[Eviscerator]

More colors! Wee!

I'll stay with purple if that's ok.

Sorry about the mis-information; I didn't have the manual as a resource, just looked on the wiki. 1) As stated in the final cutscene, the GTVA is unsure whether they will ever see the Shivans again, but looked at what happened to them last time.

Is that relevant? My point was that any enemy can inflict attrition. Does it matter if it is Shivans, or someone else? Besides, lots of campaigns have come out that revisit the Shivans as the prime menace.

2) I always got the feeling that the ratio of fighters to bombers was about 3 to 2 in FS. Either way, AFAIK, there is no canon evidence that supports either side.

Semantics. Let's call it a dead issue. The exact ratio does not contribute that much to the discussion.

3)I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make in response to my post, so I'm not gonna touch that one.

I was reinforcing my argument that you cannot depend on fighter protection, and doing so is foolish.

Watch this: Hey, I really don't like how you're detracting from the overall purpose of this thread. Sure I could stand the arguments elsewhere in this post, but this is off topic. Everything else in your post at least somewhat correlates to the discussion.

I'm terribly sorry I hurt your feelings, but that point was made in response to how you treated mine and Mad Bomber's arguments as though they were completely a non-factor. Considering that those arguments were quite sound, I did not appreciate it in the slightest.

In addition, everything in my post directly correlates to the discussion. "Somewhat" indeed!

I don't know what your trying to do with the m16 analogy, so I'm not gonna say anything.

The analogy was simple: Rival corporations will always try to convince governments that their current weapons technology is not up to par, and will not be unless they purchase said corporation's gee-cool-whiz-bang-new-product. Refer to the Moscow vs. Deimos analogy.

Those are some pretty big things your listing there. Whether you realize it or not, Freespace space combat is very different from water naval combat. Just compare how navies fight each other and how FS ships fight each other. I'll admit that they are slightly similar,

What I realize is that maneuver is very different. Terrain conditions are very different. Weather is very different. Space is a hostile environment where instead of hurricanes and rain squalls, it will be radiation storms, etc. that will interfere with naval operation. In addition, space combat would take place in 360 degrees, but I already said that. Since you have the subject pegged perhaps you could enlighten us?

I see great similarities within this context:

Water navies form battle groups with large combat ships such as battleships or carriers at the fore, escorted by smaller combat ships. The large ships provide the punch, the smaller ones protect them from counterattack. Space navies in FS: Same thing.

Water navies use fighters to protect their airspace from attack, and strike craft to provide punch at a distance. Space navies in FS: Same thing.

Water navies in pre WWII, and yet also in many battles during WW2, said fleets and battlegroups would pound each other senseless with very large guns. Space navies in FS: Same thing.

Water navies during and post WW2 leave it to their fighters and strike craft to do most of the work. Space Navies in FS: OMG same thing x10. Unless you are playing one of many beam obsessed mod campaigns. In which case a couple a "capship" no larger than two buses welded together will do all the work with 12 BFGreens while you sit back and watch. OK, that's an exaggeration, but not by much.

I think that is enough examples. I'm getting bored... and I am starting to use contractions. Sure sign of boredom.

but if water navy evolves into space navy, in 300 years, it will change more than all the other current forms of military.

Now that I will agree with. Although.... if my great-great-great-great-grandson follows my footsteps and becomes an Airborne Rang------- uhhh........ Space Ranger... he will probally be using a jet-pack and a death-ray instead of a '203 and parachute.....in space even! That could be different.

Okay, I choose my words poorly: The Leviathan is an old ship, and is more and more losing it's relative effectiveness compared to newer vessels. If they toned down the Aeolus a bit with all the flak, maybe change those turrets to Large laser turrets, it would probably be cheaper (flak uses a lot of expensive ammunition, or at least the kind that are in FS looks like) and more producible.

