[Hades]

A corvette does not have LRBgreens...
It has 3-4 Sgreens....

[Eviscerator]

A corvette does not have LRBgreens...
It has 3-4 Sgreens....

I would say a corvette can possess whatever weapon systems the designer believes is necessary for the ship to perform in its assigned role. Limitations being play balance and design logic based on the amount of available space within the hull, available technology for the time period the designer has in mind, power generation capabilities, and crew size (which logically dictates space being reserved for the crew and supplies).

There certainly are not any posted caanon rules that I am aware of that prevent such a weapon from being mounted on this vessel, although logically speaking, the power requirements would probably prevent any other capship beam weapons to be mounted. Consider that the wee little Lilith (caanon) mounts a bloody LRed for much Terran slaughtering goodness, and it's a wee little CRUISER (barely). Personally I always replace that with a SRed in my campaigns, but that's beside the point.

My advice would be for a more balanced weapons battery though.

9 Multi-part Turrets: 2 at the bow, one each on the flat parts. Another 3 along the spine. Another 2 amidships, one each on the flat area just forward of the engines. One each on the two flat area underside. These can mount Heavy Flak, or Heavy Anti-ship Lasers or whatever heavy turret weapons the campaign designer prefers (I use Masers).

A SGreen mounted foward on the lower tower, and one each mounted on the sides, amidship. (Total of 3)

One AAA beam on each side, top, bottom for a total of 4.

Two small multi-part missile launcer turrets, one on top, one on bottom for a medium range AAA missiles.

4 gun ports on each side for standard flak or lasers (8 total)

[BS403]

My suggestion would be to have 3 beam turrets, either two Terslashes and one sgreen or three terslashes. But i guess it really is up to who ever adds the turrets on to the model.

[Hades]

I would say, who ever does tables for it decide...

[Polpolion]

I think whoever is going to turret it should decide. Nevertheless, I dibs the first go at tabling it.

Anyway, let's look at what the Deimos doesn't do, and then fill in that and some more. I personally feel that 4 slashers just don't cut it for anticap power. I'll admit that it suffices for defense, but more is needed to really do stuff. I'd say one to two LRBGreens (Corvettes don't have the thickest of armor, best to engage at range) along with a healthy amount of missiles. Preferably Trebs. Add in a little AAA and flak for defense


AND

2000th post.

[Mad Bomber]

Erm, the Colossus melted its heat sinks with cannons like that. Unless you want to model some heat dispersal arrays (which, in my imagination, sort of look like giant feathers).

...Actually, that would look kinda cool.

But in that situation, tho, you probably wouldn't want armed secondary ordnance onboard (the trebuchets, or flak for that matter) that could blow up from the excessive heat. Twould reduce the need for resupply as well.

[Polpolion]

The Colossus used BFGreens, not LRBgreens. BFGreens are the most powerful Terran beam, IIRC. And the BFGreens were all being overused, according to the comm messages during High Noon. I'm confident that GTVA heat sinks could handle an LRBGreen firing at a standard pace on a corvette. Also, assuming that the GTCv Moscow would be commissioned after Cappella, the GTVA might have better heat sink tech by then.

[Hades]

Well, this is not like 5 years after Capella, this is like 1/2-1 year after or however the person who uses it wants.A corvette with BFgreens?
Listen, the BF/LRBgreens take of space.At least 50 meters.
This a a corvette, you need to balance it, not overpower it.

[Polpolion]

Tell me where in the canon game that LRBGreens take at least 50 meters of space.

EDIT: And just for your information, if LRBGreens were 50m long, there would be plenty of room for it where I suggested it to go, with the corvette at 500m long as BW suggested. And if you think a corvette is overpowered for having a BGreen on it, then look at the Lilith. A cruiser with an LRed on it.

EDIT2: Is it LRBFGreen or LRBGreen?

[Mad Bomber]

Look at the size of the Colossus' beams. Larger than Ursas. It probably goes at least as deep as a Satis freighter is long, and there's probably heat sinks in addition to that.

