Author Topic: Civilian Vessels and Armaments  (Read 12452 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Woolie Wool

  • 211
  • Fire main batteries
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
I assume you can prove any of this, because I know you haven't thought about it. There are very simple, easy ways to protect the optics; ports that only open when firing over the end. People have already considered good ways to eliminate such damage and we don't even have working laser weapons yet. Electrical components that...oh wait, how long does your average electronics bit last again? Particularly military-grade? Years. Radiation shielding is no more heavy than a firing chamber or railgun rails, and the actual barrel is almost superfluous on a laser so that's a weight savings. Your assertions are not supported by evidence or logic.
How often do electronics fail? Often. It's one of the reasons the F-22 Raptor is such a hangar queen compared to older USAF fighters (the radar-absorbent materials being the other reason). Anything controlled by computers or transistors is bound to fail sooner or later. An exposure to the shockwave of a bomb or EMP missile will probably greatly increase the chances of electronic components failing. Even if the radar control feature on the Avenger (a feature that seems completely superfluous considering that FreeSpace fighters have their own built-in sensor packages that will probably be vastly superior to anything crammed into a gun) goes out, it could still likely be slaved to the main sensors or aimed manually. An electronics failure on an energy weapon will likely brick the whole thing.

Quote
You're assuming the Avenger is something it's very probably not. Even the most cursory glance at the design in the the tech room shows that it has some kind of radiators built into it. This implies high temperatures. That eliminates the coilgun from consideration; also considering the (lack of) efficency of the coilgun design, it grows further unlikely. Barrels are not as simple to replace as any old chunk of metal. It requires high-grade components, liners, chromium lined bore, god knows what else. You can't just use any old steel you feel like or the gun blows up. You can't just use any old propellent either. Low-quality propellent can result in it not all burning off, at best increasing maintaince on the weapon substantionally, but in a rapid-fire weapon like the Avenger provoking a destructive misfire. Low-quality propellent will also substantially reduce muzzle velocity (hence damage) and accuracy because it will burn poorly and unevenly.
Coilguns certainly do get hot; the magnetic coils produce a great deal of heat when the weapon si fired. Furthermore, every single component you listed is far more primitive and uses simpler technology than the sort of technology that would go into an X-ray laser gun--no bizarre exotic materials required. These things would be comparatively even more primitive in 2335. The Avenger by FS standards is almost certainly old tech, and if you're on a budget, old tech is good.

Quote
You're basically presenting a situation where they'd be better off in every possible way with ML-16s.
I think a civilian force is far more likely to have ML-16s than they are to have HL-7s. HL-7s are cutting-edge, unconventional, and expensive. They're also in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is likely controlled by them. Those are things that will make them uneconomical for civilians to procure and operate. Most civilians will probably have Great-War era ships and equipment at best; most of them will probably have even older stuff from the Terran-Vasudan War or even earlier. In fact, civilian fighters are more likely to have surplus ML-16s (possibly with modifications to improve shield damage) or ML-16 derivatives, in my opinion, than they are to have any other weapons, including Avengers. While the ML-16 is an energy weapon, it is an old and proven technology, while the HL-7 is relatively new, and ML-16s were produced in enormous numbers.
 
