[The E]

Given the probable fact that beams are the only weapons that can neutralize shields in the FreeSpace universe, the Sathanas was probably shielded (even though it was not stated in the tech room). The Lucifer actually did not have shields in the Engine, rather the "invulnerable" tag was checked.

Err, No. Not really. The Sath just has a massive hull. No shields.

In other news, CANON says that the Sath didn't have shields. Do not dispute canon. You will lose.

[Marcov]

Hey, I've read something interesting in SpaceBattles.com.

It clearly states that the Lucifer's shield was actually a "subspace sheath", which means that any type of kinetic or plasma energy whatsoever did NOT damage the ship, rather the energy was transferred to subspace. So then, why could beams even DAMAGE the Lucy?

Any type of harmful energy thrown against the ship would do nothing. That explains why these shields don't work in subspace. The lasers the GTVA try to throw against the Lucifer get transported to subspace, but since it is fired in SUBSPACE ITSELF, there is no transportation, and the damage is inflicted. I'm beginning to contradict my former point...

[Qent]

That sounds non-canon to me. The term "sheath" was used to refer to the Lucifer's shields, but for all we know they could use exactly the same mechanism as fighter and bomber shields.

Interesting explanation for the lack of shields in subspace, though.

[Klaustrophobia]

but that doesn't explain the lack of fighter sheilds in subspace.  i always thought of it as subspace used too much energy for shields to work.

[Marcov]

but that doesn't explain the lack of fighter sheilds in subspace.  i always thought of it as subspace used too much energy for shields to work.

Now that seems to factually rebuke my side of the argument. But then why is it that: "The fact that it is protected by a sheath shielding system which makes it completely impervious to any kind of kinetic or plasma damage makes it impossible to destroy."?? Why is it that this "subspace sheath" thingy is so significant if every FS fighter and bomber uses it?

[jr2]

The fighters and bombers have more of a balloon or orb or whatever you want to call it... it's not skin-tight, as the term "sheath" implies.  Now the engine may not have been able to handle putting a shield mesh around the Lucy and that might be their reason for explaining it differently, but I think they pretty much managed to give us the understanding that the Lucy shields are different.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

but that doesn't explain the lack of fighter sheilds in subspace.  i always thought of it as subspace used too much energy for shields to work.

The reason for the lack of shields in subspace is actually revealed through a few lines of text in the FreeSpace Reference Bible. Here they are:

The camera shows a medium shot of the two scientists at the terminal, standing near a small enclosed test area.  Energy & light flickers from inside the test enclosure.

[watching monitor together]

TerranSci-1:   You see from this part of the captured ship breakdown the energy flow is constant.

VasudanSci-1:   Yes…but how do you explain what happens during a jump?  It doesn’t seem as if the rate is sufficient to support the required level.

TerranSci-1:   Very good observation “EEEEE”  You live up to your credentials.  You see…

[walking to another monitor]

The Terran gets out of his chair and the Vasudan follows him over to the research equipment where the other scientists are tweaking things.[possibly cut this part if we don’t want to show more scientists]

[cut to monitor displaying some sort of graphical test readouts]

TerranSci-1:   We’ve been able to get a prototype shield system working under normal conditions.  However when we simulate jump phenomena there’s no way to keep the power levels high enough. 

VasudanSci-1:   But under normal conditions the shields actually protect the inside structures?

[cut to show both scientists]

TerranSci-1:   Correct.  They stop almost all damage from getting through, at the cost of energy, which explains how the Shivan ships have been able to defend against our attacks so easily.  Despite its shortcomings in subspace, we should be able to start producing shield systems for use on our ships.

[Stormkeeper]

Quite a simple explanation, to me. GTVA reactors simply don't have sufficient power to run both subspace drives and shields.

[General Battuta]

Neither do Shivan ones, then.

[Stormkeeper]

Hmmm, point.

[S-99]

*snip*

By extension the entire Shivan armada shoulda been pulled from the frontlines, and we should've been facing a new ship every battle!

True, except the stupid fan theory i'm calling **** and was debunking merely centered around the lucifer; not all shivan ships in the game like you mentioned. I took the argument a step further extending it to include the sathanas to help explain my point further. I mentioned the sathanas because it's essentially fs2's "lucifer". I then made a comparison of what would happen if the shivans did follow the logic behind the stupid fan theory for both the lucifer and the sathanas fleet (part of the stupid fan theory was the assumption that there was more than one lucifer). 

