[colecampbell666]

That's a long time to build one though.

Yeah, well for all they knew the Shivans could've returned at any moment, and they wanted to have a surefire way to just kill stuff at the jump node as it poked out.

[colecampbell666]

I still think build a Terran Ravana and use it tactically and strategically with redundant subspace drives. Also a lot of fighter capabilities.

Terran Apothess, way better than a Ravana, with a huge range. That way it wouldn't be vulnerable, as launched fighters would be homeless and the Apothess gone before they even got halfway to it.

[Aardwolf]

How about building a Terran Orion, since those already are fine.

[NGTM-1R]

Destroyers should be built less along the design of the Orion and more along the design of the Hecate: non-direct combat platform. Everyone says the Hecate sucks because the Orion easily outguns it with beams. The Hecate holds more fighters, and those fighters and bombers can easily vaporize an Orion (see NTD Vindicator) The last place these destroyers should be is the front line. A Destroyer should never be alone. It should have a 'battlegroup' formation it travels with.

This misses a fundemental point. If a destroyer's antifighter defenses are tested, things have already failed. The best defense against enemy fightercraft attack is your own intercepting fighters.  However, escorting fightercraft cannot reasonably be expected to deal with attacking hostile capitals (witness what happened to the Aquitaine repeatedly in the nebula).

Therefore, the optimal efficency for a destroyer design should be more like the Orion; anti-bomb point defense for the leakers and enough heavy beams to lay the smackdown on any uppity cruisers or corvettes that show up.

[General Battuta]

Why? AAAf beams are an extremely potent deterrent to bomber and fighter attack, and thin antifighter defenses are probably the number one killer of destroyers.

I don't think that deprecating antifighter defenses is going to help.

[Droid803]

AAAf beams are only deadly on smaller craft where they have large FOFs and opposing fighters can't approach from blind angles.

A block with no guns and four fighter wings defending it will probably last longer against multiple waves of bombers than a Hecate and a single fighter wing given they have the same HP. Though I haven't really tested it, from what I've seen, wingmen are a lot more proficient at intercepting bombs and bombers than AAAfs and flak.

[General Battuta]

Admittedly, I'm working off my memories of bombing runs on Insane...but I was never particularly scared of Orions.

[Droid803]

Orion's aren't fearsome, not to bombers at least.

No flak guns and no AAA coverage on both its broadsides (in fact, no blob coverage either except for one on the hangar side) makes it pretty easy to disarm if you approach from its blind angles (which you start in in both The King's Gambit and Sicilian Defense). It's shape does give what few AAAs and blobs it has some workable coverage from other angles.

It needs a fair number of escort fighters to defend it, which it is pretty much lacking in most missions they show up in. The thing main thing is the Hecate isn't that much better. I've seen Shivan bombers hang around in its numerous blind spots.

If you combine the Hecate's armament on an Orion-shaped ship though, I think it'd be fairly proficient at defending itself. The Orion has a good shape which is easy for turrets and escorting fighters to cover, but not enough turrets. The Hecate has good defensive armament, but is let down by it's awkward shape, making it difficult for it to utilize it's defensive armament to its full potential.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The shape of the Hecate also serves as a pilot's navigational headache.

[Spoon]

The shape of the Hecate also serves as a pilot's navigational headache.

Especially in those nebula missions...

[Snail]

I still think build a Terran Ravana and use it tactically and strategically with redundant subspace drives. Also a lot of fighter capabilities.

Terran Apothess, way better than a Ravana, with a huge range. That way it wouldn't be vulnerable, as launched fighters would be homeless and the Apothess gone before they even got halfway to it.

Well my initial idea was basically StratComm's Chimera, but with a small-ish fighterbay. You send 2-3 of them against a destroyer, kick some ass, then quickly high-tail it out of there before the Shivans even know what happened.

The fighters don't even need to be deployed in that situation.

[pietraz]

Hmmm, the answer is tricky, but solution is quite simple.
Build NO offensive capships (or next to none).

Why?
They are big, slow, expensive and have to be crewed by the thousand.
Instead, concentrate on developing small, quick craft, that can be manufactured in massive quantities, on small instalations, not requiring so many resources.

Imagine, if throughout all those 20 years, instead of building and fitting the Colly the GTVA concentrated on fighters and bombers. They would be built in hundreds of thousands, able to overcrowd any Shivan fleet in a matter of minutes. 80 Saths? No problem, we send 800 bombers with an escort of 1600 fighters (two fighters per bomber) and they take care of SJ's one by one. Impossible? I don't think so.

Think about it, all that would have to be built would be carriers, and since fighters posess the ability to jump to subspace, they wouldn't even need to be brought close to the battle scene. They could be masked by the stealth technology. Take the mass of the Colly and distribute it among fighters and bombers. Imagine this thing dispersing ^^

Of course, Shivans could do the same, but then they wouldn't have the capability to destroy planets (Lucy) or stars (Sath). Sure, they could overwhelm us pretty much with fighters, but they would accomplish nothing. For the defensive army, which in fact the GTVA is, this course of action would prove the most profitable I think.

If there is a flaw in my way of thinking, I'd be glad if somebody pointed it out

[Snail]

I agree about the "no big useless capships" but the way I see it a large bomber fleet would be a logistical nightmare too.

I still think a small group of advanced corvette monitor thingies which come out of nowhere and splash the enemy is the best way to go.

[Pred the Penguin]

Corvettes still need a base of operations, especially in deep space missions where the nearest outpost is a few jumps or a node away.
Destroyers also can carry a heck lot more resources.

I agree that more corvettes would definitely be the way to go, but destroyers also fill an important role.

[Snail]

A few corvettes would be the "Irregular Fleet" (ie. guerrilla fighters) while the normal fleet, consisting of the normal mix, would be the conventional GTVA fleet.

[Enigmatic Entity]

Have a large 3-4km destroyer flagship with a "fleet" of strike-corvettes, all with their own fighter and bomber compliment. Large ships have fast rechargeable jump drives. Destroyer has many more wings of fighters and bombers to protect itself while some corvettes explore in pairs or threes with their escorts.

[Droid803]

The problem with a massive fighter/bomber only fleet would be to keep them supplied, and keep the pilots from being fatigued.

You would need some sort of mobile platform from which fighter pilots can launch from, and return to after a mission and live on. Otherwise, you have the logistical nightmare of shipping bombs and missiles through several systems, having pilots to make multiple jumps to get to a repair station after a strike, etc (read: not a good plan).

Instead of making an offensive warship, you'd then need a carrier type ship, which is big, slow, and expensive, with thousands of people on board to repair and refuel the fighters, amongst other things. It's own fighter wings provide the bulk of offensive and defensive measures, but it'd be unwise to not have any weaponry on it at all. If it gets jumped by something like a Lilith with it's fighter wings away, it's going to get pummeled. It's either going to need escorts (ie. WW2-style Carriers with escort), or have heavy guns of its own (FS2 Destroyer).

[TrashMan]

A mix of everything. All ships have their place and role and situations where they shine and situations where they don't.

It's not merely the size or number of your guns...but also how you use them. Tactics are a massive force multiplayer.

[DIO]

Imagine, if throughout all those 20 years, instead of building and fitting the Colly the GTVA concentrated on fighters and bombers. They would be built in hundreds of thousands, able to overcrowd any Shivan fleet in a matter of minutes. 80 Saths? No problem, we send 800 bombers with an escort of 1600 fighters (two fighters per bomber) and they take care of SJ's one by one. Impossible? I don't think so.

Except that each Sath probably houses several hundred fighters/bombers, which would mean that those 2400 GTVA space crafts would be facing at least 10000+ fighters.

[NGTM-1R]

Why? AAAf beams are an extremely potent deterrent to bomber and fighter attack, and thin antifighter defenses are probably the number one killer of destroyers.

I don't think that deprecating antifighter defenses is going to help.

The answer to a fightercraft is another fightercraft. This is implicit in the existence of interceptors. Fightercraft are not somehow seperate from a destroyer's armament; they are integral parts of it. I am not in favor of deprecating the antifighter defense, I want to see the emphasis shifted off the destroyer's hull; anti-bomb point defenses rather than trying to stop the attack unassisted. After all, how many escort missions have you played where the ship you were escorting killed more enemy fighters than you and your wingmates? (Aside from the convoy in ST:R when I was testing it, I admit I have not played the finished campaign, I can't think of any.)