Quote
Shielding systems are ubiquitous on FS fightercraft, and canonically even the pirates encountered in Silent Threat had them. A weapon that is a viable means to damage shields is therefore required for any application against fightercraft. The HL-7 is cheap by economy of scale, easy to service for the same reason (this is the GTVA's standard weapon, there are thousands if not millions of them in service) and not terribly powerful in comparison to the weapons the GTVA can field by the end of FS2 like the Circe, Maxim, or Kayser. There is no particular reason for the GTVA to control them very tightly.
Just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean they are cheap, it could just as easily mean that the GTVA spends vast amounts of money on military equipment (like a certain modern-day country in the Western Hemisphere that I happen to live in whose two new fighter jets cost around three times more than equivalents from other countries), something governments can do (especially with the backing of a resurgent Vasudan economy) and civilians cannot. As for "millions", I would highly doubt that. I estimate a maximum of 50,000 fighters and bombers in the entire GTA, perhaps as few as 10,000 (only a few thousand would be needed to stock all of the GTVA's destroyers, then add several thousand more for ground bases and installations and you would get around 10,000). Also, active service weapons are generally not sold on the open market; their distribution is controlled by exclusive government contracts. You could approach Lockheed Martin with $100 million and they probably won't sell you a single F-35 or even an F-16 without asking the government...and if you're not a military from a nation the US likes, the answer will almost certainly be no). The Avenger and ML-16 are not in service and not under contract; they were probably dumped by the thousands onto markets as military surplus to infuse cash into the newborn GTVA and/or regional Terran blocs, much like Russia has sold huge amounts of military surplus during economic crises. They're old, the GTVA no longer needs them, the technology is mature and well-understood. They're going to be the weapons of choice for civilians, not HL-7s. In this regard, they would fulfill a similar role to old Eastern Bloc war surplus and "monkey models" that have been sold in vast quantities to militaries/paramilitaries, public and private, all over the globe.

Come to think of it, I wonder any civilians will try jury-rigging light plasma turrets from freighters or Watchdogs onto a fighter. There are probably a lot of those lying around as well.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 10:39:01 pm by Woolie Wool »
16:46   Quanto   ****, a mosquito somehow managed to bite the side of my palm
16:46   Quanto   it itches like hell
16:46   Woolie   !8ball does Quanto have malaria
16:46   BotenAnna   Woolie: The outlook is good.
16:47   Quanto   D:

"did they use anesthetic when they removed your sense of humor or did you have to weep and struggle like a tiny baby"
--General Battuta

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
How often do electronics fail? Often. It's one of the reasons the F-22 Raptor is such a hangar queen compared to older USAF fighters (the radar-absorbent materials being the other reason). Anything controlled by computers or transistors is bound to fail sooner or later. An exposure to the shockwave of a bomb or EMP missile will probably greatly increase the chances of electronic components failing. Even if the radar control feature on the Avenger (a feature that seems completely superfluous considering that FreeSpace fighters have their own built-in sensor packages that will probably be vastly superior to anything crammed into a gun) goes out, it could still likely be slaved to the main sensors or aimed manually. An electronics failure on an energy weapon will likely brick the whole thing.

Of course, we know already that the HL-7 and considerably more advanced weapons like the Prometheus (fully-out-of-phase bolts!?) and Kayser laugh this kind of crap off, thus invalidating your argument. You also seem to be confusing your desktop computer with something built to military standards of shock resistance.

Coilguns certainly do get hot; the magnetic coils produce a great deal of heat when the weapon si fired. Furthermore, every single component you listed is far more primitive and uses simpler technology than the sort of technology that would go into an X-ray laser gun--no bizarre exotic materials required. These things would be comparatively even more primitive in 2335. The Avenger by FS standards is almost certainly old tech, and if you're on a budget, old tech is good.

Citation needed. Technology does not sit still; the Avenger could quite easily be constructed out of very exotic materials and be an utter ***** to maintain even be the standards of the 2100s. It is, after all, a 45mm single barrel weapon firing 1600 rounds a minute (from plotholespace) for periods that are apparently indefinite. The materials science in designing such a thing is a step beyond modern technology easily, whereas we have the knowhow to build an HL-7 right now, we simply lack a power source.

I think a civilian force is far more likely to have ML-16s than they are to have HL-7s. HL-7s are cutting-edge, unconventional, and expensive. They're also in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is likely controlled by them. Those are things that will make them uneconomical for civilians to procure and operate. Most civilians will probably have Great-War era ships and equipment at best; most of them will probably have even older stuff from the Terran-Vasudan War or even earlier. In fact, civilian fighters are more likely to have surplus ML-16s (possibly with modifications to improve shield damage) or ML-16 derivatives, in my opinion, than they are to have any other weapons, including Avengers. While the ML-16 is an energy weapon, it is an old and proven technology, while the HL-7 is relatively new, and ML-16s were produced in enormous numbers.

