake. In a water navy, only the fighers need all the technology for flight such as aerodynamics, life support, fly-by-wire, pressureised cabins (in some cases) etc., while the big gun turrets on a ship just need a sturdy base, a way to elevate the barrels and turn the base, and a long tube (simplified, yes, but that's the general idea).

In space, however, things are different. Some of the things fighters need in an atmosphere are no longer needed (aerodynamics), while many of the things that were before exclusive to the fighters are now needed by the ships as well: Life support, internal pressure, electronic control systems, and more. So in space, fighters would be  a lot cheaper compared to a gun turret than what we see in today's navy. And in maintenance, fighters actually have an advantage now that they did not have before, as they can be looked over from the outside while docked whereas you can't easily fix any external problems on a spaceship. So ship systems need to be built with far more redundancies than for a water navy, which naturally costs more.

[Jal-18]

Bull****.  You want to play debate rules, let's tango.

You're the one not playing fair. A DD with the best tech would be several times as expensive as the best BB you could build.
As I said - fighters are included in a BB's price (and carirers ar the most expensive ships in the world mind you).
the onyl way to disprove that is to acknowledge that we have no idea how mush certain things cost in FS2 and if you do that all of your cost arguments go down the drain

So does the very first line of your arguement.  You have no clue that a high-tech DD would be more expensive then a high-tech BB. (and don't give me **** about how the BB isn't high tech - you've been making up techs left and right)  Your second line is also contradictory to the rest of your arguement, as before you were stating that your BB didn't have any fighters and this is how it became so marvelously powerful.

I'm not forgetting anything. (1)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.
(2)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. (3)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.

Numbered for conveniance:

1) Unprovable
2) Unprobable
3) Weak arguement.  If I gave you a kevlar jacket that "should" stop my pistol's shells, would you wear it?  Or jump a bridge in a car that "should" be fast enough?

How can the number of exhaust be irrelevant? One exhaust port  = one engine! That's glow must come from somewhere. Granted, the engines might not be big, but they are still tehre.

Link 3 small reactors to one big exhaust.  Which you admit is possible in your second sentence.

You have never been ina debate group, now have you?
You can't prove to me that it's impossible to hack out the fighterbay and put gunz and reactors. The opposite should allso hold true for me, but knowing that  - how can you even claim that I'm "going against canon" and "making impossible thing" when you yourself now now admit that there's no evidence to support either view?
It's up to the side that wans't to forbid or disprove something (that would be you) to prove the other one is wrong, not vice-versa.

Actually, its up to you to prove that you are right.  The negative has no need to prove that their arguement is even right, just that the affirmative arguement is more wrong.  So far, you have been proven more wrong. (Mainly due to the fact that there's demonstrable proof against you, while your entire arguement is one big analytical.)

Don't try to pull the almighty "holier-then-thou" debate attitude when your own arguement is ****.

[karajorma]

You can't prove to me that it's impossible to hack out the fighterbay and put gunz and reactors. The opposite should allso hold true for me, but knowing that  - how can you even claim that I'm "going against canon" and "making impossible thing" when you yourself now now admit that there's no evidence to support either view?

You can't disprove that giant pink wildebeest didn't blow up Capella. Does that mean I can also claim that giant pink wildebeest are feasible in the FS2 universe too? If you're only ever going to go on what was seen in the game you might as well give up right now. What you have to do is infer based on what was seen in the game. That doesn't mean making **** up but it does mean that you point to reasons based on the FS2 universe.

It's up to the side that wans't to forbid or disprove something (that would be you) to prove the other one is wrong, not vice-versa.

Actually no. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And the claim that you can pack more weaponary into a ship 1/3 the size of the Colossus is an extrodinary claim. If you want to go with your argument that the side who wants to say something is impossible must disprove it you then have to prove that giant pink wildebeest didn't blow up Capella or accept it as possible within the FS2 universe.

You're the one not playing fair. A DD with the best tech would be several times as expensive as the best BB you could build.

I've never said that a BB is always more expensive than a destroyer. I've said that your BB is more expensive than a normal destroyer because you are using the highest quality versions of everything. That's always going to cost you more. If you're going to say that the GTVA has money to burn making new ship classes for you then I'm going to say it too. After all if you're acknowledging that the cost of both ships is verging on the ridiculous, surely you must also acknowledge that the GTVA wouldn't build destroyers or battleships with the best of everything on board but would instead build a more cost effective version of the ship?