That is a good point, although you would be surprised how cheap ammunition can be..... of course, they use a lot so...... nevermind. Another point to consider is that lasers are not "magic". They take quite a bit of power to do damage. Power generation takes up space. Capacitors to store it do also. And we have no idea how much maintenance on that equipment will cost 300 years in the future. Still, I see your point, and it is a good one. No question laser weaponry is more efficient. But they don't make those pretty explosions!

Let me rephrase again: the armament of the Aeolus leans towards the anti-fighter role. Sure, it's got two SGreens, but they are really not all that effective. And I see your point with the Deimos, and wish you could have said it earlier. I just think the Deimos is a bit to new and is efficient enough to need a replacement or "better" version of for that matter, unlike the Leviathan, which has been in use since IIRC the early Great War.

Good points, but for the Deimos: What is the time-period focus for the Moscow? We may decide that it is a ship constructed 60 years after the close of the 2nd war. In which case......

I must see this picture. And are you referring to "side" multi-part turrets? The ones that IIRC only work in FSO, or don't work in FSO yet?

I'll look for it. And no. If you check out my earlier post I said multi-part launcher turrets, one on top, one on bottom. Check out some of the terran ships up at HC and you will see some with box launcher missile turrets.

Ammunition takes up a lot of room, and you need much larger caliber slugs to deal as much damage as a beam, and larger slugs are more expensive and bigger. And anyway, the weapons of the Hecate implies it's role. It canonically has few BGreens and a large fighter capacity.

Beam weaponry takes enormous power to generate, and the damage done by FS energy weaponry is immeasurably greater than that done by current-gen weapons, thus the power requirements will be immeasurably greater as well. A current gen laser system, with power generation equipment, capacitors, etc is so large that it takes up three 58 foot semitrailers. And after all of that, it only produces the damage potential to destroy a missile or aircraft. A 20mm Phalanx CIWS about the size of a walk-in closet can do the same job. Granted, in 300 years power generation and the equipment needed to produce an energy based weapon will be greatly advanced, but the requirements to do the kind of damage we see in FS will greatly offset this.

I would not be concerned about the cost of ammunition for a rail gun system. While the power requirements for the system will also be enormous, the ammo is just a solid slug propelled down rails mounting electromagnets. There is no propellant and casings. Ammo can easily and cheaply be cast. The Army is testing a 120mm rail system that is using tungsten-tipped slugs. Each slug only costs 12 USD to produce.

Anyway, this conversation is getting extremely boorish. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and lay it to rest.

[Polpolion]

Anyway, this conversation is getting extremely boorish. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and lay it to rest.

Just a couple more things, okay?

More colors! Wee!

I'll stay with purple if that's ok.

Sorry about the mis-information; I didn't have the manual as a resource, just looked on the wiki. 1) As stated in the final cutscene, the GTVA is unsure whether they will ever see the Shivans again, but looked at what happened to them last time.

Is that relevant? My point was that any enemy can inflict attrition. Does it matter if it is Shivans, or someone else? Besides, lots of campaigns have come out that revisit the Shivans as the prime menace.

Remember, the Shivans would be pretty much the only race capable of even thinking about a war of attrition; the GTVA fleet and economy is decimated and most likely decimated respectivly.

3)I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make in response to my post, so I'm not gonna touch that one.

I was reinforcing my argument that you cannot depend on fighter protection, and doing so is foolish.

I never said that the Moscow couldn't decent anti-fighter defenses, but just like every other capitol ship, it operates much more effectively with a fighter escort. Even I agree that depending solely on fighters for defense is stupid. Maybe if it was just some cheap gun on an engine, you could get away with it, but not a corvette.



In addition, everything in my post directly correlates to the discussion. "Somewhat" indeed!
By disscussion, I meant the Moscow, and I'm sure you'll admit that both of us got a bit off topic at one point or another.

I don't know what your trying to do with the m16 analogy, so I'm not gonna say anything.

The analogy was simple: Rival corporations will always try to convince governments that their current weapons technology is not up to par, and will not be unless they purchase said corporation's gee-cool-whiz-bang-new-product. Refer to the Moscow vs. Deimos analogy.

