[Mobius]

An immense warship able to house hundreds of wings and even Argo transports is pretty much like a mobile installation.

The Warlocks are the centres of their respective fleet, that's what the description says.

[TrashMan]

If you have 3km long carrier and a 3km long battleship, it obvious that the battleship will have a lot more armor and firepower with little or no fighterbay capacity, while the carrier will have a huge fighterbay capacity.

If you try to tuck everything into both they wouldn't even have a carrier and battleship designations, now would they? You would essentially just be building a bigger destroyer (or a smaller colossus..depends on how you look at it).

[Mobius]

Depends. A carrier could simply have 2x the launch capability of a destroyer or superdestroyer and, given its importance, very special weapons and armor plating.

The name "battleship" doesn't fit well, anyway. Not in FreeSpace, where destroyers and corvettes are bigger than cruisers. "Battleship" can virtually mean everything, names like Dreadnought and Juggernaut would be more appropriate.

[TrashMan]

It doesn't matter how you call it, it basically means - big friggin ships with tons of armor and guns.

And no. If you're claiming that a carrier could match even closely a pure slugger than you thrown logic out of the window, shot it and ran it over with a buick. twice.

[Mobius]

Why not? A carrier could be an armed to the teeth warship WITH a large fighterbay. Try to imagine a design that merges these two capabilities. It's possible.

Comments like yours are expectable if you're stuck on the actual concept of "carrier" ship...

[Kie99]

Why not? A carrier could be an armed to the teeth warship WITH a large fighterbay. Try to imagine a design that merges these two capabilities. It's possible.

Comments like yours are expectable if you're stuck on the actual concept of "carrier" ship...

The design that merges the capabilities is known in Freespace as a Destroyer.

[Gamma_Draconis]

Why not? A carrier could be an armed to the teeth warship WITH a large fighterbay. Try to imagine a design that merges these two capabilities. It's possible.

Comments like yours are expectable if you're stuck on the actual concept of "carrier" ship...

Isn't that basically what the Colossus was? It had the largest fighterbay, the biggest guns, and the toughest hull of any GTVA ship. Too bad we didn't get to see its fighterbay in action much, it always got jammed or sabotaged.

[TrashMan]

Why not? A carrier could be an armed to the teeth warship WITH a large fighterbay. Try to imagine a design that merges these two capabilities. It's possible.

Comments like yours are expectable if you're stuck on the actual concept of "carrier" ship...

The design that merges the capabilities is known in Freespace as a Destroyer.

PWNED!

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The Warlcock should be able to defend itself, but it shouldn't me some asshatting assault carrier like it is used in INFR1. In INFSCP the Warlcock is basically a mobile installation.

The INFR1 Warlock seems incapable of defending itself. It actually had a weak broadside. How annying is that?

An immense warship able to house hundreds of wings and even Argo transports is pretty much like a mobile installation.

The Warlocks are the centres of their respective fleet, that's what the description says.

The Warlock was also supposed to be the most powerful ship in the GTVA arsenal...which it obviously...ISN'T.

It doesn't matter how you call it, it basically means - big friggin ships with tons of armor and guns.

And no. If you're claiming that a carrier could match even closely a pure slugger than you thrown logic out of the window, shot it and ran it over with a buick. twice.

All the large ships in FreeSpace seem to lack armor. They CAN send out a lot of fighters and bombers, but they're not durable enough.

Why not? A carrier could be an armed to the teeth warship WITH a large fighterbay. Try to imagine a design that merges these two capabilities. It's possible.

Comments like yours are expectable if you're stuck on the actual concept of "carrier" ship...

The design that merges the capabilities is known in Freespace as a Destroyer.

You might say that, yes, because if the FreeSpace 2 team were to go into anything more complicated, they would probably have released it a few years after 1999. Seriously, Juggernaut-class is just about as much as they could muster within a year.

[AlphaOne]

While i do agree that dedicated carriers and battleships would be very usefull and needed in FS we have to draw the line between 2 specialized ships and a ship such as the Collie which by all means can do both and better.

Why is it that a Collie is better? Well because it has the fighterbay of a carrier the heavu weapons of a battleship and more of them actualy and has the biggest armour of them both.

However we must be carefull when we talk about dedicated carries and battleships because each would vary in lenghts armour strenght etc.