[StratComm]

24 bombers alltogether.
I'd reckon that there would be at least 12 spacecraft of each type (as 12 is hte squadron size). If I were a guessing man I would say a Orion would carry maby 1-2 squads of heavy bombers, 1-2 squads of light/medium ones, 3 squads of interceptors and 3 squads of heavy fighters.
That said, the pads which house fighters/bombers are made to fit all (as for different assigments you might take a completely different complement on board, and there's no telling were a specific spacecraft wouldbe docked), so the pads are bomber-sized. Not to mention the machinery to repair, refuel them and everything else. According to the mainhalls, FS2 hangarbays are very spacious, with lots of room between craft.
So I don't know about you, but for me that's a lot of used space..

The mainhalls are not indicitive of the entire fighterbay.  Period.  The FS1 Galatea mainhall contained a grand total of 1 fighter, and the Bastion had them strewn all across the deck as ships literally minutes seperated from operational duty, whether before or after.  Neither of those shows the prep, maintenence, or storage areas for fighters, so to assume that they must be that big is a stretch at best.

Furthermore to make all the shelves bomber sized is stupid.  There's no way a destroyer would ever carry just bombers, so at most 1/3 of the racks would need to be big enough to accomodate them.  The rest could easily be much more densly packed, as though they may carry different types of fighters it will be fighters that occupy that space just the same.

And if all of the racks are bomber-sized (totally unsupported by the Galatea and Aquitane mainhalls, by the way) then increasing the numbers of Ursas would do absolutely nothing to the occupied volume.

One more thing - hasn't anyone noticed how the Orion is actually bettter suited to ferry spacecraft because of it's shape and volume? Wierdness.

I've got no idea what that's supposed to mean, but if you're trying to deflect comments on the Orion being very little fighterbay and very much warship then you're barking up the wrong tree.  It's your "proof" that shows that all too clearly the Orion does not compromise it's internal volume for its fighterbay in any way.

Wouldn't be the first time in history that happened. Ships get the tech that's needed to do the job according to specs.

The problem is you're making up the specs, making up the tech, and justifying each with the other while completely ignoring any sense of economics.That's logically undefensible.  Do I really need to spell that out more explicitly?  And to boot, you're assuming that command didn't spec Destroyers as being the most powerful ships that could be build on their frame, which is fairly canonically untrue as well. 

And economicly, why do you think BB's would be more expensive than destroyers?
After all, fighters/bombers (and their mantainance and the paychecks of the flight crew) are included in a DD's price as they are an integral part of it. Hell, look at todays carriers - tehy are the most expensive warship afloat.

To try to drive home a point, todays carriers are not 2-km long space-faring behemoths bristeling with heavy energy weapons either. If you think a FS destroyer is cheap by any stretch of the imagination then you need to get your head examined.  And I'm not even talking about the fighters, which as I've repeatedly said before the battleship concept does not save the GTVA from constructing or maintaining.  Even if they aren't based on the ship, they will still be somewhere.

:LOL: that's rich!
How can the number of exhaust be irrelevant? One exhaust port  = one engine! That's glow must come from somewhere. Granted, the engines might not be big, but they are still tehre.
If you're only going to argue about the number of subsystems then fine - how many would you deem acceptable on a BB? One? three? Becosue it really doesn't matter. According to you I can put exhaust all over and litter it with engines, but as long as several of those are represented by one subsystem (no matter how far apart they are) they are one engine!

P.S. - when I said 5 engines, I ment 5 distinct glow clusters with visible exhausts. But they can all be one subsystem...however, I consider 3 a nicer number.

Well then by your definition your Archangel has something like 20 engines, considerably more than the Hecate(8 or 10, depending on how you count).  How is that any better?!?  And by Freespace tech, yes, all those glows are tied to a single engine if there is only one engine subsystem.  That's how Freespace works.

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.

The GTVA has no tech capable of besting a Shivan destroyer 1:1.  How in hell would the Battleship be able to do something that the GTVA doesn't have the tech for?  Quite simply it can't.  Even if it's twice as powerful as an Orion (which I laugh at) it would still take several salvos to be able to neutralize a Ravana, assuming everything impacts for maximal damage.  That's close to 4 minutes of sustained fire from 4 LReds.  Even the Colossus would take a beating in that timeframe.  And, the Shivan Destroyer would surely be continually launching wave upon wave of bombers that are only going to damage the battleship that much faster with it's less-than-adequate fighter support.

I'm not pretending a Hecate could stand up to a Ravana any better, but it certainly wouldn't be any worse either.  I'll remind you that the only ships that can destroy anything Corvette and above on the opening volley are the Ravana (in the Great Hunt) and the Sathanas.  Typically, if not aided by a self-destruct SEXP, the Ravana couldn't even do it.  Yet you seem to believe that your battleship could, even when equipped with inferior Terran technology.