The HL-7 is over a decade old, they were in use in Operation Templar, and is no longer expensive, as it's been in active production for that decade. Economy of scale and the need for anti-shielding firepower long ago killed that argument. That they are in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is (possibly) controlled proves absolutely nothing about how uneconomical it is for civilians to use them. There are a lot of HL-7s about and they can be found wherever the GTVA is operating, thus it's relatively easy to locate a source of supply.

The ML-16 by contrast has been out of active production for whole units or parts for over two decades. This is not an assault rifle; it's a fighter gun. There are not tens of millions of them (and as already noted they used argon gas, apparently in short supply). Existing stocks of weapons and spare parts have long since been used up.

You also fail to address the point that the HL-7 is not even remotely the GTVA's top weapon anymore. In comparison to things like the Kayser it's more or less obselete.

-snip-

Comparing modern social and law structures to FreeSpace is the height of lunacy. I really don't know how else to put it. We can talk science, just a little, because that's not anything like as mutable.

I also suggest you look up the term "economy of scale" and find out what it means.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Woolie Wool

  • 211
  • Fire main batteries
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
Of course, we know already that the HL-7 and considerably more advanced weapons like the Prometheus (fully-out-of-phase bolts!?) and Kayser laugh this kind of crap off, thus invalidating your argument. You also seem to be confusing your desktop computer with something built to military standards of shock resistance.
The FS1 tech description seems to indicate that, aside from the "fully out of phase" thing (whatever the hell that means, and it might not even be present on the R), the Prometheus works in pretty much the same way as the ML-16--it's just an argon laser with more power. Also, the Kayser does not factor into this discussion at all. The Subach is an expensive weapon. The Kayser is an incredibly expensive, limited-production "superweapon" that's in a class all its own (and a civilian would have a higher chance of owning a unicorn than a UD-8 Kayser). Also, shock is not the only thing that can damage electronics--EMPs (and with nuclear missiles and antimatter bombs flying around, there will be EMPs in the combat zone), short circuits, and simple software gremlins can all turn your advanced weapon into a piece of junk. It's like saying an F-35 is cheap and easy to acquire because it's less than a tenth the cost of a B-2.

Quote
Citation needed. Technology does not sit still; the Avenger could quite easily be constructed out of very exotic materials and be an utter ***** to maintain even be the standards of the 2100s. It is, after all, a 45mm single barrel weapon firing 1600 rounds a minute (from plotholespace) for periods that are apparently indefinite. The materials science in designing such a thing is a step beyond modern technology easily, whereas we have the knowhow to build an HL-7 right now, we simply lack a power source.
Assuming, if we did get the power source, the HL-7 would not destroy itself (and everything within a kilometer or so) because we don't have anything like the sort of materials required for a terawatt-grade energy weapon. The Avenger is beyond modern technology, but the HL-7 is even further beyond modern technology, to the point where we could not build anything of that power that could survive being fired once.

Quote
The HL-7 is over a decade old, they were in use in Operation Templar, and is no longer expensive, as it's been in active production for that decade. Economy of scale and the need for anti-shielding firepower long ago killed that argument. That they are in active service with the GTVA and their distribution is (possibly) controlled proves absolutely nothing about how uneconomical it is for civilians to use them. There are a lot of HL-7s about and they can be found wherever the GTVA is operating, thus it's relatively easy to locate a source of supply
A decade is new in terms of military designs. 40-50 years is old. The F-22A is 12 years old (the YF-22 is 18). Also, do you think civilians can just walk up to a GTVA armory and steal large spacecraft-mounted weapons from it? Are you crazy? They won't even clap eyes upon them before being arrested or killed. Civilians will only have HL-7s if the GTVA lets them have them. Considering that it is a currently active service weapon using modern technology which may be partially classified, it won't. Try taking your pickup truck to an American air force base and making off with an M61 Vulcan. It will make for a very interesting obituary to say the least.