I'm not saying that a corvette couldn't realistically have one as a main gun, I'm just saying that power requirements and heat dispersal requirements (to say nothing of game balance) ought to leave it less well defended on its other flanks. Particularly from fighters. Hence, personally I would give thumbs down on the trebuchets.

[Polpolion]

Look at it this way: If the Moscow had a long range beam and Trebs, what makes you think that it would be engaging fighters? And the Trebs will not only help against cap ships, but will kill bombers, too. Plus you would have an escort wing or two.

Actually, before we decide on this aspect of the Moscow, I suggest we decide what role it should fill within the fleet. It will be a lot easier to decide the turrets once that has been decided

As you already know, I suggested long range fire support or just plain long range combat. Anti-fighter is already taken up by the Deimos and Aeolus. General combat can easily be filled by the Deimos or Sobek, to. Really, fire support seems like one of the only roles that is not filled in the fleet.

You might be getting into a bit more BOE engagements thinking like this, but just having two or three of these vessels hanging on the fringe of a battle could turn the tide easily. And if your too worried about balance, it's not like fighters can't warp in and disable the gun. Thats why you have an escort wing of Myrms or Perseus something for the Moscow.

[Eviscerator]

Perhaps you have a few points, but your points are made with the assumption that the fleet will always have the resources available to defend this thing from close attack by strike craft and other nastiness. That just is not sound military thinking, or planning, from a designers perspective.

While long range fire-support is indeed a desirable commodity, I find that I simply cannot argue against Mad Bomber's logic, and not because it goes along with what I said earlier, but because his statements reflect a designer's logic that I find to be concrete. If you want to plead your case for LR Beams, you should try presenting arguements of an alternative logic that is at least believable and truely addresses that arguements currently on the table. So far, your remarks seem to merely treat those arguements of balance and logic as though they simply do not matter or are completely irrevelant.

Does the ship really have to have a specialized role? No, it does not. Various corporations create weapon systems that are designed to compete with existing systems all the time. You have any idea how many differant companies have tried to convince the US military to replace the M-16A2/M-4A1 with their new, fancy battle rifle? Tons. The Royal Army has had to put up with the same stuff, as have many others. How many different classes of Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers are there in the US and Royal Navies that perform the same mission? Quite a few. For that matter, does not the Aeolus perform the same role as the Leviathan? Yup. Of course the Aeolus is a bad example since so few were produced, but whatever.

As far as the Trebs, I again agree with MB that they would be a bad idea. Although I doubt heat would be an issue (surely modern cooling devices would prevent problems), in the interest of balance I would re-state my suggestion for a smaller, medium range system. In addition to that, Trebs are quite large as far as missiles go. Logic dictates that the designer must consider space for reloads, as well as the mechanics of actually reloading the weapon system. A significant amount of space on a hull that we are cramming of other stuff into already.

In the end it does not really matter how you choose to table it anyway. I tend to change tables to my own whims and needs so it does not really matter much to me. My only concern at this point is the actual sub-models used for the turrets and how they are placed. In the end it those decisions that open up the true possibilities.

[BS403]

If you want firepower why not use say 3 Bgreens? you don't need LBgreens on a corvette unless there is just one(like the GTCv Nike). Otherwise its over kill.  I'm not sure why i said 3 terslashes, that is weak. But 3 or maybe four Bgreens would be strong along with a few banks of trebs and a some flak and aaa.

[Eviscerator]

Heh.. 3-4 BGreens would not be overkill on a Corvette? The Hectate only has two......

ONE would be plenty, IMO, if any. Personally, I like my cap-ship battles to last awhile. A multi-billion credit ship, that took months (or years) to construct, being cut apart in 3 seconds or less just does not make sense to me.

[BS403]

well first the hecate is meant as more of a fighter carrier then a anti-cap destroyer. Second 3 Bgreens would be less over kill then two LBgreens one a corvette. and third the hecate sucks at anti-cap.

