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.
I never said that the fihgterbays are exactly as as portrayed them. AS Isaid before, we all operate on a huge number of
assumption and assumed/imagined stuff. Regardless of the layout of the bay it housese 150 spacecraft so it HAS to be big, as it needs more then jsut room to stuff them like sardines. It needs areas for repair, it needs room between the craft so they can be moved and acessed easily and it needs room for spare parts for the ship, rooms to store the guzn and missiles, etc...
Exact size of it is a matter of specualtion, but it IS big.
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.
What I'm saying is a observation 8not really related to this discussion) that volume and shape wise, the orion would make a far better carrier. Look at the Hecates shape and volume and think about it.
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.
I'm not ignoring economics. It's you who are counting every immaginalbe and unimaginable penny to hold against a BB while at the same time totaly ignorin costs of a destroyer and it's fighters..
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.
No, quite the opposite. And you're wrong with the second part. If you have destroyers you'll need more fighters so that the destroyer will carry them. Without DD's youd have fihgters stationed on planets and installations. With DD's you get the same nuimber + those on the DD as well.
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.
Nope. The bigger the glow the bigger the engine behind it. If you'd examine tha archy you'd notice it has 3 (or 5, depending on what version you're looking at) engine clusters - 2 with 2 glows and 1 with 5. And each of those glows is smalelr than hte main engine on the Aquitane, thus the engine behing it is allso smaller. Overall, when packed together it caomes about hte same in volume...
and you should learn to make the difference between the engines (things that produce thrust) and the engine control (which controls and monitors engines), since engine subsystems are exaclty that....or at least I think they are. It makes no sense otherwise for some FS ships.. - IE you shoot at the fron of hte ship to disable the rear engine????
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.
Of course it has. An Orion can take out a Ravana (sometimes). If you have something with more armor and firepower, then you can do it even faster. It takes an Orion 3 salvos MAX to destroy a Ravana..so not nearly 4 minutes..
And if youre following canon, then destroyers launch fighters very slowly. I never seen them launch more then 4-8 fighters/bombers within a minute (unless they are destroyed)
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.
I don't have to prove anything. I don't FEEL I need to prove anything either, as I don't see anything wrng with a BB concept. jsut like this discussion...gives me something to do.
In this scenario there can be no victor. No conclusive and final evidence can be made by either side becouse we simpšly lact enough info. tehre are too many unknowns in the FS universe. You can find 1000 people that will be against it and I can find 1000 that can be for it - it all boil down to preferences in the end.
And your claim of my main argument can be jsut as easily mirriod to you - putting words in my mouth, assertions and dismissal of things that do hold water.
Not a wet navy. Not a wet navy. Not a wet navy. Need I go on? Freespace != WWII, Freespace != modern day.
Some analogies and comparisons do stand, no matter how much you dislike it. Not all, not allways, but some do.
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.
given that fighters posses their own reactors and theri own jump drives, and that there's 120 of them, I would say they cost more. mantainance and crew included. And it's nothing elaborate or uber in it - you guys have a tendency for overblowing thins.
Sathanas.
Would get beam-raped in it's behind by 20 destroyers the second it clears the node.
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.
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!
Honestly, sometimes you're holding to some canon tidbits like a drunk man holds a fence. Tidbits are just that - tidbits. they can't give you a clear overall picture. There's nothing in the FS universe preventing any ship I make ot have a differnt crew number...as long as it isn't grosly different.
b.t.w. - aside from aircraft cost, you allso have mantainance cost, weapons cost, supply cost, fuel cost, and you have to pay the flight crew and the pilots (and pilots prolly have a nice big paycheck). So the running cost will surely be higher.
Oh no you don't. You did, when you said it packed 13 heavy anti-capital weapons. The Colossus had 12. You may not have said "and the battleship will have more weapons than the Colossus!!!111oneoneone" but you sure as hell implied it.
Use your grey calls! Number of weapons is irrelevant - it's their power that's importnat. I did say 13 anti-cap weapons, but that doesn't mean they are BGreens of LRBGreens! Actually most of it's weaponry would be weaker that what you would expect, but their number and FOV more than makes up for that.
But so is your argument that you can fit extra reactors in the space you'd gain from gutting the fighterbay. How much space does armour take up? Reactors? Heat sinks?
I've provided canon proof for every single one of my inferences. You've pointed at other sci-fi shows and said that just cause they have BBs so can you. I've tried to use reasoned arguments from within the FS2 universe. You've repeatedly used wet-navy comparisons that 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. 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.
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...
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the cost of fighters is a lot less than you claimm because your BB is incapable of defending itself fully without relying on fighter cover from other ships. The cost of that fighter cover must also be taken into account as part of the construction and running expense of a BB. You can't pull those fighters out of thin air when you need extra fighters to cover your BB and return them back when you have to explain how much a BB costs.
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.
------------------
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.
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?
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?