Quote
The ML-16 by contrast has been out of active production for whole units or parts for over two decades. This is not an assault rifle; it's a fighter gun. There are not tens of millions of them (and as already noted they used argon gas, apparently in short supply). Existing stocks of weapons and spare parts have long since been used up.
Assuming other suppliers are not building spare parts for them or the original manufacturers supplying parts for weapons not controlled by military contracts. Many Third World nations keep retired equipment like F-4s, F-5s, MiG-23s, Su-25s, and T-72s flying long after other nations abandon them. The technology is old and well understood.

Quote
You also fail to address the point that the HL-7 is not even remotely the GTVA's top weapon anymore. In comparison to things like the Kayser it's more or less obselete.
Irrelevant. The Kayser is not a mainstream service weapon and never will be. It's a toy for elite units and special ops. It will eventually be replaced by a similar, upgraded toy like the Banshee was. Just because it's not better than every other weapon doesn't mean the GTVA will sell them to anyone who wants them or, worse, let people take them. Ask Boeing if you can buy one of their F-15s (outclassed by the F-22 but still in service). I don't think they'll say yes. Hell, you can't even borrow F-15s for a movie without the DoD's approval, which is why a lot of movies without the budget for lots of CG planes use F-5s and other craft the USAF no longer uses.

Quote
Comparing modern social and law structures to FreeSpace is the height of lunacy. I really don't know how else to put it. We can talk science, just a little, because that's not anything like as mutable.
What else are we to compare them to? Something you pulled out of your ass? Utopian Marxism? Objectivism? Anarcho-syndicalism? How about the fact that the GTVA's government is pretty much a copy of the United Nations, a modern-day international legal institution? And if the rather disturbing hints of militarism of the GTA in FS1 is any indication (the GTA seems synonymous with its own military, military officers can summarily revoke your citizenship, etc.), the FreeSpace factions are, like all militarist, authoritarian states, even more concerned about preventing military-grade weapons so as to preserve their military's supremacy over any potential uprisings.

Quote
I also suggest you look up the term "economy of scale" and find out what it means.
I also suggest you look up the term "government contract" and find out what it means. Military contractors don't just sell military equipment, the people they can legally sell to is strictly limited and the distribution of military products is controlled very tightly. There is no reason why this should change in the future, not if governments have any sense.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 12:56:22 am by Woolie Wool »
16:46   Quanto   ****, a mosquito somehow managed to bite the side of my palm
16:46   Quanto   it itches like hell
16:46   Woolie   !8ball does Quanto have malaria
16:46   BotenAnna   Woolie: The outlook is good.
16:47   Quanto   D:

"did they use anesthetic when they removed your sense of humor or did you have to weep and struggle like a tiny baby"
--General Battuta

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
The FS1 tech description seems to indicate that, aside from the "fully out of phase" thing (whatever the hell that means, and it might not even be present on the R), the Prometheus works in pretty much the same way as the ML-16--it's just an argon laser with more power.

The tech description specifically states what that means. It generates its pulses at the exact opposite frequencies of the materials it's targeting will show on a spectrograph, ensuring maximum destructive power. It's not just an argon laser; it's an incredibly ridiculously advanced weapons system that scans the target, identifies the most destructive particular frequency it can fire, and fires at that frequency in less than .1 of second. It puts any comparison to any other weapon in the game except the total sillytech zero-point energy bursts Kayser to shame. The amount of fine control, lensing, and computer support required to do this dictates that even in FS terms this gun is big damn deal.

Also, the Kayser does not factor into this discussion at all. The Subach is an expensive weapon. The Kayser is an incredibly expensive, limited-production "superweapon" that's in a class all its own (and a civilian would have a higher chance of owning a unicorn than a UD-8 Kayser).

