[Solatar]

I was trying to find some time to FRED the other day, making a few late TV-war era missions.  I was trying to decide if it was worth it to add a .tbm with a few extra weapons to spice things up a bit.  It got me to thinking; at what rate is new technology introduced?  We know that in the space of a few months (Great War) we go from unshielded Apollos and ML-16s to Banshee and Prometheus wielding ass-kicking machines.

How long was the ML-16 in service? If weapons were kept as long as they were useful, for example, then why did the Subach HL-7 replace the Avenger?

[headdie]

avenger is described as a .45 cal ballistic cannon so it has the issue that (though not implemented) there would be a limited ammo whereas the hl-7 is a laser (i am not getting into the laser/plasma argument) type so has unlimited ammo

secondly there might be maintenance or other cost issues with avenger, also after the great war avenger might have been retired for some reason so HL-7 would then replace the ML-16

[redsniper]

.45 cal

lolno, it's not a handgun. More like 45mm.

[Snail]

Technological progress IMHO speeds up considerably when a real threat is introduced. During "normal" times (that is, times of either peace of perpetual war) technology advances only as much as how much is feasible.

Note how there were relatively few innovations between 2335-2367, but in the period of a few weeks/months over the course of FS2 a whole load of technologies were dumped on the table.

[IronBeer]

Well, given that the ML-16 and Prometheus are both described as lasers (the Prometheus has an additional scanner device to make its next shot(s) as destructive as possible) it's highly likely that most of the weapons unveiled during the Great War were in or near final stages of development. Hell, the Hades wasn't built from scratch during the Great War! The Harbinger just reinforces this idea even more- the version that killed the Lucifer was adapted from an already existing design. I would propose that most of the new toys that Command lets us use on the Shivans were green-lighted because the stakes weren't simply economic- the survival of the alliance as species depended on it.

So, short answer- the tech development rate likely did not speed up dramatically during the months of war with the Shivans.

[NGTM-1R]

The Avenger question is easy. Expendibles; all that ammunition is a significant drain on logistics capablity. The weapon itself probably requires more frequent maintaince and parts replacement than energy weaponry as well.

Some advancements, like the Ursa and Banshee, were probably Shivan-inspired. Some, like the Tsunami, were clearly already in the works. Overall I would say the arrival of the Shivans did push the technological establishment into high gear, but this is based more than anything on my belief that by the time they arrived, the T-V War was still ongoing in name only. Neither side was willing to risk major fleet units any more in recognition of the fact that while they could not win the war, they could still lose it through a major screwup, so they didn't risk their core assets of cruisers and destroyers except in small, replaceable numbers. There was no rush to win; they hoped to wind the war down.

[Wobble73]

Not to mention that the GTVA has lost a large source of resources, namely the Sol system, where we can assume, the Terran's at least, got a large portion of their resources. We could postulate that some of those resources where only available in Sol and these rare resources where needed to make the Avenger cannon.

[MatthTheGeek]

We could postulate that some of those resources where only available in Sol and these rare resources where needed to make the Avenger cannon.

If you remember correctly, it's the argument for the Promy R, it would be a little "copy-paste" to apply it to the Avenger.

But I think the idea of maintenance costs and ammunition are the more likely ones. The Avenger was rushed into service and mass-produced only because it was the only weapon able to penetrate shields, not because it was a cheap weapon. For what we know, it is absolutely possible (even if there is no evidence of it) that it was a very expensive weapon to produce, and the the GTA/PVN put a large part of their resources to produce it only because of the Shivan threat.

If one consider the whole theory of the GTI conspiracy and investigations made in Ross 128 by a certain GTSC Einstein, it is possible the Avenger has been designed from the beginning solely for anti-Shivan purpose, even if there were prototypes before the end of the T-V War.

[Woolie Wool]

I believe that there must have been many technologies that were around at or before the start of FS1 that the player never encountered; things like early bombs, other primary weapons besides the ML-16 and Disruptor (although they would be just as useless against Shivan ships), aspect-seeking missiles, Terran bombers and assault fighters, and possibly heavy anti-capship weaponry (why else would they even try to engage a Demon-class destroyer with a cruiser as stated in the FS1 tech fluff?).

[MatthTheGeek]

why else would they even try to engage a Demon-class destroyer with a cruiser as stated in the FS1 tech fluff?).

Hum... Because the fusion mortar was the most powerful weapon back in this era ?

[stuart133]

Well thinking about it, there are what, 32 years between the wars. That is from 1977 to now. If we look back at the military advances from then, we can see new weapons and vehicles, with much improved capabilities.
 If we apply this to FS we see a similar thing, with the Orion being replaced with the Hecate and the Typhon being replaced with the Hatshepsut.
 Also things like the HL-7 some in and replace the ML-16 and the avenger. Even if the avenger was an easy weapon to produce, over 32 years, new weapons would come in to replace it.

[Droid803]

A fusion mortar is actually pretty good.
It's better than a SGreen.

[Woolie Wool]

Also things like the HL-7 some in and replace the ML-16 and the avenger. Even if the avenger was an easy weapon to produce, over 32 years, new weapons would come in to replace it.

The problem with the HL-7 is not that it replaced by the Avenger, but that it replaced the Avenger while being worse than the Avenger. The Avenger is better in virtually every way than the HL-7.

[Woolie Wool]

why else would they even try to engage a Demon-class destroyer with a cruiser as stated in the FS1 tech fluff?).

Hum... Because the fusion mortar was the most powerful weapon back in this era ?

