Author Topic: Smaller carrier vessels?  (Read 14785 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?
Deimos - 30m/s
Fenris - 20m/s
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
While a group of smaller carriers would in theory make the fighter strength of a fleet less vunerable to a single knockout blow, it also would make it much more vunerable to attrition tactics. A single not-so-well-placed Lilth can take out a corvette, particularly one that has compromised its firepower and armor to carry fightercraft in some decent number.

Put simply, the bird farm lacks the power it once had. Carriers came to their posistion of dominance on the oceans because they can reach beyond the range lesser vessels can harm them from. It was never that battleships and heavy cruisers could not kill carriers, it was that they could not get close enough to do so. If you don't believe me, ask the crew of the USS Gambier Bay. The problem was that these ships did not have the durablity or the defensive power to run the gauntlet of airstrikes and get within range of a carrier.

The subspace drive revoked the stranglehold of the carrier's long-range striking power on combat. Only a blockaded jump node between you and hostile warships provides security against surprise attack by heavily gunned ships of the line. The destroyer classification is a logical extension of this fact. A carrier must not only be able to carry fightercraft, it must also be able to survive the punishment of a ship of the line's guns and respond in kind at a moment's notice if it is to survive. There simply is no other viable defense. In this environment, the Orion is much closer to the ideal warship than anything else. It has the necessary degree of durablity to reply with a counterstrike, it has excellent armament to reply to hostile warships with, and knowing that the best defense against a fightercraft is another fightercraft and not shipboard guns, it has fighters to defend it against hostile bombers. The Ravana, if it were not poorly served by the general feebleness of Shivan fighter defense, would be closer yet.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Mawhrin

  • 26
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
It may not be possible to launch fighters from a planet, but any inhabited system is likely to have an installation, for trade if nothing else, capable of launching fighters.

Generally, deduction is about logical thinking and stuff like this, whereas induction is connected with a) physical stuff such as electromagnetic induction and b) induction

as a way of proving things in the mathematical logic (which has almost nothing to do with logic known as "common sense" :P).
I suggest people consult Wikipedia. Deduction and induction are both forms of reasoning. Deduction offers proof (with respect to its starting points), induction does not. Induction is extrapolation from known data points. Deduction is following inevitable implications of data. Science uses induction. Mathematics uses deduction.

Mathematical induction is a form of deduction, it's misnamed. Electromagnetic induction has nothing to do with reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Common sense is undefined, and in my opinion a very wishy washy term that should be avoided.

</mathematician>

 

Offline Solatar

  • 211
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I don't really think a Deimos can replace a good cruiser like the Aeolus. In a universe where subspace makes strikes ultra quick, quick response is the name of the game. Spending less money (presumably) on cruisers for patrol duties, where they can quickly be rerouted is a much more viable economic option in the years after the Capella war. Production was probably stopped in 2365 because with the wartime economy (wartime government spending stimulates the economy), Deimos corvettes could have been produced almost non-stop. With the major recession that is sure to follow the Capella incident, smaller investments are the name of the game. Sure 3 cruisers might cost the same as 1 corvette, but construction can be spaced out, less raw materials are needed, and they can be produced more quickly. For the same amount of money, several cruisers can secure more star system.

Fleet reconstruction would come from the bottom up. While they would be creating corvettes and destroyers, it would make sense to pump fighters, bombers, and cruisers off the assembly lines to quickly fill in the ranks until the economy gets back on track. Like I said, you sacrifice pure stopping power for the ability to secure a larger area (and the Aeolus is nothing to sneeze at either...if a large threat comes along, just have two or three patrols hook up with each other and those frontal beams can do a lot of damage).

EDIT: Obviously in a large battle, you can't beat large ships. However, the ability to take control of situations before they escalate seems to be important (hence why fighters play such a pivotal role in skirmishes)/
« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 11:07:47 pm by Solatar »

 

Offline blowfish

  • 211
  • Join the cult of KILL MY ROUTER!!!!!!!!!!1
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Well, maybe if the SGreen didn't suck so much...