Citation needed. The only things we actually know about the Kayser is its method of operation, it's so powerful most doctrine would confine it to bombers, and the fact it's still considered OpEval which is why deployment is restricted. We have every reason to believe it has passed OpEval with flying colors all things considered. The Kayser is now most likely in full production. Since it's based on Shivan primary technologies, mass production of similar designs certainly didn't pose them any problems.

I agree you're not going to see them in civilian hands, but because they're new, and because they're ridiculously powerful.

Also, shock is not the only thing that can damage electronics--EMPs (and with nuclear missiles and antimatter bombs flying around, there will be EMPs in the combat zone), short circuits, and simple software gremlins can all turn your advanced weapon into a piece of junk. It's like saying an F-35 is cheap and easy to acquire because it's less than a tenth the cost of a B-2.

EMP is greatly reduced without atmosphere. However, that misses the point. How do you shield against EMP?

Tinfoil. A simple double-layer foamed-aluminium sheet of tinfoil bought at the grocery store will cut EMP exposure drastically. A second sheet will pretty much eliminate it. Modern military equipment with TEMPEST hardening and military-spec tinfoil can handle EMP easily. We already have the technology to make a mockery of your argument.

Assuming, if we did get the power source, the HL-7 would not destroy itself (and everything within a kilometer or so) because we don't have anything like the sort of materials required for a terawatt-grade energy weapon. The Avenger is beyond modern technology, but the HL-7 is even further beyond modern technology, to the point where we could not build anything of that power that could survive being fired once.

And you know the power level of the HL-7 how exactly? We already know what power the Banshee operated at, and it was a lot lower than your assigned power to the HL-7. You also failed to address my point.

A decade is new in terms of military designs. 40-50 years is old. The F-22A is 12 years old (the YF-22 is 18). Also, do you think civilians can just walk up to a GTVA armory and steal large spacecraft-mounted weapons from it? Are you crazy? They won't even clap eyes upon them before being arrested or killed. Civilians will only have HL-7s if the GTVA lets them have them. Considering that it is a currently active service weapon using modern technology which may be partially classified, it won't. Try taking your pickup truck to an American air force base and making off with an M61 Vulcan. It will make for a very interesting obituary to say the least.

You're confusing the weapons platform and the weapon itself. Aircraft designs last longer than the weapons they carry, by a lot, so your comparison is useless.

I'd also like to note that's a nice straw man. Of course civilians will only have HL-7s if the military allows them to, but seeing as the only people who would have a reason to purchase HL-7s from the military are likely major contractors for the military, there's not much reason to deny them. My point is that if you need to find somebody who would sell you the bits you need, you probably can, and you're probably already on very good terms with them.

As for pirates, god knows what they'd use. Most likely juryrigged stuff of their own design.

Assuming other suppliers are not building spare parts for them or the original manufacturers supplying parts for weapons not controlled by military contracts.

But where's the market in building spare parts? This isn't a universe with lots of PMCs or pirates. We encounter PMCs not at all and pirates only once. The private market is, of necessity, going to be an adjunct to the military market, because there's not enough private market to sustain itself.

Irrelevant. The Kayser is not a mainstream service weapon and never will be. It's a toy for elite units and special ops.

Bull****. It's a standard weapon undergoing standard OpEval. There isn't a single shred of evidence otherwise.

What else are we to compare them to?

