Author Topic: Smaller carrier vessels?  (Read 14679 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Are you sure of that? They probably know better than any other how to make precision jumps.
So you're saying they can jump just enough so that they stop exactly 4000 meters away? :p

 

Offline Mobius

  • Back where he started
  • 213
  • The Lightblue Ribbon
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • The Lightblue Ribbon | Cultural Project
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Well they know both subspace and their ships. Maybe not 4,000 meters away but surely not 3,500/4,500 if they don't want to.

 

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.
Actually I don't think it's quite that bad. A ship can be fired upon by the AI as soon as it starts to enter normal space. However I think it has to fully leave subspace before it can begin to fire itself.

So... how long does a Ravana take to fully jump in?

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Destroyers typically jump in at around 300 m/s. A Ravana is slightly longer than 2 km, so I'd say it's about 7 seconds.

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Wasnt there a scene in a FS cinematic or something that swhowed a half exited shivan warship opening fire with its beams?
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 Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The GTC Monitor being destroyed when it discovered the Knossos?
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline Mura

  • 27
  • Shadow lurker
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
i think the carriers would make a deadly force or at least a very annoying one if used correctly...

I'm thinking of flash attacks, carriers jumps in, flak guns blazing dispatching every fighter and bomber to unleash hell on an unwarned force and jumps out to a randezvous spot leaving the fighters behind to finish the job. Could be good use for a clean up operation or for rebel/pirate raids on light guarded depots.

That's just my opinion and i know it might be better to deploy different forces for that kind of jobs, but i think it would be cheaper, more annoying and guerrilla tactics tend to beat huge military organizations, and GTVA command isn't the brightest one out there  :rolleyes:
Signed, me

 

Offline blowfish

  • 211
  • Join the cult of KILL MY ROUTER!!!!!!!!!!1
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The GTC Monitor being destroyed when it discovered the Knossos?

There was no GTC Monitor.  There was the NTC Trinity, which activated and entered the Knossos, and there was the GTC Vigilant, which was destroyed by Shivan forces coming through the Gamma Draconis node into Capella (it was destroyed in Capella).  There was also the GTCv Monitor in endgame, but that was never destroyed, and the Knossos was already discovered.

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
i think the carriers would make a deadly force or at least a very annoying one if used correctly...

I'm thinking of flash attacks, carriers jumps in, flak guns blazing dispatching every fighter and bomber to unleash hell on an unwarned force and jumps out to a randezvous spot leaving the fighters behind to finish the job. Could be good use for a clean up operation or for rebel/pirate raids on light guarded depots.

That's just my opinion and i know it might be better to deploy different forces for that kind of jobs, but i think it would be cheaper, more annoying and guerrilla tactics tend to beat huge military organizations, and GTVA command isn't the brightest one out there  :rolleyes:


Just why would a carrier jump in close in the first place?
It launches most of it's fighters while hiding on the other side of the system, fighters jump to attack enemy, carrier jumps to another randezvous location to meet with fighters after their attack run, then they jump back to the previous hiding spot.
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The GTC Monitor being destroyed when it discovered the Knossos?

There was no GTC Monitor.  There was the NTC Trinity, which activated and entered the Knossos, and there was the GTC Vigilant, which was destroyed by Shivan forces coming through the Gamma Draconis node into Capella (it was destroyed in Capella).  There was also the GTCv Monitor in endgame, but that was never destroyed, and the Knossos was already discovered.

Confused the whole situation then.  :) But I still remember an animation involving a cruiser and some Shivan ship attacking it with beams during the Command Brief when the Vigilant was destroyed. What I don't remember was if the Shivan ship was jumping or not.
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The Rakasha appeared to open fire or at least be chargin' his beamzors before he fully exited subspace, IIRC.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
So, Shivan ships are designated as male? I though ships were always "she's".
Meh. Yea, the Rakshasa also appears to use slash-sytle beams, and they're not where they are on the model actually in the game. In the cbani, it looks like the beams are on the three fins beneath the main hull rather than the frontal spikes. In the model, two of these fins are decorative, while the third mounts the SAAA.

