[Droid803]

Building the thing in FRED must have taken ages.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The Meson Beam was supposed to be a single beam, I think, but in order to bring out the damage, it was FREDded to fire several times in that small fraction of time.

Building the thing in FRED must have taken ages.

Unless a GTG Zephyrus has THAT many docking ports...

[Droid803]

It doesn't. Not at the front.
Nor do Elysiums attach that way.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Oh, wait...they attach at the top, right?

[Droid803]

yeah, the same direction their turret points, so it wouldn't be able to shoot without looking extremely awkward if they were attached that way.

[TrashMan]

Well, the Typhon's reactor couldn't take it.

The beams, yea. I was talking about flak and laser turrets. Those can't need much power. A single fighters reactor can power Keysers (which outperform laser turrets immensly) for crying out loud!

[Snail]

The beams, yea. I was talking about flak and laser turrets. Those can't need much power. A single fighters reactor can power Keysers (which outperform laser turrets immensly) for crying out loud!

You're forgetting each fighter has its own dedicated reactor, which only has to power shields, weapons and engines. A large destroyer probably doesn't have more than five reactors, and those have to power ship-wide life support, engines, flak, beams, etc. etc. I think capital ship reactors may be more powerful individually, but since they're powering an entire ship you can't afford to put power-hungry weapons like Kaysers on individual turrets without sacrificing some engine output or something.

[Woolie Wool]

A multi-billion-ton destroyer (yes, billion--FS2 destroyers are THAT HUGE) probably produces so much power that Kayser turrets wouldn't make a difference.

[Snail]

If so why don't the GTVA just put a few hundred Kaysers on every ship? There's gotta be a reason the GTVA don't do this other than "They didn't think of it".

[Woolie Wool]

Because the gameplay of FS is biased towards fighters, and didn't want capships swatting fighters like flies?

[Pred the Penguin]

Haven't you guys noticed that the Kayser is a fighter weapon and is relatively short range? Even missiles go further!

sure they could be made into point-defense, but caps already have flak guns for that.

Destroyers in FS serve a more carrier or command oriented roles. Corvettes are what you need for any type of cap ship battle.

[Snail]

Because the gameplay of FS is biased towards fighters, and didn't want capships swatting fighters like flies?

Eh.

Subluminal lasers.

[TrashMan]

If so why don't the GTVA just put a few hundred Kaysers on every ship? There's gotta be a reason the GTVA don't do this other than "They didn't think of it".

Game balance...and dev decisions.

Two ultimate reasons that trump everything else, including science, logic and coolness.

[Snail]

I think we should officially call that particular reason "Subluminal lasers" - ie. It's a game.


Anyway, as an in-universe explanation... Reactors. Yes.

[TrashMan]

In universe explanation - budget cuts. Makes more sense.

If I was ever building a FS2 ship, I'd stick a fighter reactor into each capship turret (since a fighter reactor is a lot smaller than most FS2 capship turrets anyway..it gots room).
With all power to weapons, that means each turret can lay a unholy ammount of smackdown!

[Snail]

In universe explanation - budget cuts. Makes more sense.

Not really...

If I was ever building a FS2 ship, I'd stick a fighter reactor into each capship turret (since a fighter reactor is a lot smaller than most FS2 capship turrets anyway..it gots room).
With all power to weapons, that means each turret can lay a unholy ammount of smackdown!

[TrashMan]

In universe explanation - budget cuts. Makes more sense.

Not really...

Yes really. You're telling me a 2km long spaceships reactor can't power a few pitifully weak laser turret? Or flak guns? Flak gun aren't even energy weapons for crying out loud!
Even with all the beam cannons on the Orion and with the whole "weak reactor" theory, nothing is really stopping you from adding more small turrets - if energy drain is such a problem, you just don't use all of them at the same time.

[Droid803]

If I was ever building a FS2 ship, I'd stick a fighter reactor into each capship turret (since a fighter reactor is a lot smaller than most FS2 capship turrets anyway..it gots room).
With all power to weapons, that means each turret can lay a unholy ammount of smackdown!

That would be one friggin expensive ship if you're going to have as many reactors as weapons.
It'd probably be a maintenance nightmare as well.
However, It'd probably also kick ass.

Kayser turrets are actually less effective than they would seem, as they won't have their nice rapid-fire rate anymore, and their range is pitifully short for a capship weapon. They will probably be quite effective at killing fighters very close to the ship, but they'd probably be less effective than blobs at shooting down bombs. Morningstars and Maxims? Now that's a different story.

[SpardaSon21]

Maxims have almost no anti-shield capability.  And Morningstars have that whole knockback effect that makes targets harder to hit since they are bouncing around.

[Droid803]

Have you ever tried attacking something with a bunch of morningstar turrets?
You can't get close. The knockback effect is very desirable for a capital ship. It means that the attacking fighters don't have control and therefore can't shoot at it. The capship doesn't need to repeatedly hit - knocking the fighter/bomber around is enough.

Also, both are exceptional at intercepting bombs - the main purpose of 'blob' turrets. Besides, Flak is excellent at lowering shields.