We're not going to bring them into the discussion at all, if we're smart, because it's something about which nothing can be justified.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Killer Whale

  • 29
  • Oh no, not again.
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
...As for "millions", I would highly doubt that. I estimate a maximum of 50,000 fighters and bombers in the entire GTA, perhaps as few as 10,000 (only a few thousand would be needed to stock all of the GTVA's destroyers, then add several thousand more for ground bases and installations and you would get around 10,000)...
Quote from: FS2 Tech Room Description
Learning a lesson from the bomber losses of the Great War, Vasudan defense contractor Akheton designed the GVB Bakha, a fast, agile bomber that could still deliver a warship-shattering payload. The Bakha's dual Akh-12 engines are baffled and masked, giving it a small profile for heat-seeking missiles. The bomber's speed and maneuverability make it the craft of choice for taking out destroyers and corvettes with multiple flak, AAA, and anti-ship beam turrets. Over 6,000 Bakhas have been produced in the orbiting shipyards around Vasuda Prime.
6 000 Bakhas alone, plus all the other fighter and bombers the GTVA has probably on average at similar if not higher numbers adds up to a lot more than 50 000

 

Offline mmm99

  • 26
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
what about the subach? i thought that was around since before the great war and it was effective against shields? or am i wrong?
Life is like cheese... I never liked cheese.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
I would like to point out right now that 6,000 produced does not equate to 6,000 in service.  Due to combat losses, retirement, accidents, and possibly just plain age (we have no figures for how long they have been in service, nor how reliable they are, correct?), I would wager there are less than 4,000 in service.  Add to that some of them should be stationed at garrisons and ground bases, and I would say that MAYBE 3,000 are in active service.

Wild-Ass Guess Incoming!

I think that 50,000 is a decent figure for total ACTIVE figher and bomber resources available to the GTVA.  Any more than that, added to capital ships, and manpower starts to look rather strained, and logistics begin to look like a nightmare.  Caps for emphasis, because not every fighter that has been produced, or is even combat ready, has a pilot.  How else would the player be able to choose from ~30 different craft before every mission?

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
Just want to jump in and point out, as NGTM-1R did, that nukes and antimatter will not generate a significant EMP in space.

 

Offline mmm99

  • 26
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
don't mind me im just a blabering idiot in the corner

heres a proper thought out question along the lines of the topic

what did cap ships use before beams? just wondering havent played the first game
Life is like cheese... I never liked cheese.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
Fusion Mortar. It's still better than a SGreen, to boot.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Vip

  • 28
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
Fusion Mortar. It's still better than a SGreen, to boot.

And blobs. Don't forget about blob turrets. They were actually kinda dangerous before shields were developed. Hell, even an Aten could pose a threat to fighters back then (a small one, but still).
Lieutenant Commander Richard "Viper" Pred

 

Offline Qent

  • 29
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
just wondering havent played the first game
In case you haven't heard, go play FSPort! :)

 

Offline Aardwolf

  • 211
  • Posts: 16,384
    • Minecraft
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
Every Aeolus ever made was destroyed by the end of FS2 :P

That would be incorrect. There are two that are never named :P

I figured out the list once... 2 were from multi missions. All +1 if you count the GTC Adamant from the demo.

 

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Minecraft
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
Every Aeolus ever made was destroyed by the end of FS2 :P

That would be incorrect. There are two that are never named :P

I figured out the list once... 2 were from multi missions. All +1 if you count the GTC Adamant from the demo.

I never like the 2 dozen number given and how FS2 played out i mean 24 works out an average of 2 to four ships per terran fleet (depending on how many fleets their are) which given the number just seen in NTF hands is unreasonable (it would mean about 1/3rd of the aeolus fleet defected)
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art

 

Offline Vip

  • 28
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
I never like the 2 dozen number given and how FS2 played out i mean 24 works out an average of 2 to four ships per terran fleet (depending on how many fleets their are) which given the number just seen in NTF hands is unreasonable (it would mean about 1/3rd of the aeolus fleet defected)

Actually, it makes sense if you look at how new things are released in the FS universe. Boanerges was available only to the 3rd, 4th and 5th Terran battlegroups, Perseus was first assigned only to the 3rd battlegroup for trail and all the Artemis are said to have been deployed only in the 2nd and 3rd battlegroups.

