Author Topic: Smaller carrier vessels?  (Read 14677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SF-Junky

  • 29
  • Bread can mold, what can you do?
Smaller carrier vessels?
Destroyers are very powerful, but very expensive ships. They are flagships, the créme da la créme of the fleet. The mothers of space faring war machine... and the only ships in FS that can carry fighters and bombers. But isn't that kinda stupid? I mean, if a fleet loses its destroyer(s) it hasn't any fighter and bomber support left at all. E.g. Koths invasion fleet in EP: After they have lost the Normandy and the Repulse, the remaining forces were on their own - and had to surrender.

I think [V] should have added one smaller carrier type vessel to any species.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 12:08:01 pm by SF-Junky »

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
um...
SCv Moloch?
'Teeth of the Tiger' - campaign in the making
Story, Ships, Weapons, Project Leader.

 

Offline SF-Junky

  • 29
  • Bread can mold, what can you do?
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
um...
SCv Moloch?
:rolleyes:
I'm sure you know what I mean...

 

Offline Mobius

  • Back where he started
  • 213
  • The Lightblue Ribbon
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • The Lightblue Ribbon | Cultural Project
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
That "créme"...uhm...I'm hungry...

You're right. Not only the number of spacecraft a faction can bring into a certain theatre of operation is incredibly low but leaves an immense number of spacecraft...without a mobile base.

Quote
XSTR("Learning a lesson from the bomber losses of the Great War, Vasudan defense contractor Akheton designed the GVB Bakha, a fast, agile bomber that could still deliver a warship-shattering payload. The Bakha's dual Akh-12 engines are baffled and masked, giving it a small profile for heat-seeking missiles. The bomber's speed and maneuverability make it the craft of choice for taking out destroyers and corvettes with multiple flak, AAA, and anti-ship beam turrets. Over 6,000 Bakhas have been produced in the orbiting shipyards around Vasuda Prime.", 3116)

Where are they? That number's too high even for outposts!

um...
SCv Moloch?

Able to carry just one wing? Nah...

 

Offline Zoltan

  • 26
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Not much to discuss there, Volition didn't want smaller ships to have fighter bays, and that's the way it is. You should take into account though that fighters are pretty large ships, and there really isn't that much room relatively in a corvette. I mean what could it hold, one wing? I say it's not worth it for the combat effectivness you would likely be losing.


um...
SCv Moloch?

Yes, and that vessel sucks; it is the proof you need that smaller vessels shouldn't hold fighters or bombers.
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." - Groucho Marx

 

Offline Mobius

  • Back where he started
  • 213
  • The Lightblue Ribbon
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • The Lightblue Ribbon | Cultural Project
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
One of :v:'s errors. You know, FS isn't always perfect.

 

Offline Zoltan

  • 26
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
One of :v:'s errors. You know, FS isn't always perfect.

Well you have the Moloch as precedence, it is the only Shivan vessel that is decisively inferior to its counterparts. Perhaps the GTVA experimented with smaller vessels acting as fighter and bomber platforms, but we'll never know...
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." - Groucho Marx

 

Offline SF-Junky

  • 29
  • Bread can mold, what can you do?
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Well you have the Moloch as precedence, it is the only Shivan vessel that is decisively inferior to its counterparts.
The Moloch doesn't suck because its fighterbay would be too small. It sucks because of its stupid (standard) armarment and its poor turret armor.

I am not talking about corvettes here or if they should have equiped them with a hangar. My point is that there aren't any smaller vessels, specialized to carry fighters and bombers into a combat zone. Some counterpart to the cruisers and corvettes quasi.

Cruisers/Corvettes -> fight
Carrier -> carry combat craft
Destroyer -> both

 

Offline Mobius

  • Back where he started
  • 213
  • The Lightblue Ribbon
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • The Lightblue Ribbon | Cultural Project
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I think the Moloch should've had at least one LRed. Maybe people at :v: removed it.

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Actually, I seem to recall the technical jargon claiming it was only classed as a Cv because it was too big to be a cruiser?

 

Offline Mobius

  • Back where he started
  • 213
  • The Lightblue Ribbon
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • The Lightblue Ribbon | Cultural Project
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
That brings back the "strike cruiser" concept...

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Axem made a cargo container that holds fighters at some point

As for the Moloch
Quote from:  FS2 Demo Tech Room Description
This big Shivan Mama is loaded with turrety goodness. Moloch is the name of another larger form of Aeshma, a many armed, many weaponed Indian goddess.
Quote from: FS2 Tech Room Description
Only one class of Shivan ship is classified as a corvette - the SCv Moloch class. Though they're physically as large as the GTCv Deimos class, Molochs do not seem to pack the same punch. They are far more deadly than any Shivan cruisers, however.

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
see, why couldn't they have kept it like that?  :lol:
Sig nuked! New one coming soon!

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The Aeolus had a better one

 

Offline blowfish

  • 211
  • Join the cult of KILL MY ROUTER!!!!!!!!!!1
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I think the Moloch should've had at least one LRed

I always thought it would be cool for it to have a beam in its "eye" (especially on the HTL one)

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I dont think the Moloch was something to be looked at like a lone ship that can launch operations and engage enemy fleets solo. Its more like a ship that would deploy in pairs so they could cover each other or complement a small fleet that had no fighter support
Fat people are harder to kidnap :ha:

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I think the Moloch should've had at least one LRed

I always thought it would be cool for it to have a beam in its "eye" (especially on the HTL one)
Then it would be too good.

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I think the Moloch was designed more with the game in mind than the storyline, I suspect a Moloch armed like a Deimos would quite easily take down a couple of Destroyers, it would have been too powerful.

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I'm always conflicted about FreeSpace

I understand that the story requires some ships of the same type to be better than others...

But part of me wants some asymmetric balance, eg the same way every corvette has some advantages and disadvantages to each other

 

Offline Roanoke

  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
For years I tried to make a ship, about the size of a very large bomber, that could ferry a Fighter Wing (say, 4 Herc2s) through a jump-node. I figured about half a dozen would make a credible expeditionary force prior to the arrival of Cruisers and Corvettes.

Something roughly the same shape as the Carry-All from C&C Tib.Sun. I could never get a shape I was happy with though.  :doubt: