[NGTM-1R]

Are you talking about distinguishing between each species based on their societies or physiologically? Terrans and Vasudans employed different strategies in combat and had very different social structures. Also, they must have noticed a difference in the ship appearances since the Vasudans had very "earthy" look to their ship. Compared with the Terran vessels were sometimes colored oddly, well, primarily the Orion. Physiologically they looked very similar since they were both bipedal with two arms and a single head.

We don't know any Shivans ever encountered a Vasudan or a Terran face-to-face and lived to tell. We similarly don't know the Shivans even would bother with such distingushing, or care, and the difference in shiptypes is not necessarily a difference in species. Otherwise the Pegasus is evidence of a seperate species. The employment of seperate strategies similarly proves nothing. The Shivans almost certainly didn't do enough deep background intel work to get involved with societal and social stuff.

Given Shivan behavior as we've seen it so far, in FS1 and FS2, they would appear to have no use for such a distinction or concept. Simply "the enemy" is good enough.

[ThesaurusRex]

Hmm...I'm having a hard time believing that a species as advanced Shivans wouldn't notice a difference between the two species. I can agree that they probably don't care and just go for either. Or they may use the same exact strategy when attacking either species to remove any weakness in combat that a preference in selection would cause.

[Asteroth]

I'm pretty sure they attacked Vasuda first, because it was just closer from where they entered: Ross 128

[ThesaurusRex]

Now that I think about it, they must have been able to distinguish Terrans from Vasudans. If they are able to distinguish a fighter from a bomber, a cruiser from a destroyer, and a fast ship from a slow ship, then they must have been able to tell the difference between the two species. Unless they were incapable of remembering these differences and adapted extremely quickly in combat every time they entered, which would make planning attacks almost impossible, then they must have a way of telling a Terran apart from a Vasudan. It was probably beneficial to them from a strategic standpoint that they didn't.

[Droid803]

I'm pretty sure they attacked Vasuda first, because it was just closer from where they entered: Ross 128

Actually no, Sol is closer. Check your local information terminal for a nodemap.
To get to Vasuda from Ross 128, you must first go through Delta Serpentis. Which is one jump from Sol.

[ThesaurusRex]

I didn't really care to look at the node map before but that's really weird. They entered at Ross 128 and seemed to skip around the place, quite carefully to avoid detection, and pop their heads out Antares, or where ever it was, for some odd reason.

[General Battuta]

Are you talking about distinguishing between each species based on their societies or physiologically? Terrans and Vasudans employed different strategies in combat and had very different social structures. Also, they must have noticed a difference in the ship appearances since the Vasudans had very "earthy" look to their ship. Compared with the Terran vessels were sometimes colored oddly, well, primarily the Orion. Physiologically they looked very similar since they were both bipedal with two arms and a single head.

We don't know any Shivans ever encountered a Vasudan or a Terran face-to-face and lived to tell. We similarly don't know the Shivans even would bother with such distingushing, or care, and the difference in shiptypes is not necessarily a difference in species. Otherwise the Pegasus is evidence of a seperate species. The employment of seperate strategies similarly proves nothing. The Shivans almost certainly didn't do enough deep background intel work to get involved with societal and social stuff.

Given Shivan behavior as we've seen it so far, in FS1 and FS2, they would appear to have no use for such a distinction or concept. Simply "the enemy" is good enough.

I'm still not sure this can account for the specific targeting of Vasuda Prime and Earth unless they also popped up as the major strategic hubs on some Shivan analysis...in which case it does pretty much account for it.

[eliex]

In the opening battles involving the Shivans, CB often reported that Shivan forces were intent on securing subspace nodes rather than actual planets.
Probably their special targeting of Earth and Vasuda Prime was to destroy the heart of their two enemies.

[General Battuta]

Right, but that suggest they recognize two distinct enemies.

I do think it could be argued that they don't, they just recognize the key strategic centers.

[Snail]

I'm a FreeSpace conservative.

I really agree with General Battuta on this one. The order in which you play the games is a really big factor in which you like best. Both are excellent, but I'll always like FS1 better (because I played it first).

