[NGTM-1R]

That ship is painfully ugly. The hullform is totally nonsensical and overgreebled.

[Narvi]

Looks like a bunch of scrap metal welded together.

I can't say I like the idea that the UEF has better point-defences, despite the GTVA's entire anti-capship front focusing on bombers. I'm not sure what the idea is here.

[-Norbert-]

You should read the proses and look at the new GTVA ships.
The GTVA changed their tactics since FS2. Now they field cap ships that have most of their firepower to the front and bring a lot of cheap medium-performance fighters on the field.

And from what I heard and saw of the UEF, they seem to value high-performance fighters and cap-ships that have heavy turrets all around the ship, like the GTA used to have (Orion for example).

And I don't mind it looking ugly and overgreebled. It's supposed to be purely functional and overstuffed with bits and pieces for all kinds of electronic warfare after all....


And seeing it in the new two screenshots it somehow reminds me of Nexus.... A mix of Nexus and X3 TC....

[Fury]

GTVA still has better point-defenses as they have beams, nothing in UEF arsenal can rival their deadliness. UEF capital ships have nowhere enough firepower to rival GTVA's heavy beams, except maybe slashers. UEF's heavy guns often outrange GTVA beams however. Real firepower of UEF comes from their gunships and bombers, but tactical range and flight time is more limited than in GTVA's counterparts.

[Ypoknons]

But it does have the detail to show off the FSO engine quite well, and is quite consistent with what we've seen from the UEF. I would have to say the UEF designs are a bit more generic sci-fi, where GTVA ships have always had a sense of fluidity and shapes rarely seen elsewhere.

[Snail]

On topic- I'd have thought the UEF would have some sort of permanant observatory station / radar equivalent array negating AWACS necessity. But the ship looks v-gorgous. In an X3 meets HW cataclysm Clee-San way

That would be destroyed in the first few seconds of the war given the GTVA's superior subspace capability.

[Dilmah G]

Dude, the UEF, should've been destroyed in the first few seconds of the war.

[Fury]

God damn you Dilmah, you just spoiled the first and only mission of WiH!

[Commander Zane]

[The E]

Dammit. Back to the drawing board?

[General Battuta]

Looks like a bunch of scrap metal welded together.

Prlly not so far from the truth, given the way the ship was 'designed' (kind of a rush job). Still, if do find a better model, I suppose there's always a chance it'll get switched out.

I can't say I like the idea that the UEF has better point-defences, despite the GTVA's entire anti-capship front focusing on bombers. I'm not sure what the idea is here.

SURELY YOU JEST. The GTVA is all about the warships. Bombers are not the GTVA's primary anti-capital asset any more.

The idea is that GTVA warships eat UEF warships, UEF warships eat GTVA fighters.

[Snail]

And UEF fighters eat GTVA fighters and bombers too.

Especially if a certain pilot is flying them.

[Qent]

That sounds very, very reminiscent of GTVA versus Shivans.

[Snail]

That sounds very, very reminiscent of GTVA versus Shivans.

Well, in this case the "Shivans" are the GTVA and the "GTVA" are the UEF. If you get what I mean. The GTVA have the strike capitals (Chimera, Bellerophon, Raynor) but the UEF has the Alpha 1s.


That's how I see it anyway.




(BTW, the Elder's "secret project" is actually really high-poly ships designed to suck the resources of lower-end GTVA computers, thus winning the war through superior FPS)

[General Battuta]

Yep. Plus it's not an across-the-board rule; I'd rather go up against a Sanctus than an Aeolus. No beams!

[Snail]

Yep. Plus it's not an across-the-board rule; I'd rather go up against a Sanctus than an Aeolus. No beams!

I'd rather go after the Aeolus, at least I'd have FPS above 10.



Srsly though, a lot of the UEF ships need some serious optimization.

[Rodo]

I think It looks seriously cool, I love non conventional looking ships  (if that combo of words actually exists)

[NGTM-1R]

I can't say I like the idea that the UEF has better point-defences, despite the GTVA's entire anti-capship front focusing on bombers. I'm not sure what the idea is here.

I'm not sure I agree with my comrades here about UEF ships being terribly dangerous to fighters. What they do have, though, is very high rate of fire PD guns, making them difficult or impossible to effectively bomb, and enough durablity to make gun and non-bomb secondary runs impractical as a means of destroying them. They don't appear to have flak and they certainly lack AAA beams. On the other hand the Stratcomm Fleet has poor weapons firearcs for some inane reason, so their antifighter defense is not well thought out.

This is essentially at total opposites with their respective doctrines, as the UEF are the ones who heavily integrate fighter and warship operations and the GTVA does not, despite the fact the UEF is better-equipped for independent operations of warships and fighters and the GTVA would do better at closely integrated operations. Yes, children, it makes no sense!

[General Battuta]

Not at all. UEF warships simply cannot operate alone because they will be raped by warship hunter-killer strike teams. They require fighter or bomber escorts to neutralize beams. On the other hand, as you pointed out, they are quite difficult to bomb.

The GTVA heavily integrates warship and fighter operations, simply in the opposite direction: its warships require protection from fighters.

[Fury]

NGTM-1R, UEF weaponry has changed quite a bit since your beta.