Author Topic: Smaller carrier vessels?  (Read 14681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The thing about freespace fighters is that they have jump drives. If a wing of fighters is launched from a destroyer, they can reach their destination fairly quickly. Also to escort a convoy, the "support ship" (destroyer) needn't be around the convoy, as they fighters jump in and jump out when done. Having a small carrier class is just asking for several wings of fighters to be destroyed "on the runway" in a heated battle. Better to keep the destroyers away from smaller fights and let them act as command ships.

The only time you'd ever really benefit from a small carrier would be a multi-system convoy escort, in which case you'd have to weigh how much intersystem jump drives cost vs. new ship classes vs. seperate escort wings on both sides of the node.

I tend to disagree with that and it's the reason I made the Charon. While at the tactical level you're correct the facts are different at the strategic level. A change in deployment of a destroyer is seen as a major thing. Look at the number of destroyers that the GTVA have that don't appear until the **** really hits the fan. For some reason the GTVA seems to loathe pulling destroyers away from the home systems to reinforce trouble spots.

But the problem is that you can't bring new fighters to a a new system unless you have some sort of capship to bring them in. Not unless you want to waste your expensive intersystem jump engines on cannonfodder. For that reason a light carrier is useful. It can carry enough ships to bolster a GTVA position. It can't replace a destroyer, it's far to weak for that but used together with one it can ensure that the GTVA can strengthen one star system without having to weaken another.

Are either of those campaigns going to happen now?

TMA, not so much. I've been having massive problems with plot holes there. SoR, well I was FREDding for that earlier this week so it's not forgotten by a long stretch. :)
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Fighters can easily disarm any destroyer using trebuchets, but a target ship could protect its turrets by erratically rolling and spinning.

What about capships getting countermeasures?

Also- since modern caps use countermeasures- why don't FS ones do?
'Teeth of the Tiger' - campaign in the making
Story, Ships, Weapons, Project Leader.

 

Offline starlord

  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I would personnally see the charon as a raider!

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
What about capships getting countermeasures?

A very original idea, and a useful one considering all the bombs that are lobbed at capships. But you really should be able to dumbfire your weapons at a target of that size. Plus, once one of your missiles has a lock on a capship, it can probably go sensors-blind and just home in on the anticipated position of the target since large ships don't manuever that much.

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
A capship dropping CM's would be harder to disarm with a Treb missile or a Stilleto II, unless you get close enough to be in range of the ship's guns, so the idea still makes sense.
'Teeth of the Tiger' - campaign in the making
Story, Ships, Weapons, Project Leader.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Unless the countermeasures use EMP bursts or some sort of countermissile/point defence laser I don't see how they could hope to prevent a missile hitting a 2km long ship, travelling at 10-20m/s launched from a kilometre or two away.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Then go dedicated carrier on their arses. Or build smaller carrier tipe vessels capable of holding just 50 or so crafts loads of aaaf defences limted beam cannon ability.
Like the Moloch? One of the weakest and most useless vessels in FS2?

Quote
Also they should have a dedicated rapid lunch system
Funny typo :lol:

Quote
Hell that beeing said the GTVA need monitor class ships realyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bad. Since deployng slow moving destroyers or corvettes would be a real pain in the arse just to deal with a lone cruiser or something like that. Just send in 2 wings of monitor class ships get in fast kill everithing in sight then secure the area fast for larger warships.
Good idea. I would like to see the Mentu with a BVas, for example. Vasudan Lilith. :yes:


The thing about freespace fighters is that they have jump drives. If a wing of fighters is launched from a destroyer, they can reach their destination fairly quickly. Also to escort a convoy, the "support ship" (destroyer) needn't be around the convoy, as they fighters jump in and jump out when done. Having a small carrier class is just asking for several wings of fighters to be destroyed "on the runway" in a heated battle. Better to keep the destroyers away from smaller fights and let them act as command ships.

The only time you'd ever really benefit from a small carrier would be a multi-system convoy escort, in which case you'd have to weigh how much intersystem jump drives cost vs. new ship classes vs. seperate escort wings on both sides of the node.

