[AlphaOne]

Well i was thinking since we all know that cruisers pretty much suck big time with 2 posible exceptions the Aeoulous and the Lilith (the later beeing a shivan designs wel..err..that moster ahs more firepower then some corvettes so....yeah...) .

The idea and the debate in question is weather the GTVA considering all that was learned from the second shivan incursion, wil they start building dedicated cruisers for front line combat meaning battlecruisers. I mean i believe a good idea in this sense was the Aeolous class cruiser but that ship really needed some more redesigning to make it perfect.


So a slightly bigger and more powerfull variant of cruiser one that can operate along side other bigger warships such as the Deimos and even along destroyers.

I mean we all know that current front line cruisers are not suited for front line action.  Perhaps a 50% increase in they HP and beeing equiped with at least one Mgreen like the one TMan had in mind. Or something that can do more dammage then a slasher but not as much as a BG.

The other class of ships i have in mind is the Monitor class of ships. I mean the monitor class along with the battlecruiser class would really be a huge boost to the GTVA combat potential and would fill in a LOT of gaps.

I mean such ships would be efective in large numbers 4 or more . Equip them with 1 beam cannon and Kairsers and MAxims and Trebs. mount turrets on them to make them more eefective overall. I mean imagine a turret that mounts a Treb laucher a KAiser and a Maxim. With and aditional beam cannon in the front (it can be fixed for ann intents and purpose) . I mean battlecruisers 2 or 3 of them coupled with 3 or 4 wings of monitor calss ships could hold the line against quite a few enemy warships and even take out  a few of them.


So let me hear your opinions sugestions etc.

I honestly believe they would be a huge strategical advantage to the GTVA fleets. Making them that much more versatile and increasing theyr combat abilaty. It would help out to overcome the numerical advantage of the shivans to a degree. Not tip the scales in the favor of the GTVA but it would boost up the GTVA damage potetial 10 times over. Hell it would even help out the GTVA by not commiting large warships like destroyers unless they have no other option.

Also such classes of warships would help the GTVA in the rebuildingprocess and securing the sistems . Sicne they could be massproduced much faster and cheaper then the more expensive destroyer classes and they would be built in a fraction fo the time. This untill the GTVA can get back up to speed.

The monitor classes of ships could be based off the largest bommber classes available to the GTVA with increased HP and shields not to mention more powerfull reactors and engines. Or completely design them alltoghether.

As for the Battlecruiser well they already have the Aeolous as a starting point.

[Wanderer]

Perhaps 'Heavy Cruiser' rather than Battlecruiser... As battlecruisers are derivatives (well historically) of large ships of the line (battleships). Made just by stripping armor and strapping larger engines to the similar hull. A concept that proved to be a failure already at Jutland.. Besides the said Lilith already is a sort of a 'super-Monitor'... basically a small warship (a cruiser) mounted with a single turret or weapon of ship of the line scale often with very light armor and extremely limited secondary armament.

Besides in FS 'upside down' or just weird ship classification system it would probably be logical - well lack of a better word - to make battlecruisers smaller than cruisers and light cruisers larger than the current cruisers...

And mounting fighter weapons on turrets causes the weapons fire at drastically reduced rate of fire. So single fighter mounted twin firepoint Maxim has apx 4 to 5 times the firepower of turret mounted Maxim

[AlphaOne]

Wow this is kinda well....ridiculous. I mean how come turret mounted weapons have less damage then fighter based weapons of the same type. You would expect that with the increased energy at its disposal they would do more dammage.  Also i didnt understand your ships designation there. But the battlecruiser class i mentioned was suposed to be in accordance with the wierd class designations of FS. The said can be said about the proposed Monitor class.

[Wanderer]

That is just the way the game's original developers enforced the classic space opera feel of the FreeSpace. So capital ships - though large and showy - have been given with the exception of beams the worst weapons in the game (on par with Shivan fighter weapons) and then forced to suffer penalty (which depends on difficulty level) to their rate of fire. Essentially its just to make fighters, bombers and dogfights (ie. the player and his efforts) more meaningful.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

I would love a large cruiser, like the Mentu, with 1 BGreen. I'm pretty sure it can be done in the FS universe:

• The Lilith is half as big and twice as powerful. The technological difference GTVA-Shivans is not that big.
• The Iceni is three times as big and three times as powerful.

Theoretically, it would be able to have two Rakshasa's (head-on) or a Moloch for lunch and a Cain afterwards. If there are no fighters around, that is.

[Colonol Dekker]

I'm with all opinions on this thread (so far) but i always wondered why a standardised scale hasn't been implemented. You know size brackets, "if a ship this big it's this class" i thought this due to the fact that a battlecruiser that's larger may fall into the corvette bracket.

[AlphaOne]

Well from what i gather the Sobek is much smaller then the Deimos if im not mistaken . I believe there is a cruiser a shivan cruiser i believe that is just a bit smaller then the Sobek yet it is called a cruiser not a corvette. But im not that sure. Il have to check it out.

[Titan]

theres the GTBC Blade... midway between a cruiser and a corvette. one Mgreen, two Sgreens plus it's terran lasers and flak.

[AlphaOne]

wow that is a bit overkill. I mean such a ship has more firepower then a corvette from its beam cannons. Or rather it matches a corvette in terms of beam firepower. I was thinking something alont the lines of one maybe 2 Mgreens flack missile lauchers and perhaps aaaf beams for the battlecruiser class.

[TrashMan]

A bit difficult to judge given that a MGreen isn't a canon weapon

But yeah, the idea was for it to fit between a corvette and cruiser.

