Author Topic: Smaller carrier vessels?  (Read 14675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Even if i can resuply il still take on a GTVA fleet in a Mara hell il take 2 shivan fleets for that matter in Mara . Just give me a full load of trebs Maxim and Kaiser as a loadout and il be sure to make a super fireworks dispay. :D

Problem - SF Mara (terrans) can't mount Maxims.
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Even if i can resuply il still take on a GTVA fleet in a Mara hell il take 2 shivan fleets for that matter in Mara . Just give me a full load of trebs Maxim and Kaiser as a loadout and il be sure to make a super fireworks dispay. :D
I'll be there in a Perseus to **** you down.

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
you can try but you wont get anywhere near me for long enough to do any substantial dammage to me :P

Remember the excelent dog fighting capabilaties of the Mara?
Die shivan die!!
Then jumps into his apple stealth pie and goes of to war.What a brave lad....what a brave lad say the ladies in red.
 

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> < ) 

This is Bunny . Copy  Bunny  into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!

 

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
you can try but you wont get anywhere near me for long enough to do any substantial dammage to me :P

Remember the excelent dog fighting capabilaties of the Mara?
Doesn't matter, eventually you will make a mistake and you'll get double Harpoons in the face, followed up by a volley of Kayser fire, then a few Tempests just to round things off.

 

Offline blowfish

  • 211
  • Join the cult of KILL MY ROUTER!!!!!!!!!!1
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Well, against the AI, you could kill anything with enough Trebuchets (especially on lower difficulties).

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
True, but on the easiest level, you could ram anything fighter-sized to death ;)

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Hey i was just wondering if the Ultra AAF's i hear about are that deadly. I dont know i might have been toasted a couple of times by such beams but i dont remeber.

If they are that deadly then i presume the difference in mounting them would be something like the difference between mounting BG and BFG??
Die shivan die!!
Then jumps into his apple stealth pie and goes of to war.What a brave lad....what a brave lad say the ladies in red.
 

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> < ) 

This is Bunny . Copy  Bunny  into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
You seriously didn't just ask that did you ?  :wtf: 



Play that mission where it says "that rebel cruisers anti fighter beams have a two kilometre rang" on hard and try to attack it...
Your friendly Orestes tactical controller
GO GO DEKKER RANGERSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
President of the Scooby Doo Model Appreciation Society
The only good Zod is a dead Zod
NEWGROUNDS COMEDY GOLD, UPDATED DAILY
http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561198011784807.png

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The one with the Levi and the Fenris? Oh man...i hate that mission. Come on its been a while since i replayed the main FS2 campaign.

Edit1: Also i thought of something . I mean its all god and fine to spread out your forces meaning dedicated carriers and stuff so as not to loose all of the eggs when the basket brakes but then again using the smaller basket thing too much can also prove to be a fatal weakness as you can find yoursels dangerously low on heavy firepower and carrier ability. So in the same topic i would like to ask everyone wat they believe would be a better solution or an ideal solution for this. Basicly how many light ships are too many and how many heavy ships are too many.


Also i would like to elborate in here about various oportunies on the battlefield presented by smaller carrier vessels and/or dedicated warships. Sure they can do one job better then the other but then again what should be a definitive factor in each area.

For example I consider the Iceni a super hunter-killer/run-blocades capship-killer. Its very fast has loeads of beam firepower hell it has more beam firepower then the Hecate . Yet it is weak in terms of aaf defences(for those of you who dont know this already) .

So the Iceni would be good at capship head on engagements. However the Same can be said about the Orion no? Even if they are different classes of warships an Orion can still go agains many capships and with a bit of luck even win. We know it could in theory win agains a Demon and Ravana. Sepera not at once you guis.


So whats your take on this?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2008, 05:45:26 am by AlphaOne »
Die shivan die!!
Then jumps into his apple stealth pie and goes of to war.What a brave lad....what a brave lad say the ladies in red.
 

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> < ) 

This is Bunny . Copy  Bunny  into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
4 small carriers to a taskforce instead of a destroyer... And don't spread them out :D
Your friendly Orestes tactical controller
GO GO DEKKER RANGERSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
President of the Scooby Doo Model Appreciation Society
The only good Zod is a dead Zod
NEWGROUNDS COMEDY GOLD, UPDATED DAILY
http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561198011784807.png

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I dont get it why not spread them out ove r the course of a sistem or 2 . This coupled with other capships such as corvettes friggates(if any are built) and cruisers could do the job of 2 or more destroyers. Then agin if something horrible wre to happen they would most definetly need the firepower of a destroyer close at hand.
Die shivan die!!
Then jumps into his apple stealth pie and goes of to war.What a brave lad....what a brave lad say the ladies in red.
 

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> < ) 

This is Bunny . Copy  Bunny  into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!