I always over think analogies.

Those are some pretty big things your listing there. Whether you realize it or not, Freespace space combat is very different from water naval combat. Just compare how navies fight each other and how FS ships fight each other. I'll admit that they are slightly similar,

What I realize is that maneuver is very different. Terrain conditions are very different. Weather is very different. Space is a hostile environment where instead of hurricanes and rain squalls, it will be radiation storms, etc. that will interfere with naval operation. In addition, space combat would take place in 360 degrees, but I already said that. Since you have the subject pegged perhaps you could enlighten us?

I see great similarities within this context:

Water navies form battle groups with large combat ships such as battleships or carriers at the fore, escorted by smaller combat ships. The large ships provide the punch, the smaller ones protect them from counterattack. Space navies in FS: Same thing.

Water navies use fighters to protect their airspace from attack, and strike craft to provide punch at a distance. Space navies in FS: Same thing.

Water navies in pre WWII, and yet also in many battles during WW2, said fleets and battlegroups would pound each other senseless with very large guns. Space navies in FS: Same thing.

Water navies during and post WW2 leave it to their fighters and strike craft to do most of the work. Space Navies in FS: OMG same thing x10. Unless you are playing one of many beam obsessed mod campaigns. In which case a couple a "capship" no larger than two buses welded together will do all the work with 12 BFGreens while you sit back and watch. OK, that's an exaggeration, but not by much.

I think that is enough examples. I'm getting bored... and I am starting to use contractions. Sure sign of boredom.

From what it sounds like, your thinking in the big picture maybe a bit logistical, while I am taking in a more small scale sense, too. Ex. lasers are more powerful and fire slower than WWII MGs, there is less of a requirement for fighter/fighter missiles than in current modern combat. Fighters are larger, have sheilds. All ships have different modes of propulsion than back then, etc.


Let me rephrase again: the armament of the Aeolus leans towards the anti-fighter role. Sure, it's got two SGreens, but they are really not all that effective. And I see your point with the Deimos, and wish you could have said it earlier. I just think the Deimos is a bit to new and is efficient enough to need a replacement or "better" version of for that matter, unlike the Leviathan, which has been in use since IIRC the early Great War.

Good points, but for the Deimos: What is the time-period focus for the Moscow? We may decide that it is a ship constructed 60 years after the close of the 2nd war. In which case......

I envisioned it as something with it's maiden "flight" anywhere from 3 to 10 years after Cappella


I must see this picture. And are you referring to "side" multi-part turrets? The ones that IIRC only work in FSO, or don't work in FSO yet?

I'll look for it. And no. If you check out my earlier post I said multi-part launcher turrets, one on top, one on bottom. Check out some of the terran ships up at HC and you will see some with box launcher missile turrets.

Oh! Those! I get what you're talking about now!

Ok. I'm done .

[Fearless Leader]

AGH!

my eyes hurt from reading all of that

On topic: couldnt you just set up turrets and let whoever makes a campaign decide how its armed?

or, since this is a group thing, everyone arms one then everyone votes on what one fits the best?

But why not keep it going? let the next person arm it....

[BS403]

Yar, Lets stop all this arguing and somebody make this ship!

[TrashMan]

AGH!
me eyes hurt from readin' all o' wot

I share ye pain

On topic: couldnt ye just set up turrets an' let whoever makes a campaign decide how its armed?

And have tiny flak come out of massive beam cannon turrets or massive beams out of tiny little lazer turrets?

or, since this 'ere is a group thin', everyone arms one then everyone votes on what one fits th' best? 

But why not keep it goin'?  let th' next person arm it....

that might be the best solution...or utter Doom(TM)

[Eviscerator]

On topic: couldnt ye just set up turrets an' let whoever makes a campaign decide how its armed?

That were bein' goin' t' be me final suggestion on this 'ere topic.  I think it is a good idea.  Granted Trashman's scenario is a possibility, but someone who knows what their doin' should not make wot mistake.
 Fire the cannons, and a bottle of rum!
Now on with th' pirate-speak!