Now, let's look at the Aeolus. It could have been sent first to the battlegroups that would later defect, but after Command decided they were too expensive/not effective enough in their not-so-humble opinion, they never bothered introducing them in the rest of the fleet. And thanks to the Murphy laws, half of the best anti-fighter cruisers ended up in the hands of the enemy when Bosch rebelled.
Lieutenant Commander Richard "Viper" Pred

 

Offline Kolgena

  • 211
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
There's probably the possibility that pirates would actually be able to pick up some pretty decent weaponry if they're super lucky. They probably get engaged by the GTVA once in a while, and although it'd be expected that the pirates would either run or get horribly owned, there's a small chance that they might win the engagement. That means they have a small window to pick up ship debris and book it before reinforcements arrive. Such debris might include decent weaponry like Prom R, Subach, or even a Prom S.

Naturally, if this happened at all, it would be some sort of trophy item that the top pirate pilot gets to have one of for however long the gun lasts.

Also, pirates can steal stuff, or they wouldn't exist (Logic says that they wouldn't, because it's so hard to get the necessary force, but that's no fun). So, it's possible that pirates could on occasion steal a nice load of Herc IIs, Myrms, or guns to keep their operations going.

I guess both shaky justifications could be used to make buff pirates in a campaign, if that's what's required. However, normal civilians in general would probably be limited to ML16s, Avengers, and other junk.

 

Offline headdie

  • i don't use punctuation lol
  • 212
  • Lawful Neutral with a Chaotic outook
    • Minecraft
    • Skype
    • Twitter
    • Headdie on Deviant Art
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
especially with steeling fighters a depot raid or orbital/deepspace factory raid wold be feasible throw in a few jumps in rapid succession and government forces would probably loose subspace tracking, it's risky but then piracy is anyway
Minister of Interstellar Affairs Sol Union - Retired
quote General Battuta - "FRED is canon!"
Contact me at [email protected]
My Release Thread, Old Release Thread, Celestial Objects Thread, My rubbish attempts at art

 

Offline Thaeris

  • Can take his lumps
  • 211
  • Away in Limbo
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
In the aftermath of major military engangements would be a potentially great time for space raiders to pick up some hardware. Hulks orbiting planets, disabled craft which couldn't be recovered safely in the heat of an operation, etc. If you're writing a campaign which has pirates/mercs, using this as an explanation of where your military-grade hardware came from also promotes the use of the "ugly" fighters. "Kitbash" craft and other modded vehicles are quite viable for civilians and other dissidants. A great real-life example of this phenomenon would be the 1948 wars between Israel and the Arab states. The Isreali AF used everything from smuggled Bf-109 derivatives to the Beech Bonaza (as a bomber)!
"trolls are clearly social rejects and therefore should be isolated from society, or perhaps impaled."

-Nuke



"Look on the bright side, how many release dates have been given for Doomsday, and it still isn't out yet.

It's the Duke Nukem Forever of prophecies..."


"Jesus saves.

Everyone else takes normal damage.
"

-Flipside

"pirating software is a lesser evil than stealing but its still evil. but since i pride myself for being evil, almost anything is fair game."


"i never understood why women get the creeps so ****ing easily. i mean most serial killers act perfectly normal, until they kill you."


-Nuke

 

Offline Kolgena

  • 211
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
Actually, flying a moderate speed/handling fighter with horrible primaries and no secondaries but a billion countermeasures to scoop up debris in the midst of a BoE battle while trying to avoid death might be pretty fun. It might require some special FREDing to prevent hostiles from targeting you as a priority, but hot scrap scrounging does seem exciting, while offering an acceptable way to create a gratuitous BoE.

So yes, there does seem to be ways in which pirates can arm themselves to a level that would make them fun to dogfight.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Civilian Vessels and Armaments
They probably get engaged by the GTVA once in a while, and although it'd be expected that the pirates would either run or get horribly owned, there's a small chance that they might win the engagement.

Subspace comms says the GTVA drops a destroyer instead. Unless you delibrately pick a fight for this purpose (and then you're pretty crazy)...
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story