And why do no other cruisers aside from the Fenris have the Fusion Mortar? Why do no destroyers have it, despite having massive amounts of space that are far in excess of what's needed to carry 150 fighters around? Where did FS1 ships (Typhon aside, but even that's borderline) find the energy to fire weapons hundreds of times as powerful as what they used to have? I prefer to think that the beam cannons on FS2 simply replaced existing heavy anti-cap weapons (whether they be INF:A style railguns, torpedo launchers like the Fusion Mortar, or other heavy weapons). The Fenris is perhaps the only non-Lucifer capship in FS1 that isn't ludicrously, hilariously underarmed. These ships had the size and power to mount huge anti-cap weapons of some sort, it's insane to think that they could and did not.

Other things that corroborate my theory:

* The destruction of the GTD Eisenhower and her escorts was attributed to the design of the PVD Typhon herself, and not her fighter and bomber wings.
* The GTD Bastion tried to chase the SD Lucifer into the DS-Sol jump node. This indicates that the Bastion intended to bring heavy weapons to bear on the Lucifer while her shields were down; otherwise there would be no point.

Evidence suggests that the FS1-era Terran and Vasudan warships mounted considerable anti-capital weaponry and were powerful vessels in their own right, but less powerful than their FS2-era retrofit versions. Essential parts of the plot and backstory pretty much require this to be true.

[IceFire]

Also things like the HL-7 some in and replace the ML-16 and the avenger. Even if the avenger was an easy weapon to produce, over 32 years, new weapons would come in to replace it.

The problem with the HL-7 is not that it replaced by the Avenger, but that it replaced the Avenger while being worse than the Avenger. The Avenger is better in virtually every way than the HL-7.

In game numbers and combat results yes but we can do a little thinking and come up with a perfectly reasonable assumption that logistically the Avenger was not as cost effective as the Subach HL-7 was for normal peacetime operations so they ditched the Avenger.

It's like the US Navy and the Tomcat versus Super Hornet.  In 2009 it would still be a top fleet defender with it's old but powerful radar and video capabilities (not to mention performance)... but ... it costs a bundle to keep flying.  So the US Navy went with the F-18E/F Super Hornet instead.  Not as capable but cheaper and easier to maintain.

[NGTM-1R]

* The destruction of the GTD Eisenhower and her escorts was attributed to the design of the PVD Typhon herself, and not her fighter and bomber wings.

Quoth the table entry: "Should be Vasudan Flux Cannon." for the fighterkillers. These are improved fusion mortar weapons.

* The GTD Bastion tried to chase the SD Lucifer into the DS-Sol jump node. This indicates that the Bastion intended to bring heavy weapons to bear on the Lucifer while her shields were down; otherwise there would be no point.

Assertion does not follow; the Bastion could have deployed more fighter wings if it entered the tunnel after the Lucifer, deployed a support ship, allowed Delta's Ursas to land and rearm if the support ship option was not viable, or simply have closed to point-blank range much as the Tantalus did to it and provided a distracting target for the Lucifer's fighter wings and turrets to help Delta.

The fact the Bastion did not deploy such heavy weapons against the SD Tantalus puts that argument to bed, as even if you try and state they were short of ammo or something, not deploying the weapons runs the risk the Bastion will be unable to do any of the above as well as possibly be destroyed, rendering the strike against the Lucifer impossible.

[Woolie Wool]

If they could have deployed additional fighter wings against the Lucifer, they would have. The window for launching fighters wasn't much smaller than it would have been if things had proceeded as planned; they could have sent three or four wings of Ursas out the door. They didn't. Why? My guess is they didn't have that many and they were planning to use their main guns.

The fact the Bastion did not deploy such heavy weapons against the SD Tantalus puts that argument to bed, as even if you try and state they were short of ammo or something, not deploying the weapons runs the risk the Bastion will be unable to do any of the above as well as possibly be destroyed, rendering the strike against the Lucifer impossible.

Fluff > gameplay. If fluff and gameplay contradict, fluff wins (I also take the 80+ turret configuration of the Colossus and the triple beam cannon armament of the Lucifer as the true configurations, and I believe that Talania did exist). The fluff and plot indicate that capital ships do have the ability to destroy other capital ships without bomber support. Any gameplay behavior must be taken with a large grain of salt.

And this is leaving aside the idea that it's completely ludicrous that a ship of that size would not have heavy weapons. It's insane.

My opinion remains that all FS1 capital ships except for the Lucifer (and maybe other Shivan caps, but that's a stretch), had some form of pre-beam heavy weapons, possibly torpedo launchers like the Fusion Mortar or other weapons. Nothing else makes sense. If there were no such ships, someone would have built a torpedo-laden capital ship because of the overwhelming advantage it would give versus ships not so equipped. To think otherwise is to think that all humans and all Vasudans are incredibly, amazingly, mind-blowingly, colossally stupid. Even if you just had laser weapons, you could just build a more powerful laser with more wattage and a bigger lens and bolt it to your new destroyer.

[ChronoReverse]

Hmm, with the FS1 turrets, the Orion could probably push out about 250 damage per second (assuming 2 huge turrets and 4 turrets) with the right broadside.  That's sufficient to destroy another Orion within 7 minutes.  Am I doing this calculation all wrong?

With that said, I've always thought that the firing rate of the blob turrets should be equal to the fighter versions (but with the same punch per shot).  That alone would make the capital ships of even the FS1-era quite a threat.  I do not think that capital ships would have wielded heavy bombs though.  Large bombs invariably move slowly and would be next to useless if launched from a capital ship.

[Woolie Wool]

That's still equivalent firepower to a single Hercules, which is pathetic.

[ChronoReverse]

Yes, that's why I said I believe that ought to have fired at the same rate as the regular Prometheus.  That would provide over five times the numerical firepower as well as greatly increasing the hit-rate against fighters and bombers.

I rather think of it being slow for the same reason the Shivan's have wimpy lasers (as opposed to the Kaysers they should be armed with); so that we pilots don't get shot to pieces super quick.