However logistical problems aside, I'd still use one if a good one was available...They would certainly offer some variety to campaigns. It seems I'm always stationed on a giant destroyer.
QFT :yes:


I tend to disagree with that and it's the reason I made the Charon. While at the tactical level you're correct the facts are different at the strategic level. A change in deployment of a destroyer is seen as a major thing. Look at the number of destroyers that the GTVA have that don't appear until the **** really hits the fan. For some reason the GTVA seems to loathe pulling destroyers away from the home systems to reinforce trouble spots.
In FS2, the Aquitaine is sent from Deneb to GDrax, then to the Nebula, back to EPeg, into the Nebula again, to GDrax, yet another time into the Nebula... Destroyers seem to shift positions pretty easy IMHO.

 

Offline starlord

  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
the way I would see it would be dedicated classes, of carriers, like the renegade legion. (cruiser class carrier, corvette carrier, destroyer carrier, etc...). And each one of them could be deployed in function of the tactical situation (cruiser carrier=raiding action, etc...)

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
In FS2, the Aquitaine is sent from Deneb to GDrax, then to the Nebula, back to EPeg, into the Nebula again, to GDrax, yet another time into the Nebula... Destroyers seem to shift positions pretty easy IMHO.

That could easily be interpreted as the Aquitaine moving because it is the only Terran Destroyer that can be spared. Why else would they drag a destroyer back out of the nebula even with Shivan forces still present and the nebula still largely unexplored to deal with the invasion of Epsilon Pegasi?

Quote
Command anticipates the arrival of the Aquitaine and the Psamtik will shift the battle for Deneb in our favor and force the NTF to withdraw to Sirius.

Note that the GTVA consider the fact that they have sent a grand total of 2 destroyers to Deneb to be something that can swing the course of the entire battle there in their favour leading to the rebels pulling out entirely from a contested system. If moving destroyers is easy then why wouldn't they have simply done that 18 months ago?

Hell even shaking loose a couple of corvettes seems to be a major achievement.

Quote
With recent victories on the civil war front, the GTVA Security Council has authorized the deployment of two Deimos-class corvettes into the nebular theatre of operations. The Lysander and the Actium crossed the subspace portal in Gamma Draconis at 2335 hours and joined up with the Aquitaine's battle group.

If sending in corvettes to join a battle group facing the most dangerous enemy the GTVA has ever faced is only possible when things are going well on other fronts it doesn't speak to me of a massive ability to mobilise the fleet unless there is a really big problem.

Besides even if I do buy the argument that they could easily move destroyers around, just because it held true before the end of FS2 doesn't mean it would still be true afterwards. The GTVA lost a lot of destroyers during the war.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
In FS2, the Aquitaine is sent from Deneb to GDrax, then to the Nebula, back to EPeg, into the Nebula again, to GDrax, yet another time into the Nebula... Destroyers seem to shift positions pretty easy IMHO.

That could easily be interpreted as the Aquitaine moving because it is the only Terran Destroyer that can be spared. Why else would they drag a destroyer back out of the nebula even with Shivan forces still present and the nebula still largely unexplored to deal with the invasion of Epsilon Pegasi?

BEHOLD THE POWER OF PLOT!
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

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

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
That power works just as well for FSF's argument too though.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Mad Bomber

  • Booooom
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I support the idea of escort carriers and such because it only takes one or two well-positioned Liliths to turn an uber-expensive destroyer into scrap, thus killing off or orphaning dozens of fighters and bombers.

Smaller, more numerous carriers (Iceni-sized, 3-5 squadrons each) would solve this by keeping the eggs from being all in one basket, so to speak. Even if a destroyer gets pwned, there would still be sources of fighter cover. It would take the enemy far longer to root out the friendly force, particularly if guerrilla tactics are emphasized. I think, had the NTF lasted longer, they would have built light carriers of their own for this express purpose.

As another example, think of what would have happened in FS1 had the Bastion not been around to recover you in Deneb.
"What the hell!? I've got a Snuffleupagus on my scanners! The Snuffleupagus is active!"

 

Offline Solatar

  • 211
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I'll concede my point about small carriers being useless because Karajorma made a good point with them being far more mobile. Do I think they'd number very many? No, probably not. However I'm good and ready to have a few of them made because I think whether or not they're strategically sound they're very good to have in game for plot use.