[Woolie Wool]

Perhaps 'Heavy Cruiser' rather than Battlecruiser... As battlecruisers are derivatives (well historically) of large ships of the line (battleships). Made just by stripping armor and strapping larger engines to the similar hull. A concept that proved to be a failure already at Jutland.. Besides the said Lilith already is a sort of a 'super-Monitor'... basically a small warship (a cruiser) mounted with a single turret or weapon of ship of the line scale often with very light armor and extremely limited secondary armament.

Besides in FS 'upside down' or just weird ship classification system it would probably be logical - well lack of a better word - to make battlecruisers smaller than cruisers and light cruisers larger than the current cruisers...

And mounting fighter weapons on turrets causes the weapons fire at drastically reduced rate of fire. So single fighter mounted twin firepoint Maxim has apx 4 to 5 times the firepower of turret mounted Maxim

I thought battlecruisers were cruisers with battleship-grade armament, not battleships that have been stripped down.

[TrashMan]

Battlecruiseres were pocket battleship for a lack of a better word.

Sure, there's a lot of definitions thrown around - light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, light battleship, escort battleships, etc..  - the difference is in 4 crucial factors: Size, Speed, Armor, Firepower

Obviously, cruisers are smaller than BB's so that leaves the other 3 factors to juggle with.
Do you want speed? Or protection? Or firepower? It's extremly hard to get it all in one neatly balanced package so that's why you got so many terms thrown around.

[Wanderer]

These might explain...
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3as.html#tradeoff and http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3as.html#example

I thought battlecruisers were cruisers with battleship-grade armament, not battleships that have been stripped down.

Well.. Given that battlecruisers were generally equal in size to battleships but a lot faster (WW1 era) they were more like stripped down battleships than cruisers. In WW2 era the difference between battlecruisers, fast battleships and battleships (and the plenthora of other myriad class names) gradually disappeared.

[BengalTiger]

there are actually five major dimensions of ship design: armor, guns, speed, endurance (how long between refueling and re provisioning), and command & control (how large the bridge crew is, which boils down to how many different tasks can be done simultaneously)

So if we take away endurance from a Cain, and give it guns, we get a Lilith...
Or we add lots of cost to Cain to get Lilith...

Also speaking of battlecruiser- the GTC Ticonderoga was my first thought upon seeing the thread's title.
And Monitor...  I'll base off with a GTT Argo (30 m/s, 13 500 HP, 2x 2 barrel terran turret).
Let's add some serious armor, and redirect power supply to the turrets, instead of the engines:
Let's say it now has 18 000 HP, 10-15 m/s max speed, and 2 SGreen beams. Voila
Another variation would be to mount Helios launchers, which would mean combat endurance limited by the amount of ammo stored, but also higher top speed.

[Colonol Dekker]

I don't like the term endurance used in that context. From what you say i expected it to mean cargo space. Endurance implies survivability after taking heavy damage.

[TrashMan]

Given that battlecruisers were generally equal in size to battleships but a lot faster (WW1 era) they were more like stripped down battleships than cruisers. In WW2 era the difference between battlecruisers, fast battleships and battleships (and the plenthora of other myriad class names) gradually disappeared.

I wouldn't quite say that. BB's were bigger. The Iowa and Yamato for example. but it depends on the country, they had different limitations. a US Cruiser was bigger than a typical european BB.

[Wanderer]

I don't like the term endurance used in that context. From what you say i expected it to mean cargo space. Endurance implies survivability after taking heavy damage.

AFAIK endurance refers to strength and resilience during continuous stress so it is a good word to describe the ability to remain operational - besides it is quite commonly used for that purpose.

I wouldn't quite say that. BB's were bigger. The Iowa and Yamato for example. but it depends on the country, they had different limitations. a US Cruiser was bigger than a typical european BB.

Well.. first you should really only compare ships of comparable ages and second BB's were not larger, just different.

Say like British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships (Warspite) and Admiral-class battlecruiser (Hood) - both which were build roughly at the same time and were still in use in WW2. In this case the battlecruiser is over 60 m longer, and displaces almost 50% more than the battleship - granted this might be an exception as a brief look at the ships sizes' show battleships and battlecruiser to be very closely of the same size... Iowa and Yamato class ships were completely different breed as they already were battleships with battlecruiser speeds (or battlecruisers without reduced armor protection) and shouldn't really be compared to ships build way before their time.

[BengalTiger]

Iowa and Yamato class ships were completely different breed as they already were battleships with battlecruiser speeds (or battlecruisers without reduced armor protection) and shouldn't really be compared to ships build way before their time.

And that's why there is a class called fast battleship

[AlphaOne]

The only ship that comes close to my battlecruiser designation is the Aelous class cruiser. Small compact and armed to the teeth. However that ship has to do so many things with such awesome weaponry the only downsize i see is its limited survivabilaty. Or rather because they were so powerfull they were designated a prime target by the enemy. Just think a larger more powerfull aeolous class of cruisers  but not in terms of AAAF firepower but anti-cap firepower.

As for the monitor class of ships well using a big arse Argo class transport which is about the size of what a cruiser? It would be pointless. Also leaving aside the size issue there is s mall matter of its speed and manouverabilaty as well as the abilaty to use shields . It has to be fater then any warship out there by a reasonable difference. It has to be able to duck it out with the heavy bommbers of the shivans ...you know those behemots that look are almost as big as a cruiser and they must small enough to be deployed from a destroyer if the need should arrise. I mean if a destroyer can lauch a full wing of fighters/bommber at one there must be room for a single monitor class ship.