[Polpolion]

Perhaps you have a few points, but your points are made with the assumption that the fleet will always have the resources available to defend this thing from close attack by strike craft and other nastiness. That just is not sound military thinking, or planning, from a designers perspective.
According to the Wiki, an orion has anywhere from 96 to 120 fighters on board. When this corvette is deployed, it's not going to be sent off on it's own to do whatever. It would be either held back at base and sent in to back up cap ship engagements, or attached to destroyer groups. Out of that 96 fighter compliment, It's reasonable to assume that 8 fighters could be specifically sent to guard a single Moscow during a battle

While long range fire-support is indeed a desirable commodity, I find that I simply cannot argue against Mad Bomber's logic, and not because it goes along with what I said earlier, but because his statements reflect a designer's logic that I find to be concrete. If you want to plead your case for LR Beams, you should try presenting arguements of an alternative logic that is at least believable and truely addresses that arguements currently on the table. So far, your remarks seem to merely treat those arguements of balance and logic as though they simply do not matter or are completely irrevelant.
This is a discussion about the turrets of the Moscow, not how I debate.

Does the ship really have to have a specialized role? No, it does not. Various corporations create weapon systems that are designed to compete with existing systems all the time. You have any idea how many differant companies have tried to convince the US military to replace the M-16A2/M-4A1 with their new, fancy battle rifle? Tons. The Royal Army has had to put up with the same stuff, as have many others. How many different classes of Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers are there in the US and Royal Navies that perform the same mission? Quite a few. For that matter, does not the Aeolus perform the same role as the Leviathan? Yup. Of course the Aeolus is a bad example since so few were produced, but whatever.
You see, the M-16 is a rifle, not a warship. And I'm sure that there are plenty of multi-role vessels in today's relatively peaceful navies. Except GTVA fleets operate in space and function almost entirely different from today's naval fleets. And no, the Aeolus does not fill the same role as the Leviathan. The leviathan is a bit more of a general purpose ship (plus it's a retrofit), and the Aeolus is more of an anti-fighter escort ship (hence why it's faster).


As far as the Trebs, I again agree with MB that they would be a bad idea. Although I doubt heat would be an issue (surely modern cooling devices would prevent problems), in the interest of balance I would re-state my suggestion for a smaller, medium range system. In addition to that, Trebs are quite large as far as missiles go. Logic dictates that the designer must consider space for reloads, as well as the mechanics of actually reloading the weapon system. A significant amount of space on a hull that we are cramming of other stuff into already.
You have a point here, and I won't deny it. Could the amount of Treb turrets be limited to say, two, and be restricted for purely anti-bomber use? Balance is the main issue, but it's not like the Fusion Mortar on the Fenris/Leviathan cruiser takes up less room, and you see how liberal they are with the firing of those...

In the end it does not really matter how you choose to table it anyway. I tend to change tables to my own whims and needs so it does not really matter much to me. My only concern at this point is the actual sub-models used for the turrets and how they are placed. In the end it those decisions that open up the true possibilities.
I'll table it the way the community wants it, maybe with a little input by me, but it's not my project. And nothing is preventing anyone from tinkering with the loadouts to use it in their campaigns, as the ship will belong to the entire community.

And why does it seem like people thought I wanted to put multiple LRBGreens on it? All I ever stated was a single one for fire support purposes, and the only person who even bothered to mention that purpose at all was Eviscerator.


EDIT: What we really need is some kind of LRMGreen with a range of like 5500-6500m. That would eliminate the balancing issues with the power very nicely, IMHO.

[BS403]

Sorry i thougt you said two LRBGreen. But i think that is a good idea to have LRMgreens.  That would solve a lot of issues.

[Eviscerator]

According to the Wiki, an orion has anywhere from 96 to 120 fighters on board. When this corvette is deployed, it's not going to be sent off on it's own to do whatever. It would be either held back at base and sent in to back up cap ship engagements, or attached to destroyer groups. Out of that 96 fighter compliment, It's reasonable to assume that 8 fighters could be specifically sent to guard a single Moscow during a battle.

That's funny. My FS:GW manual says 72, but that's irrelevant. Consider these simple points: 1) Attrition, and Shivans and other enemies are excellent at causing it. 2) Half of that number will be bomber and strike craft, leaving 36 actual fighters. At least that is how it's done in a contemporary navy, and we have no reason to believe that the GTVA (or whoever) would do anything different. 3) Space is VAST. Our own little solar system is considered to contain a few hundred TRILLION cubic miles of space within what NASA calls Sol's "immediate range of influence." That's a lot of space where anything can happen to turn up, which means your limited assets just got more limited.