 

Offline Colonol Dekker

  • HLP is my mistress
  • 213
  • Aken Tigh Dekker
    • My old squad sub-domain
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I wouldn't spread anything out too far... If you do they're operating alone effectively. Within sympathetic fighter cover range should be adequate..
Your friendly Orestes tactical controller
GO GO DEKKER RANGERSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
President of the Scooby Doo Model Appreciation Society
The only good Zod is a dead Zod
NEWGROUNDS COMEDY GOLD, UPDATED DAILY
http://badges.steamprofile.com/profile/default/steam/76561198011784807.png

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Well agreed but how far is too far in this case ? We know fighters can jump in and out really fast much faster then any transport or capship.

I mean what you say is more then reasonable but then again leaving a carrier without heavy beam cannon coverage is just plain stupid so i would imagine they would be escorted by at least some sort of cruisers or corvette . But that would mean increasing the size of the taskforce to at least 2 or 3 corvettes/frigates per carrier and even more cruisers or whatever you wanna use smaller then a corvette. This would be a bit expensive dont you think? Or are you thinking about carriers that actualy would be able to fend off cruisers and fire back enough beam dammage to otrher capships in order to make theyr escape a bit more easy?

Die shivan die!!
Then jumps into his apple stealth pie and goes of to war.What a brave lad....what a brave lad say the ladies in red.
 

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> < ) 

This is Bunny . Copy  Bunny  into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The one with the Levi and the Fenris? Oh man...i hate that mission. Come on its been a while since i replayed the main FS2 campaign.

Edit1: Also i thought of something . I mean its all god and fine to spread out your forces meaning dedicated carriers and stuff so as not to loose all of the eggs when the basket brakes but then again using the smaller basket thing too much can also prove to be a fatal weakness as you can find yoursels dangerously low on heavy firepower and carrier ability. So in the same topic i would like to ask everyone wat they believe would be a better solution or an ideal solution for this. Basicly how many light ships are too many and how many heavy ships are too many.


Also i would like to elborate in here about various oportunies on the battlefield presented by smaller carrier vessels and/or dedicated warships. Sure they can do one job better then the other but then again what should be a definitive factor in each area.

For example I consider the Iceni a super hunter-killer/run-blocades capship-killer. Its very fast has loeads of beam firepower hell it has more beam firepower then the Hecate . Yet it is weak in terms of aaf defences(for those of you who dont know this already) .

So the Iceni would be good at capship head on engagements. However the Same can be said about the Orion no? Even if they are different classes of warships an Orion can still go agains many capships and with a bit of luck even win. We know it could in theory win agains a Demon and Ravana. Sepera not at once you guis.


So whats your take on this?

IIRC the ULTRA AAA beam is only used in the TAG-A testing mission to compensate for the ****iness of the circumstances. Oh yeah, also used by the Colossus in High Noon.
Four kilometers range, 413 damage over 2.5 seconds, 2.2 seconds recharge - this is far deadlier than the SGreen!
And this ain't no ****. But don't quote me for that one. - Mika

I shall rrreach worrrld domination!

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
doh i rmember now. Man that beam is good. boy do i feel stupid. I remembered which beam i was asking about . Lol noob lil ol' me.
Die shivan die!!
Then jumps into his apple stealth pie and goes of to war.What a brave lad....what a brave lad say the ladies in red.
 

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> < ) 

This is Bunny . Copy  Bunny  into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!

 

Offline Mawhrin

  • 26
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Up thread someone expressed concern about a small carrier being too easy for a Shivan warship to kill if it jumps in close.

How about a carrier armed with multiple EMP launchers? A Ravana jumps in, spam it with EMPs, run away. Heat seeking and longer range versions would help enormously. The AI doesn't even need to target individual turrets.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Takes time. A Ravana can annihilate a Deimos with one salvo. There really isn't a good way from stopping somebody from jumping in and getting off at least one salvo before you can stop him, particularly somebody who's Shivan because their caps jump so precisely.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Mawhrin

  • 26
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Takes time. A Ravana can annihilate a Deimos with one salvo. There really isn't a good way from stopping somebody from jumping in and getting off at least one salvo before you can stop him, particularly somebody who's Shivan because their caps jump so precisely.
LRed has a 3-second warmup and a range of 4000m, so a projectile would need to travel 1333m/s to reach in time, assuming it was dumb-fired instantly. The fastest secondary in FS2 is the TAG-A at 400m/s.

 

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
LRed has a 3-second warmup and a range of 4000m, so a projectile would need to travel 1333m/s to reach in time, assuming it was dumb-fired instantly. The fastest secondary in FS2 is the TAG-A at 400m/s.
You're assuming the Ravana jumps in at just the right range. I doubt even the Shivans can make their capships jump to a meter of precision (when you take into account the slowing down bit)

 

Offline Mobius

  • Back where he started
  • 213
  • The Lightblue Ribbon
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • The Lightblue Ribbon | Cultural Project
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Are you sure of that? They probably know better than any other how to make precision jumps.