For example a dedicated GTVA carrier would 2 or more launch bays in order to deploy fighters and bommbers really fast moderate weaponry on it (meaning beam cannons perhaops one or 2 heavy beams and some slashers depends on its size etc.) and decent aaaf defences. Why is it that it would have moderate to low weaponry well beacause its main armamaents is its fighter/bommber compement.

As for a battleships it should have heavier armour on it a very small fighterbay perhaps no more then 10 wings of fighters/bommbers and powerfull aaaf defences. Basicly a ship armed to the teeth with heavy armour and weapons.

Ppl talk about carriers here like something out of this world like there are no such things in FS at least to the specs i read above well we do have them for the love of god they are called DESTROYERS. If you want to make them as stated above then you already have them you just need to improve on them in various aspects . If you are talking dedicated ships then by all means you must give something.

A carrier sacrifices beam firepower and aaaf firepower for a much bigger fighter capacity. A battleship sacrifices fighter/bommber complement for armour and heavy weaponry.

Also the 3 KM long mark is unrealistic as the GTVA will very fast run out of posibilaties or rather space into which they can put everithing they want.

Sure maybe they wont start building Collie size ships very fast but they can go for 3+ KM ships which can be either similar in design to say a Hattie or an Orion besicly a destroyer on steroids. Or they can go for specialized designs or both at the same time.


Also Why does everyone asume the only way to go is bigger when you can also go smaller . There are 2 sides of this and both could be very efective if implemented corectly.

Basicly have a destroyer smaller the 2 km which has the biggest most powerfull engines and reactors available stick the most powerfull beams you can on it add a decent fighterbay to it some advanced tech would help here cuz well even a Hecate and its tech would become somewhat obsolete in about 5 years time beacuse of advancements in tech thanx to better shivan tech understanding.



Also a Dreadnought class IMO should be about 4 km long have a bigger fighterbay then a destroyer yet have massive armour and heavy weaponry on it coupled with good aaaf defences.

Such a ship would be slowere then normal ships but then agoin iot would be able to smash through 2 or more enemy warships at a time and im talking about 2 destroyers plus cruisers and corvettes . Smaller the the Collie not as powerfull or as armoured but still powerfyull enough to take on superior enemy forces and win.

[Snail]

Sorry guys, you're forgetting that Inferno Release 1 was rather stupid. In Inferno SCP, the Warlcock is able to defend itself until it can escape, but Odin superdestroyers are used as the strike ships now, not Warlcocks.

[mr.WHO]

Yup, he's right, in INFR1 Warlock was overpowered (look at mission 2    )


When I talk about BS and Ca, I imagine them as super destroyer size, not a small juggernaut.
In FS2 avi, they said that withing Collosus hull, you could put 12 Lucifers.

Now compare:
6 x Battleships (all have forward firepower of 3xBFGreen)
6 x Carriers (all have a fighterbay of Collosus)

vs

2 x Collosus mk.2 (I decided to put two, coz mk.1 was builded 20 years - so it was already outdated when she was finished - while modern GTVA could build them a bit faster)


another story is a build time:
When you're in war with multi juggernauts, you want new ships as fast as possible.
20y build time Collie is big NO.  in modern shipbuild methods I guess that Collie would be build within 10y.
Collie mk.2 that would be optimized to modern build methods could take 6-8y.

Super destroyer that is only a bit bigger than destroyer would take 1-1.5y to build.

Bigger is better ?? bull****

Every space lord (Space empires 3,4,5,  Master of Orion 2,3, Galactic Civilizations 1,2, Civilisations from 1 to 4) know that mid-size ships are the best.

[Snail]

I think small-sized but heavily-armed ships (Fenrises with MjolnirBeams and Maxims) are the way to go, but they won't be around for the conceivable future (2400+).

[mr.WHO]

Fenris might be too vuneralbe to fighters, but Deimos would be OK and would bit introduced faster (you would have to less minimize beams/reactors than for Fenris).

However, your mention of Uber Fenris, brougth me to point that shivans do have something like that - Lilith, little m******* that can toast even destroyer.

[Snail]

I didn't mean a Fenris, I meant a Fenris-sized ship. Sorry.