I am certainly not suggesting that this ship should be armed such a way as to be invulnerable, quite the opposite, but I stand by my point that relying 90-100% on fighter protection is just poor planning.

This is a discussion about the turrets of the Moscow, not how I debate.

How you present your arguments is at least as important as the argument itself. Anyone trained and skilled in presentation will tell you that. You may have the most airtight argument in the world, but presented poorly, it loses at least 80% of it's effectiveness. Notice how you adjusted your approach and received a more favorable response.

You see, the M-16 is a rifle, not a warship.

I am well aware of what an M-16 is. I carried one for many years. The analogy still stands.

And I'm sure that there are plenty of multi-role vessels in today's relatively peaceful navies. Except GTVA fleets operate in space and function almost entirely different from today's naval fleets.

First, you missed the point. Second, peaceful or not is completely irrelevant. As a veteran I can tell you that when you build an armed force, you always do so with the mind that it could, and most likely will, go to war. But you should not need to be a veteran to know this. It should be screamingly obvious. Third, why shouldn't the GTVA Navy function like a wet water navy? How are they different? With the exception of operating in three-dimensional space, jumping to distant star systems via a fictional subspace, and the completely screwed up class names for their ships, they operate and function pretty much the same way. I will not waste your time with a endless string of examples.

 And no, the Aeolus does not fill the same role as the Leviathan. The leviathan is a bit more of a general purpose ship (plus it's a retrofit),

Certainly it fullfills generally the same role in fleet combat. How do they not? The Leviathan being a refit is completely irrelevant. It is still doing the same job it did previously. I could see the refit being revelant if it's role completely changed.

and the Aeolus is more of an anti-fighter escort ship (hence why it's faster).

Faster is a good point, but that statement is really just an opinion. Considering that she's packing more beams than any other Terran canon ship of her class, I would disagree. IIRC it was built to possibly replace the Levvy. IOW it was in direct competition with her. This perfectly illustrates my point about what the Moscow could be. A new, more advanced competitor to the Deimos.


You have a point here, and I won't deny it. Could the amount of Treb turrets be limited to say, two, and be restricted for purely anti-bomber use? Balance is the main issue, but it's not like the Fusion Mortar on the Fenris/Leviathan cruiser takes up less room, and you see how liberal they are with the firing of those...

I'll buy that for a dollar. I would still like to see multi-part turrets for the system though. It looks so much nicer, don't you agree?

I once saw an illustration that Dark did a long time ago of the Fusion Motor system. The way he saw it, the system took up practically that entire lower spine of the ship. Makes a lot of sense to me, and goes along with my original point.


EDIT: What we really need is some kind of LRMGreen with a range of like 5500-6500m. That would eliminate the balancing issues with the power very nicely, IMHO.

That is a good idea. I think I will do that.

well first the hecate is meant as more of a fighter carrier then a anti-cap destroyer.   .

It says this where? If you has said "Orion" I would agree.

and third the hecate sucks at anti-cap

That depends entirely on how you arm it. Those big turrets are great for mounting heavy rail guns. Why does everything have to be beam focused anyway??? A lot of you guys seem to be obsessed with them. Maybe you are compensating for something?

Personally, I nerf beams in my work. Little less power, longer cool-down time. More powerful battery weapons. Makes it so much more fun when cap-ships slug it out over time rather than vaporize each other in seconds.

[colecampbell666]

well first the hecate is meant as more of a fighter carrier then a anti-cap destroyer.   .

It says this where? If you has said "Orion" I would agree.

The Hecate carries more fighters and has relatively weak anti-capship weaponry.

[Polpolion]

More colors! Wee!

According to the Wiki, an orion has anywhere from 96 to 120 fighters on board. When this corvette is deployed, it's not going to be sent off on it's own to do whatever. It would be either held back at base and sent in to back up cap ship engagements, or attached to destroyer groups. Out of that 96 fighter compliment, It's reasonable to assume that 8 fighters could be specifically sent to guard a single Moscow during a battle.