Although it does raise the question of GTA/PVN/GTVA fighters being launched from controlled planets in a system. If I have a nice big planet I can launch fighters from, that gives me an advantage...until a few harbingers get dropped.

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Although it does raise the question of GTA/PVN/GTVA fighters being launched from controlled planets in a system. If I have a nice big planet I can launch fighters from, that gives me an advantage...until a few harbingers get dropped.

    That assumes the fighters are able to operate in an atmosphere, and more importantly, able to achieve escape velocity.
    I wouldn't want to try re-entry in a Hercules that's for damn sure.

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Please DO NOT compare the Moloch with a poket sized carrier that can carry 50 or so fighters and bombers and that actualy has an impresive arsenal of aaaf defences but low beam capabilaties. Perhaps some slashers (vasudan ones please) in order to at least give the illusion that it can actualy dish out some dammage to enemy cap ships. However such a thing would have to be the exception and not the rule since the role of a carrier is NOT to engage the enemy directly but rather deploy fighters/bombers and coordinate them  for various tasks on the battlefield.

Also putting a BVas on a monitor class ship would be even more overkill then the LRed on the Lilith.



Also the fact that in FS2 we do not see Command actualy using all of its milatary assets at disposal in order to engage the enmy is well campaign PLOT. Story. Call it whatever you like.


Also to move a destroyer several star sistems away must be a last measure thing . Why?

Well you can not just moe around THE biggest cap ship you have like a fighter now can you? It takes time for the destroyer to arrive at its designated location and it eats up resources. Also i would believe that aside from the actual recharge time of the jumpdrives there must be some sort of wear and tear on the actual jump engines themselfs. While fighters should not ahve the same prolem as i immagine fightersized jump engines are less succeptibe to such dangers.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 03:11:11 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 karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I'll concede my point about small carriers being useless because Karajorma made a good point with them being far more mobile. Do I think they'd number very many? No, probably not.

I tend to agree. The GTVA would probably want them as a stopgap while they rebuilt the fleet and as a reserve for times of war. For something like the NTF they might be a little more common though. In fact given that the Iceni was built as a blockade runner it's rather surprising  that they lacked a similarly fast method to support it.

Had the GTVA managed to find Bosch at any time between Endgame and Return to Babel it would have been in real trouble without such a ship or a fighterbay of its own.

Quote
However I'm good and ready to have a few of them made because I think whether or not they're strategically sound they're very good to have in game for plot use.

Despite their small number they'd probably appear a larger than expected number of times. In many FS2 campaigns we tend to see an initially small confrontation snowball. And a fast carrier is the kind of ship you'd expect to see initially deployed to that sort of situation.

Quote
Although it does raise the question of GTA/PVN/GTVA fighters being launched from controlled planets in a system. If I have a nice big planet I can launch fighters from, that gives me an advantage...until a few harbingers get dropped.

If fighters can't jump out in an atmosphere you've got a large part of the explanation there. Travelling at FS2 speeds it would take about 10 minutes to climb sufficiently far out of the atmosphere to jump out.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Also putting a BVas on a monitor class ship would be even more overkill then the LRed on the Lilith.

      As with all things it depends upon the size of the ship. The Leviathan is essentially a monitor because it's so damn slow . . . if it was a little larger (corvette size? or a bit less?) I can see one BVas on there. Basically a decent sized ship with one big gun and some good overall defensive coverage but piss poor speed?

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
A monitor class vessel is suposed to be rather small very fast and armed with very powerfull weapons as per its size. So basicly a monitor class ship is not suposed to be slow. but rather fast.

Also there was this poket sized carrier ship in a campaign with 2 forward facing beam cannons and about 50 or so spacecrafts. Cant remember the name though. I though that ship was awesome and just the thing for FS.

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 Wanderer

  • Wiki Warrior
  • 211
  • Mostly harmless
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Umh? Monitors were - historically - small lightly armored and exceedingly slow vessels armed with disproportionately large guns.
Do not meddle in the affairs of coders for they are soggy and hard to light

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Well i remember i saw this link about the new monitor class vessels which do not seem al that slow but in fact very agile and reasonably fast with deadly combinations of weapons.
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!