[General Battuta]

What's the point of the bridge though? It just seems to be there and doesn't do anything when destroyed, but in reality, you destroy that and the ship will probably go down or be disabled in everyway possible. That's the brains of the ship, both when it comes to controls and when it comes to the people in that section, in most ways, I think.

No.

Ships are controlled by CIC deep inside the hull. The bridge is for navigation.

On CapShips:
Weapons = Turrets fire less accurately/less often
Communication = No sending messages/recieving orders
Navigation = No jumping (enabled via AIProfiles.tbl)
Sensors = Nothing
Engines = No moving

So if you destroy the comm or nav of the sathanas, it can't jump out, and you can destroy it? (if you can be bothered)

Only if you destroy navigation. Communications has nothing to do with warping out.

And even so I don't believe that option is turned on in AI profiles in the FS2 retail AI profile.

[Snail]

Any ship which has an easily reachable external bridge which just happens to control the its vital operations is an inherently stupid design. It's so stupid I find it offensive.

[Spoon]

Any ship which has an easily reachable external bridge which just happens to control the its vital operations is an inherently stupid design. It's so stupid I find it offensive.

Derp derp, from up here we can see everything in space!

Gundam has some of the most retarded shipdesigns.

[Mongoose]

The Super Star Destroyer was no model of brilliance in that regard, either.

[NGTM-1R]

Some fighterbays are destructable, most aren't.

I tried to work this out once and swiftly came to the conclusion that those fighter bays which are assigned to launch fighters in the mission are not destructable.

[Droid803]

Oh? It does? Interesting...
I thought it was only a table thing where if you set a %HP value for it, then it will be destructable, but if you leave it as 0 it will be invulnerable...
I guess the game prevents you from messing up missions that way? (Though I do recall someone saying that they messed up High Noon because they Helios'd the Sath's fighterbay and Gemini wing stopped spawning or something).

[NGTM-1R]

AFAIK. It's possible this has changed since I reached that conclusion, as I stopped paying attention to that detail afterwards.

[High Max]

It seems you can always destroy the fighterbays but they (at least on the Hades) will keep launching fighters regardless, so in most cases it probably wouldn't make a difference. That is my memory anyways. Just like when I was barely able to destroy a main beam turret of the Ravana in the main FS2 campaign as it was jumping in right before it destroyed the Lysander and it still fired from that turret even though the turret was destroyed.

[Spicious]

Last time I checked, taking out weapons prevented targeting of bombs. Fighterbay subsystems have nothing at all to do with the ability to launch fighters. This comes up every time someone adds a fighterbay subsystem and wonders why they can't get it to launch fighters.

[High Max]

Taking out weapons makes the warship less accurate when shooting at you or other friendlies. It seems that the lower the weapons subsystem integrity, the less accurate its aiming becomes. It may still be possible that it will shoot down a bomb by chance if the bomb is close enough.

[Droid803]

Yeah, I know that fighter launch only really needs bay paths, but I thought that the engine may actually disable fighter launch if the fighterbay subsystem is destroyed?

[NGTM-1R]

The Super Star Destroyer was no model of brilliance in that regard, either.

The pity of it is the ISD/VSD is not actually a bad design; it allows for 50% guns to fire broadside or nearly 100% frontal fire. The Super's design rather destroyed that with the addition of the "haft" section.

[High Max]

Yeah, I know that fighter launch only really needs bay paths, but I thought that the engine may actually disable fighter launch if the fighterbay subsystem is destroyed?

There are a couple instances storywise where the Colossus and Aquitaine couldn't launch because of fighterbay damage, but it may not apply in mission unless designed that way for the mission. So I would think that if you destroy a fighterbay, they will either have to get the flight deck cleared, or by destroying the fighter bay, you actually destroy many fighters and bombers from within the destroyer in the process, realistically speaking.

[colecampbell666]

Yeah, I know that fighter launch only really needs bay paths, but I thought that the engine may actually disable fighter launch if the fighterbay subsystem is destroyed?

There is a couple instances storywise where the Colossus and Aquitaine couldn't launch because of fighterbay damage, but it may not apply in mission unless designed that way for the mission. So I would think that if you destroy a fighterbay, they will either have to get the flight deck cleared or by destroying the fighter bay, you actually destroy many fighters and bombers from within the destroyer in the process, realistically speaking.

Yeah, but they just said that, the fighterbays were, IIRC, undamaged.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Right, subsystems...

Sensor: Unable to target ships
Comms: Unable to send orders
Nav: Unable to jump out
Weapons: Unable to shoot and accuracy of mounted turrets reduced drastically
Laser Turret: Unable to utilise mounted turret
Engines: Unable to move (or even turn while stationary)
Fighterbay: Unable to deploy ships
Crystal: Destroys object (not hard-coded)
Reactor: Destroys object (not hard-coded)
Radar Dish: No effect
Engines FRT: Reduces speed of the GTVA Colossus

[Snail]

Yeah, I know that fighter launch only really needs bay paths, but I thought that the engine may actually disable fighter launch if the fighterbay subsystem is destroyed?

There is a couple instances storywise where the Colossus and Aquitaine couldn't launch because of fighterbay damage, but it may not apply in mission unless designed that way for the mission. So I would think that if you destroy a fighterbay, they will either have to get the flight deck cleared or by destroying the fighter bay, you actually destroy many fighters and bombers from within the destroyer in the process, realistically speaking.

Yeah, but they just said that, the fighterbays were, IIRC, undamaged.

Actually they just don't have any HP and are thus considered invulnerable. Kinda like how you cannot "kill" something which wasn't alive to begin with. Or, you can't destroy something that doesn't exist.

The Super Star Destroyer was no model of brilliance in that regard, either.

Yeah... If your 19.5km superflagship can be destroyed by zapping a few sensor domes and crashing an A-Wing into the bridge, your design is inexcusably idiotic.

[Sushi]

Yeah... If your 19.5km superflagship can be destroyed by zapping a few sensor domes and crashing an A-Wing into the bridge, your design is inexcusably idiotic.

Well, from the same minds who designed death stars that could be taken down by a handful of fighters not once, but twice...

[wistler]

I don't know how much weapon subsystem loss affects beams but it makes blobs almost always miss there target from my experience.

[redsniper]

Blobs almost always miss their targets anyways...

[Dragon]

Not when firing at torpedoes (getting to weapon subsystem with Maxim before launching them really makes the run a piece of cake).