Flawed logic. You have never been ina debate group, now have you?
You can't prove to me that it's impossible to hack out the fighterbay and put gunz and reactors. The opposite should allso hold true for me, but knowing that  - how can you even claim that I'm "going against canon" and "making impossible thing" when you yourself now now admit that there's no evidence to support either view?
It's up to the side that wans't to forbid or disprove something (that would be you) to prove the other one is wrong, not vice-versa.

Your arrogance here is insulting Trashman.  If you knew anything about debate you'd know that this is hardly always the case.  If you're trying to argue for something new then the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders, not those saying it does not fit and especially not when your main arguments thus far have consisted of a) made up tech, b) your assertions, and c) wet navy analogies that do not even hold up in modern-day warfare.  Honestly.

You're the one not playing fair. A DD with the best tech would be several times as expensive as the best BB you could build.
As I said - fighters are included in a BB's price (and carirers ar the most expensive ships in the world mind you).
the onyl way to disprove that is to acknowledge that we have no idea how mush certain things cost in FS2 and if you do that all of your cost arguments go down the drain

Not a wet navy.  Not a wet navy.  Not a wet navy.  Need I go on?  Freespace != WWII, Freespace != modern day.

And again, I cannot believe that you somehow think you are "winning" this argument.  How can you possibly justify a statement that unilaterally states that a top-of-the-line destroyer would be somehow both less effective in combat and substantially more expensive than a battleship, when the only difference between the two are things that could potentially go the other way.  We don't know how the cost of 100 fighters compares with the fusion reactors that power FS capital ships one way or the other, but the cost of the things that remain the same wildly escillates in the case of a battleship, especially one as elaborate as the one you've concoted.

Not of much use if hte GTVA did a smart thing and blockaded the node with more than just empty air.
Hell, position half your fleet arund the node and NOTHING will get trough (especially if you stand by the assumption that ships must exit the node one by one)

Sathanas.

[TrashMan]

You can't disprove that giant pink wildebeest didn't blow up Capella. Does that mean I can also claim that giant pink wildebeest are feasible in the FS2 universe too? If you're only ever going to go on what was seen in the game you might as well give up right now. What you have to do is infer based on what was seen in the game. That doesn't mean making **** up but it does mean that you point to reasons based on the FS2 universe.

Well, I would never go into such extreems... Of course it can nnot be anything. It has to be at least remotely belivable and must have any firm and direct canon proof that it can't be done.

BB's are remotely belivable. Hell, we seen them in practicly every major space opera and Scfi-fi. The fact that you think they are impossible and useless is irrelevant, as for every person you find that thinks like you I'll find two that think like me..

Actually no. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And the claim that you can pack more weaponary into a ship 1/3 the size of the Colossus is an extrodinary claim. If you want to go with your argument that the side who wants to say something is impossible must disprove something you then have to prove that giant pink wildebeest didn't blow up Capella or accept is as possible within the FS2 universe.

Emphasis on the extraordianary... there's nothing extraordinary about a BB..And I for one have never claimed it packs more weapon than a Collie..

I've never said that a BB is always more expensive than a destroyer. I've said that your BB is more expensive than a normal destroyer because you are using the highest quality versions of everything. That's always going to cost you more. If you're going to say that the GTVA has money to burn making new ship classes for you then I'm going to say it too. After all if you're acknowledging that the cost of both ships is verging on the ridiculous, surely you must also acknowledge that the GTVA wouldn't build destroyers or battleships with the best of everything on board but would instead build a more cost effective version of the ship?

And since oyu have 0 proof of your aleged higher cost that argument is worthless.
How the hell do you nkow that a BB by my specs (or someone elses) would cost more than a DD? You have no idea what tech the DD uses, exactly how much a specific tech cost or for that matter just how expensive it is to mantain a fighter.
and are we talking about long term or short term cost?
Since carriers require more money to operate on a permanent basis - more crew to pay, more supplies and training of fighter pilots is probably expensive too (and I guess theri pay is greater than that of a ordinary crewmember)
Your cost equation is starting to look might different now, does it? ;D

[aldo_14]

Since carriers require more money to operate on a permanent basis - more crew to pay

We've seen numerous times from both cited Freespace 2 crew figures and comparisons of modern day naval vessel crews that particular statement is complete and utter bollocks.  Sobek 6,000 & Hecate/Orion 10,000.