[Fearless Leader]

 

I fear this thread is dieing.

[Eviscerator]

Who had the potato last?

I started on some new scratch-built textures, but they are really just an experiment until it is turreted.

[Snail]

Please not let die this do.

[Vasudan Admiral]

Dead it not is. And crikey - enough with the boring armaments talk you lot. Two and a half pages or so with no updates!






As you can see, fairly big changes to the engines and topside front. As cool as Turambar's engines were, they didn't quite seem to fit too well with the ship width wise - I remember Bobboau saying at one point that a ships front should never be bigger than it's rear, and I've found that is usually quite correct. So I gave it a bigger butt.

I also modified Water's bridge - the straight up and down tower didn't fit the rest of the ships profile.

There is still a lot of room for development - tons of space for more detail, and a front underside that I reckon really needs a revamp.

[attachment deleted by ninja]

[Fearless Leader]

 
nice!

But there was a while between the last two posts.

:EDIT:

Maybe there is a way to combine the issue of weapons with this...

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,45239.0/topicseen.html
 

[Hades]

VA, your modeling skills, KILL!

[Eviscerator]

Very nice! I'm concened that there many not be enough top-side flat areas for turrets, however. Thoughts?

VA: The weapons issue is important, though! Without effective weaponry, you've only created a new ship  Carnival Cruises! Trip to the rings of Saturn anyone?     

[Hades]

I am a temping to turret this as we speak.7 so far.
Oh and

[asyikarea51]

LoL, we need more tourist ships!

Anyways... looks like an oversized assault rifle to me with some hangar launch bay up front ala INFR1 Segomo. Bound to ramble on and on, so I might as well be brief on what I think of it.

Yep, my thoughts. (I still can't believe that's Blender. )

[Eviscerator]

Oh I agree that we need more civilian ships. Nothing dresses up the immersive quality of a campaign better than than the tiny components that actually make a player feel like they a small part of a much larger stage production.

BUT: What I have been more concerned with is logistics. You've probably noticed the insane number of different freighters and containers available, both canon and community, and most are not capatible with one another thus creating a logistics nightmare! How do you get supplies to a warship out in the field? How do you get this container from here to there when there is only one type of freighter that is capatible with it and none are available? So me and Mr. Notebook have been trying to figure this out for a couple weeks. The only real answer to the problem is redoing those objects catagorized with logistics.

Of course, I realize that some people are going to believe that this is an absurb and completely un-important detail, but you have to consider what makes campaigns successful, and games in a much wider scale of the games market for that matter: Immersion. Games with a high quantity of immersion are not only the most successful games, but are the ones that have players coming back to them again and again, even years later. And immersion requires paying attention to details. Details, details details. Promoting attention to these details as modders not only improves FS as a whole, but gives campaign builders the tools needed to build even better campaigns, which again improves FS as a whole. Of course, a lot of what the SCP does is making improvements to details and tools for campaigns, but things like improving the quality of civilian shipping seems to go unoticed.

I realize this is sort of off topic, I only mention it here because that conversation was kinda going that direction anyway. The Moscow is a community project that the whole community has gotten behind, and I think improving the details behind FS as a whole should be one too. Perhaps a new, dedicated thread should be started where these matters can be discussed in detail. I think it's worth our time.

[colecampbell666]

Well said. I have been thinking the same thing. I mean, there have to be more civvy transports than the Elysium. Likewise with freighters, all of them are military.

[Vasudan Admiral]

I am a temping to turret this as we speak.7 so far.
Oh and

Err, don't actually place the turrets on it yet, since I don't think the modelling needs to end here. Besides, turreting something up before it's textured (or even UVmapped) just makes the texturers job much harder.

[Hades]

I have no idea about texturing, so this is new to me.

[Black Wolf]

Well, no updates in nearly two weeks, I guess it's safe to call it finished? I've been away for awhile recently, but I should have a little time coming up - if nobody wants to make any changes, I'll at least start UVMapping VA's version.