That's funny. My FS:GW manual says 72, but that's irrelevant. Consider these simple points: 1) Attrition, and Shivans and other enemies are excellent at causing it. 2) Half of that number will be bomber and strike craft, leaving 36 actual fighters. At least that is how it's done in a contemporary navy, and we have no reason to believe that the GTVA (or whoever) would do anything different. 3) Space is VAST. Our own little solar system is considered to contain a few hundred TRILLION cubic miles of space within what NASA calls Sol's "immediate range of influence." That's a lot of space where anything can happen to turn up, which means your limited assets just got more limited.

I am certainly not suggesting that this ship should be armed such a way as to be invulnerable, quite the opposite, but I stand by my point that relying 90-100% on fighter protection is just poor planning.
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. 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. 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.

This is a discussion about the turrets of the Moscow, not how I debate.

How you present your arguments is at least as important as the argument itself. Anyone trained and skilled in presentation will tell you that. You may have the most airtight argument in the world, but presented poorly, it loses at least 80% of it's effectiveness. Notice how you adjusted your approach and received a more favorable response.

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.

You see, the M-16 is a rifle, not a warship.

I am well aware of what an M-16 is. I carried one for many years. The analogy still stands.

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

And I'm sure that there are plenty of multi-role vessels in today's relatively peaceful navies. Except GTVA fleets operate in space and function almost entirely different from today's naval fleets.

First, you missed the point. Second, peaceful or not is completely irrelevant. As a veteran I can tell you that when you build an armed force, you always do so with the mind that it could, and most likely will, go to war. But you should not need to be a veteran to know this. It should be screamingly obvious. Third, why shouldn't the GTVA Navy function like a wet water navy? How are they different? With the exception of operating in three-dimensional space, jumping to distant star systems via a fictional subspace, and the completely screwed up class names for their ships, they operate and function pretty much the same way. I will not waste your time with a endless string of examples.

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

 And no, the Aeolus does not fill the same role as the Leviathan. The leviathan is a bit more of a general purpose ship (plus it's a retrofit),

Certainly it fullfills generally the same role in fleet combat. How do they not? The Leviathan being a refit is completely irrelevant. It is still doing the same job it did previously. I could see the refit being revelant if it's role completely changed.
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.

and the Aeolus is more of an anti-fighter escort ship (hence why it's faster).

Faster is a good point, but that statement is really just an opinion. Considering that she's packing more beams than any other Terran canon ship of her class, I would disagree. IIRC it was built to possibly replace the Levvy. IOW it was in direct competition with her. This perfectly illustrates my point about what the Moscow could be. A new, more advanced competitor to the Deimos.

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.


You have a point here, and I won't deny it. Could the amount of Treb turrets be limited to say, two, and be restricted for purely anti-bomber use? Balance is the main issue, but it's not like the Fusion Mortar on the Fenris/Leviathan cruiser takes up less room, and you see how liberal they are with the firing of those...

I'll buy that for a dollar. I would still like to see multi-part turrets for the system though. It looks so much nicer, don't you agree?

I once saw an illustration that Dark did a long time ago of the Fusion Motor system. The way he saw it, the system took up practically that entire lower spine of the ship. Makes a lot of sense to me, and goes along with my original point.


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?

EDIT: What we really need is some kind of LRMGreen with a range of like 5500-6500m. That would eliminate the balancing issues with the power very nicely, IMHO.

That is a good idea. I think I will do that.
Ok.

well first the hecate is meant as more of a fighter carrier then a anti-cap destroyer.   .

It says this where? If you has said "Orion" I would agree.

and third the hecate sucks at anti-cap

That depends entirely on how you arm it. Those big turrets are great for mounting heavy rail guns. Why does everything have to be beam focused anyway??? A lot of you guys seem to be obsessed with them. Maybe you are compensating for something?

Personally, I nerf beams in my work. Little less power, longer cool-down time. More powerful battery weapons. Makes it so much more fun when cap-ships slug it out over time rather than vaporize each other in seconds.
[/quote]

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.