But yes, the Rakshasa appears to be roasting the Vigilant partially emerged from subspace.
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Also smaller carrier vesseles are not designed to be used as front line action warships. Hell thats probably the worst way to use them. The Aquitane example is the best one there is. as soon as the aquitane is engaged even by a cruiser (altough it was a Lilith i think) it had to bail out fast and you have to go save its big fat arse. However the Aquitane shines when it comes to fighter projection force and C&C duties.

A carrier should in a worst case scenario be used as a decoy or bait for other warships then as soon as the enemy takes the bait jump in fast with a crovettes or a frigatte and toastes its arse before it can do any real damage to your poket sized carrier.

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 NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
So, Shivan ships are designated as male? I though ships were always "she's".

Call it a quirk. Ships tend to be referred to as female out of affection, but nobody loves the Shivans.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I'm refering to my PC as a female that doesnt mean im in love with it. :P :P

However a Ferrari is something else.
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?
Dodgy mental image abound!


So how's the ship progress coming? Is it textured yet or is there more geometry work going on?
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

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
To get the thread a bit more alive:

Here's a few of my thoughts:

1. The NTC Trinity was in the Nebula undetected for a long time. The Shivans also probably didn't know that there was a Cv sent to hunt down the Ravana untill it warped out and unleashed hell (they would have probably launched bombers to counter it). That means that Shivan sensors can't see things smaller than Destroyers really good, and one could try to hide a C or Cv size carrier deep in a nebula or asteroid field and not worry about the Ravana that could kill it. The Ravana simply wouldn't see our carrier.

2. The Carrier could use a Cv as it's escort, and maybe some 2 cruisers. The escorting corvette should be a custom built unit with AWACS capability. The cruisers should be Aeolus class, because endless waves of bombers is something natural once the fleet gets detected and before it changes position. Even with 20-30 strike craft, the fleet can disarm and disable Sath after Sath (ok, SD after SD) before being found and forced to run. And thanks to the AWACS the Shivans would always be 1 step behind the firendly fleet.
'Teeth of the Tiger' - campaign in the making
Story, Ships, Weapons, Project Leader.

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
That is actualy not that bad. However there are 2 inconsistencies .

1-shivans sensors do appear to be a bit more accurate then GTVA standard sensors. However once an AWACS cruiser is present the shivans loose their. Advantage. However this suposed superiority of the shivans could just be related to campaign story since later on we see the shivans having just as much trouble with the nebula environment as the GTVA .

2-Making use of such a small task force has its advantages since it would be very fast and versatile however should the need come for heavy firepower there will not be any ship present to dish out enough damage. That is why i advocated for the use of at least 1 ship such as the Iceni.
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?
I personally think the Iceni might be a bit big for a pocket sized fleet...
What about arming the Aeoluses with Maxims instead of their crappy beams, and in addition to the custom AWACS corvette, add another type of fleet- the line of battle group, which would consist of 2 Cv's, both armed with the largest weapon that would fit in the hull (even if it's a single, fixed and slightly detuned Mjolnir), and 2 Aeoluses, Maxim modded as the heavy hitters.
Two such elements (carrier+AWACS and heavy hitters) would make a task force, multiple task forces would operate assisted by Hecates (Command, control and strike craft assistance) and standard fleet members.

The new fleet system probably wouldn't kill 80 juggs in a single short battle, but if the groups would make hit&run strikes against shivan capships' turrets, engines and support units, they'd actually make the Sathanases glowing red blocks of junk.
Also- knowing the Shivan's inferior tactics dept, they'd have a hard time stopping the GTVA, since they don't have many ships designed to fight groups of small but tough (hard hitting, not heavily armored) and fast ships.
'Teeth of the Tiger' - campaign in the making
Story, Ships, Weapons, Project Leader.

 

Offline Hellstryker

  • waffles
  • 210
    • Skype
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I beg to differ... Lilith, anyone?