I made a reasonable extension of the argument to help explain something and it made sense. You made a senseless one for no reason. Did i offend you earlier or something?

It would be much more reasonable to think that the Lucifer was merely a ship with a prototype sheath shielding system, and the prototype was lost with it.

Again, i was debunking a stupid fan theory because it was **** (and that's all i did, nothing more believe it or not). How hard was that to not understand? You read my last post incorrectly; all the stuff i wrote went over your head. I can tell based on how you responded.

[High Max]

More proof that the Sathanas has no shields is that torpedoes and even primaries could damage it and its subsystems. Also, anyone notice a difference between the way FS1 and FS2 handles your abilities of shooting down warheads? In FS1, when a bomber launches them, you can destroy those warheads immediately, but in FS2, when a bomber launches them, you cannot destroy them until about 5 seconds after launch. This is a problem when defending warships. Will this ever be changed? Was this warhead problem present in retail as well? Maybe it was built in because the warheads would be easily shot down by AAA and flak otherwise?

[NGTM-1R]

True, except the stupid fan theory i'm calling **** and was debunking merely centered around the lucifer; not all shivan ships in the game like you mentioned. I took the argument a step further extending it to include the sathanas to help explain my point further.

And were yourself debunked in turn.

[S-99]

Debunking that theory wasn't too hard. The example of mothballing all very effective lucifer vessels just because one got destroyed would be dumb. Hence through this logic, mothballing all very effective sathani vessels just because one got destroyed would be would be just as dumb (and also through this logic in fs2, plausible if this fan theory is what the shivans did if they had a lucifer fleet; you wouldn't have seen anymore sathani past the first one that got destroyed).

What's up with this theory that seems to bother people so much? It operates under the assumption that there's more than just one lucifer. It's a theory and this assumption goes along with it. Operating under this theory to explore it doesn't mean i am saying for a fact that there is more than one lucifer or that i even think there is more than one lucifer.

And were yourself debunked in turn.

Not really. The way stormkeeper responded appears evident that he thinks my exploring of this fan theory was followed with trying to pass off some of the information within it as de facto.

Others say that there are other Lucifer-class destroyers out there, but were withdrawn from the Shivan fleet and mothballed after the destruction of this one.

Either way, this fan theory that androgeus mentioned, i have explained in enough detail to show off why it's a crappy theory, why i'm calling it stupid, and ultimately something that didn't happen. I didn't contribute an opinion on whether or not i think that there's more than one lucifer.

[NGTM-1R]

Not really. The way stormkeeper responded appears evident that he thinks my exploring of this fan theory was followed with trying to pass off some of the information within it as de facto.

Oh come on, I spent a whole post on you.

[High Max]

There probably are a few more Lucifers somewhere, but not in FS2. They probably just lead some other scouting parties. Kind of like it is silly to think that all Scorpions and Shaitans are wiped out. There must be some more somewhere, but maybe not many Lucifers.

[BengalTiger]

Debunking that theory wasn't too hard. The example of mothballing all very effective lucifer vessels just because one got destroyed would be dumb. Hence through this logic, mothballing all very effective sathani vessels just because one got destroyed would be would be just as dumb (and also through this logic in fs2, plausible if this fan theory is what the shivans did if they had a lucifer fleet; you wouldn't have seen anymore sathani past the first one that got destroyed).

Perhaps the blowing up of Capella was just the Saths commiting hara-kiri? The ones that warped out may have elected to go home and be used for target practice, while the ones which stayed behind decided to explode along with the star.

[S-99]

Perhaps the blowing up of Capella was just the Saths commiting hara-kiri? The ones that warped out may have elected to go home and be used for target practice, while the ones which stayed behind decided to explode along with the star.

You're right. Saths for target practice and to watch go boomie is way more cool than just mothballing them. The shivans are probably getting stoned for the light show.

[SpardaSon21]

That theory has nothing on the Capellan Barbecue Theory.

[Dr. Pwnguin]

Obviously the Sathani are just Shivan scout-ships, hence why they feel no need to lose them or care if a few die