[Goober5000]

or the equivalent SSLBeams that the FSPort developed

Small nitpick: the SSLBeams were created by Sesquipedalian for the Scroll of Atankharzim.  We were able to use them because Galemp and I were on both the Scroll and Port teams.

[Lucika]

A bit offtopic but I don't want to open a new topic nor necro my old FS1 vs. FS2 topic.
Someone stated that there is a much deeper feeling of hopelessness in FS2.

I replayed FS1 not so long ago.
1) Remember when Command panically screams in the last mission: "You have three minutes to go! Please!"
In Apocalypse, Command continously banged you.
2) Just check out the soundtracks.

[dragonsniper]

I agree that there seems to be more hopelessness in FS2. However the storyline is a lot different. When you are against an almost unstoppable force, there's not a whole lot that you can do. And since that's part of the FS2 storyline, of course it's going to seem atleast a little hopeless.

[Lucika]

I agree that there seems to be more hopelessness in FS2. However the storyline is a lot different. When you are against an almost unstoppable force, there's not a whole lot that you can do. And since that's part of the FS2 storyline, of course it's going to seem atleast a little hopeless.

I've managed to f**k up my post. I clearly meant that FS1 has a greater sense of hopelessness.

[General Battuta]

I think that's a tough argument to make. In FS1 you always had a fighting chance.

What's more, FS1 was kind of...thin. You didn't get the kind of day-to-day updates on operational details that you had in FS2. There were a lot more holes in the narratives (references to missions that never happened, storylines that never really went anywhere) and it just generally didn't feel as textured.

[Lucika]

I think that's a tough argument to make. In FS1 you always had a fighting chance.

What's more, FS1 was kind of...thin. You didn't get the kind of day-to-day updates on operational details that you had in FS2. There were a lot more holes in the narratives (references to missions that never happened, storylines that never really went anywhere) and it just generally didn't feel as textured.

I just hated the GTVA's arrogance.

[General Battuta]

I think that's a tough argument to make. In FS1 you always had a fighting chance.

What's more, FS1 was kind of...thin. You didn't get the kind of day-to-day updates on operational details that you had in FS2. There were a lot more holes in the narratives (references to missions that never happened, storylines that never really went anywhere) and it just generally didn't feel as textured.

I just hated the GTVA's arrogance.

I refer you to NGTM-1R's well-reasoned posts earlier in this thread, then.

[wistler]

It's probably already been commented on (and completely off topic) but I always saw the games and the GTVA behaving like this.

FS1: is reminiscent of WW1 for obvious reasons, the phrase "Great War", the feeling of it being a pointless and unnecessary war (the V-T war) and the obvious aftermath lead to yet more bloodshed (the NTF could represent a broken Germany). Flying in FS1 makes me think of Spitfires getting up behind bombers and letting rip. Technology isn't the best it could be and things like ACES flying the skies.

FS2: is WW2. A war involving atrocities against civilians (the NTF uprising) a war built out of a previous war. It's less about great pushes and going over-the-top and more about technological edges.
The end of FS2 makes me think of the modern age, where the Aries and the Trebuchet represent modern fighter jets, expensive technology and weapons that can end a fight in one shot, over massive distances.

BACK ON TOPIC: The Sathanas always impressed me more then the Lucifer, because I played FS2 first. I remember the first time I played the game, and I couldn't fathom how the GTVA would survive. I mean, i really didn't see there being any hope of survival. That hopelessness is something i love about the game, theres no plucky humans saving the day. Everythings out of our control

[ThesaurusRex]

Flying in FS1 makes me think of Spitfires getting up behind bombers and letting rip. Technology isn't the best it could be and things like ACES flying the skies.

The Supermarine Spitfire was in WWII.

Anyways, with more and more posts going up, it seems that order really does matter. I remembering playing 1998 and thinking it was amazing. Then when I got my hands on FS2 I was blown away by the enveloping story. However, I felt that the ending to FS1 was better.

[wistler]

The Supermarine Spitfire was in WWII.

*slaps face* of course they were! I guess that analogy wouldn't work. Why does history always take a beaten when im around.