[karajorma]

Now compare:
6 x Battleships (all have forward firepower of 3xBFGreen)
6 x Carriers (all have a fighterbay of Collosus)

And that's where you've moved into the realms of fanwanked nonsense. The Colossus doesn't even (as standard) carry one BFGreen and now you're saying that a ship significantly smaller than it is should carry 3?

[c914]

.....It could if he bring about  few Tritons with additional reactors 

[AlphaOne]

well even so such small sized vessels could only have a low HP in order to make them fast enough and mobile enough so as to be efective on the battlefield.

Also such ships would be taken out really fast should they come under fire. So gooing small size or in this case midget size is only viable as long as you have the adequate numbers of mid sized and large size ships to go along.

The Deimos IS IMO one of the least apreciated ships as a cap ship hunter killer ship . The deimos could easely benefit from the same beam cannons the collie uses. Im talking about LRBGreens of 2 BFGReens basicly it should be able to overload 2 BGreens to BFGreens if the situation requires it.

Hoever a much more suited candidate for a mid-sized anti-cap warship would be the Iceni . I mean 3 BG all forward facing to engage the enemy . Perhaps a bit of improvement in size and aaaf defences not too much thougfh and that ship would be a superb ship that should be massproduced.

Hell if i were GTVA command i would stop messing around with new experimental designs and go for what works . The Orion have the R&D boys come up with an improved version of the Orion then mass produce the little moster. Simple deadly somewhat cheap since they would not need to go radical on it they already have proven tech that works just go one lvl up on the existing tech. The shipyards should be able to addapt really fast to the changes. So basicly mass produce Orions, Deimos, Iceni and Hattie's  hell for fun you could even throw Sobek's since they have proven themselfs on the battlefields to be very powerfull little warships.

[mr.WHO]

BFGreen is overloaded BGreen. Collie had problems with reactors (maybe they were old type of reactors) so it couldn't overload them for long.

But if Iceni have 3 BGreen, then I don't seen a problem that modern superdestroyer could have 3x BFGreen as standard fire mode (and maybe LRBGreen as secondary fire mode).

Edit: I mentioned 3 x BFGreen because INF Odin has such beam config.

[Mobius]

Why not? A carrier could be an armed to the teeth warship WITH a large fighterbay. Try to imagine a design that merges these two capabilities. It's possible.

Comments like yours are expectable if you're stuck on the actual concept of "carrier" ship...

The design that merges the capabilities is known in Freespace as a Destroyer.

Oh, really? And what about the Colossus?

Now compare:
6 x Battleships (all have forward firepower of 3xBFGreen)
6 x Carriers (all have a fighterbay of Collosus)

And that's where you've moved into the realms of fanwanked nonsense. The Colossus doesn't even (as standard) carry one BFGreen and now you're saying that a ship significantly smaller than it is should carry 3?

Incredibly correct. The Colossus had to OVERLOAD its reactors to fire BFGreens. To be honest, I don't think that a smaller ship is able to fire a BFGreen more than once.

The design that merges the capabilities is known in Freespace as a Destroyer.

PWNED!

Oh really?

The INFR1 Warlock seems incapable of defending itself. It actually had a weak broadside. How annying is that?

I could say the same of the Sathanas.

The Warlock was also supposed to be the most powerful ship in the GTVA arsenal...which it obviously...ISN'T.

But the GTVA sent a Warlock to deal with the Nemesis. The Odin was scrapped. SOC massive ships were also expensive.

You might say that, yes, because if the FreeSpace 2 team were to go into anything more complicated, they would probably have released it a few years after 1999. Seriously, Juggernaut-class is just about as much as they could muster within a year.

I know that the PSX severely limited Hideo Kojima's plans for the Metal Gear REX but I don't think you're correct.

But if Iceni have 3 BGreen, then I don't seen a problem that modern superdestroyer could have 3x BFGreen as standard fire mode (and maybe LRBGreen as secondary fire mode).

Edit: I mentioned 3 x BFGreen because INF Odin has such beam config.

The Iceni has 3 BGreens only thanks to a glitch. They could be overloaded SGreens(does the Iceni fire an SGreen in Endgame?).

The Odin has 3BFBlue beam cannons, result of advanced research. In Inferno R1 "BF"s are just powerful beams, not overloaded ones.