 

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The SGreen would be acceptable if its recharge time wasn't 45 seconds.
Cut it down to 25, and it becomes a useful beam.
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline Solatar

  • 211
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Hopefully two or three ships (in 'reality' not the game) would coordinate their fire so as the fire once every 15 seconds as a group (or if one salvo would do it, to do so).

But yes...the SGreen sucks...why did the Lilith get the huge awesome beam...

 

Offline Mad Bomber

  • Booooom
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The SGreen does suck, but what about the SVas? If the Vasudans came up with a cruiser that was actually worth fielding, that would definitely change the equation, I think.
"What the hell!? I've got a Snuffleupagus on my scanners! The Snuffleupagus is active!"

 

Offline blowfish

  • 211
  • Join the cult of KILL MY ROUTER!!!!!!!!!!1
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The SVas is decent, but the Hattie is the only ship that mounts it.  If they could mount a couple of those on the Mentu, and put some flak gunz on its underside, it would be a truly dangerous ship.

 

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The SVas is better than the SRed, but the only ship with an SVas is the Hatshepsut...
Oh...or did you mean actually putting an SVas on something, like the Mentu (as advertised)

Edit: blowfish beat me to it.
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline blowfish

  • 211
  • Join the cult of KILL MY ROUTER!!!!!!!!!!1
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Yes, that's what I was saying.  Two SVas and it could probably take any other cruiser (except maybe the Lilith) ...

 

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
well, not really.
I have SVas on turret 08 and 09, and it's still pretty deficient at attacking things.
however, if you put a Svas into that little recessed area in the front...
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline blowfish

  • 211
  • Join the cult of KILL MY ROUTER!!!!!!!!!!1
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Hmm ... I put them in 6 and 7, since those have some frontal field of fire.

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
The ships in the game were made so a story could be told around them. Some ships are better than other ones because they were built at different times, what you guys are saying is like saying that the Monitor could have beat Merrymack if it had armor piercing shells and 2 more cannons. When at the time the ship was built there was no need for armor piercing shells or 2 more cannons.
 
Fat people are harder to kidnap :ha:

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
I believe that the GTVA should and in theory would study close what happened during the second shivan war . There are a lot of huge gaps in the GTVA's fleet composition. Actualy not its composition but the way its ships are designed.

We see the GTVA giving emphasis on AAAF deences since fighters are considered the most powerfull threat to any cap ship out there.

Sure that can be the case to a certain degree. However it is not the most obvious threat to the GTVA fleet. The GTVA seems to have forgotten that the shivan main weapons from the warships pose a much greather threat to the GTVA warships then mere fighters and bommbers.
The guns and the shivan abilaty to jump with pin point accuracy is what is really dangerous.


The GTVA pretty much has its tactic well rehearsed and practiced. Deploy fighters and bommbers to take out the enmy capships. Agreed they do this with the help of 'vettes and/or cruisers. However they forgat that they are vulnerable to attacks from larger fleet elements .


With this in mind having poket sized carriers would be a very sound choice in order to project firepower from far away giving the GTVA ships a relative safety margin. Destroyers are obviously suited for this role however they are also huge ships that can not move out fast enough so as to avoid taking heavy fire in the procces if they came under attack. And more important given the fact that the loss of destroyer is a huge blow having poket sized vessles would be more convenient cheap and safer.

So i believe that having dedicated carriers from small to large is a good choice. On the other hand having poket sized weapons platforms such as the Deimos and the Aeolus is superb.

The only reason why the Aeolus was discontinued was because at the time of its original development it packet the most advanced (im assuming here since the Aeolus isnt a cruiser that was built in just 2 years prior to the NTF rebellion) weapons of the day. However the same con be said today when such weapons are standard. So i believe that an Aeolus would prove to be a bit cheaper at least then in the beginning.


The Deimos would be even better however the fact that its a multi-pourpuse ship makes it good but not excelent.

An ideal combo would be (i know what youre gooing to say) Iceni +Poket sized carriers of 50 or so spacecrafts. This way you would have both fighter/bommber cover and sheer raw firepower form the Iceni(please add at least 2 more flacks to the thing) .


Cruisers such as the Aeolus i believ would and should come back into service . Those things can dish out more dammage then any other cruiser in game (overall dammage) . It might not be the most heavely beam armed cruiser but the fact that it can chew up hordes of fighters and bommbers is superb.

For the SVas beams i would of envisioned a whole new line of cruisers bigger more powerfull and more fast. A joint effort between the terrans and the vasudans this way you could spread the expences more and would not be such a burden to wither races.


Look at the Sobek that things given at least 2 more aaaf turrets and a smaller package would of been a superb battlecruiser. Hell its a very good corvette and it was built what 10 or 15 years before the Deimos???
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?
Orly :doubt:
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?
Cruisers such as the Aeolus i believ would and should come back into service . Those things can dish out more dammage then any other cruiser in game (overall dammage) . It might not be the most heavely beam armed cruiser but the fact that it can chew up hordes of fighters and bommbers is superb.

The Lilith makes some 300 HP/sec more hull damage than the Aeolus (less than what 2 Maxims do), but most of it's firepower is in a single turret that can't fire at the cruiser's worst nightmare: bombers.
'Teeth of the Tiger' - campaign in the making
Story, Ships, Weapons, Project Leader.

 
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Technology advanced so fast n FS1 and FS2 that fighters are now more devastating than some capitol ships were at the start, send one fighter armed with maxims and kaisers  back in tme to FS1 it could take out all the GTA, PVN, and Shivan fleets... maybe not all, but you get the idea.
What the GTVA needs is better everything, always, but it still uses the ships designed for the last war. Like computers, something that costs $10,000 today is worth $10 tomorrow
Fat people are harder to kidnap :ha:

 

Offline AlphaOne

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 210
Re: Smaller carrier vessels?
Well your statement might be tue to some extent. We know that one of the reason why Aeolus was stopped beeing built was the fact that is was so damn expensive. However one has to wonder what they mean by expensive.

Expensive at the time of its construction or expensive by the start of the second shivan invasion.

Also many ppl. believe that because the Aeolus losses were so high with almost all of them beeing destroyed , they suck big time.
That is NOT correct. The Aeolus class cruisers are considered a fighter/bommbers worst nightmare even more so then a Deimos . And as you play the campaign the Aeolus is the most hunted down ship at some point , or you are ordered to stand clear of it if you value your life.

Such a powerfull ship i imagine would become primary target for any warship depending on the circumstances on the field .


something even more powerfull would be an Aeoli with 2 SVas and 50k hp. Of course it would have to be just bit bigger. :D That would be an awesome cruiser to have.

Also please note that the corvette class is suposed to replace the cruisers . However one has to wonder why they said such a thing correct? Well the most deployed ships in game are the cruisers an not the destroyers. Hell for now not even corvettes manage to outnumber the cruisers in number of missions they are used although i imagine this has more to do with the still small number of available corvettes rather then anything else.

Rebuilding the fleet from ground up is a drastic measure especialy considering the fact that most of the ships behaved fairly good. Sure they were no match for those LReds of those BFReds  but then again who knew they had them . In fact the only true dissapoinment i see in game is the Hecate with its "more firepower then a Orion" bulls*** . Oh yeah and the beams like the Sgreen and slasher type beams. Those suck big time. (among other things) But if everithing was perfect then the game would suck big time so......!


Small tweaks are needed here an there and some sort of medium beam  is a desperate need  for the GTVA since mounting BGreens on a cruiser or a corvette would be a bit too muh(not really though since the current beams take so much to fire that by the time they get around to fire a second time the GTVA ship is most definetly dead) .


Also i agree with the whole fighter/bommber firepower. They have become more and more powerfull. But then again they had to be especialy for the GTVA since well shivans seem to have a massive fleet.


Hell i bet the GTVA at its peak didnt have as many ships as the shivans (presumably) have. Well at least in one area thta is true and that is the sheer jugg numbers the shivans had.
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?
Looking at how they can mobilize eighty juggernauts and throw wave after wave of fighters at you with impunity, it wouldn't surprise me they have superjugs and thousands of fighter/bomber squadrons at their disposal.
And this ain't no ****. But don't quote me for that one. - Mika

I shall rrreach worrrld domination!