You're so full of crap, it cost more than several destroyers, a home planet, two space stations, and access to a home system to build did it?
I make roflz now.
Am I?
I mean, you're the one who's assuming that the Lucifer's comparative cost is cumulative. It doesn't matter what it did before; none of those engagements had any outcome on its final destruction. Only one did. That's the only one that matters. Similarly, you're assuming that research cost is
not cumulative when in fact, you would need to assign research cost bundled out over the complete production runs of new ships and weapons at the time the
Lucifer was destroyed, thereby rendering it neglible for the purposes of this discussion. The Ursa may have been built for specifically this battle, but these were not the only Ursas around nor was it the only battle Ursas fought in.
So you finally realized your arguments are crap. Good for you,
No, I know, and can cite many many threads where it's been proved, that you're unable to admit fault.
No, it doesn't prove scarcity.
Articulate why the existence of no canonical Lucifers in FS2 does not prove their scarcity.
So? The GTVA deployed the best craft and pilots it had.
Don' you, as alpha 1, kill of dozens of fighter per mission? 16 vs. 40 are not bad odds for terrans, given how many shivan fighters die.
So you're going to again, reach outside, and pretend the player did everything when by default and by the FS1 end cutscene...he did no such thing. All 16 survived. All of them flew their default ships. The player clearly cannot have accomplished everything if what is by FS2
historical record shows otherwise.
Also, why do keep referring to the GTA/PVN strike force as GTVA? That's years in the future still. I mean, there's a whole other sequence of missions (Silent Threat) before that happens. (Keep proving your ignorance man.)
And yea...and ships with a reactor subsystem can be destroyed (if so scripted). Especially if you use weapons design specificy to destroy subsystems and not the hull.
But this is the only case in canon where it happened. It's the only time canonically where it matters.
*YAWN*
See, I'm actually trying to show you a modicum of respect, though I know it's futile, because I'm treating this like a serious argument.
Even though you're not.
Oh, but I can dispute your point.
Well, yeah, but it ain't gonna help just saying that.
No design is perfect. Every ship will have it's weak spots. Weapon magazines, reactors, engines, places where the armor is thinner, etc... You cannot make a ship wihtout weakness. It is realisticly impossible. You cna only make those weaknesses more difficult to exploit.
Of those, FS ships have...
One. The engines. Destruction of which renders the ship unable to manuver, but is useless for rendering it unable to fight. All other commentary you're offering here is useless, even the reactors. Destruction of reactors on every other ship that has them in the games does absolutely nothing in any canonical mission.
The Lucifer did a super job of hiding it's weaknesses.
Doesn't matter. Still had them, they're still worse than other ships. You even just admitted the design is weak and badly flawed!
There is only ONE way to exploit that weakness, and it requires making a surgical strike in a very limited time window, and the knowledge to track ships into subspace AND the knowledge of the weakness in the first place.
15 minutes is not a limited time window. This is the age of the instantanous subspace drive.
FRED settings don't interest me.
And yea...and ships with a reactor subsystem can be destroyed (if so scripted). Especially if you use weapons design specificy to destroy subsystems and not the hull.
Do you
try to accomplish this kind of thing?
If you follow FRED, the Lucifer really is invulnerable, because it has the invulnerable flag.
Until "Good Luck", which we are discussing. What's your point?
I actually had a nice and production char with GB over PM's after I was kicked. You can ask her yourself - she will confirm it was an misunderstanding and an overreaction from a mods part.
Which is why you
still no longer post in GD.
At all.
Not that I don't see what you're trying to do here, mind you.
Trying to tear down my argument by attacking my character, trying to paint me as unreasonable, under the veil of "informing others".
No, you really don't see it. Trash, I could go back to your "BATTLESHIPZ R SUPERIORZ" thread and point out how that ended, or how you later switched to "CARRIERZ R SUPERIORZ" and pretended you'd never argued otherwise, or I could point to the many discussions in GD where someone said "guys give up it's Trash", or the fact Karajorma used to make you dig ever-deeper holes for yourself for fun. Do you really want me to go there? Because if you do, I gladly will.
You have a history of flawed argumentation. This is incontrovertible fact. Anyone who's watching this argument will probably want to know it.
In fact, just to set the thing up, let's post one example where Trash admits he is immune to logic.
"You can only prove it to me if I want you to."Very cheap tactic, very transparent. Unfortunately, this isn't a popularity contest.
No. It's not. And I'm not remotely interested in at as such. You, however, are. Why else do you continue to pander to the crowd with stuff like "*YAWN*"?
HA! this is rich.
I dare you to actually find a instance where I resorted to insults first.
If you manage to even find one, I will be very much impressed.
As ordered.See also.You are truly a benevolent man, with your seriously-worded "go kill yourself"s. Now I didn't intend to bring this up; again, not a popularity contest.
But you did ask.
Do you even know how long it was in development and how terrible it was untill they fixed it?
Do you even know that doesn't matter, since we were arguing that militaries don't knowingly sustain a bad thing in service and you're saying that's exactly what happened; they didn't sustain a bad thing in service? Hell, you even prove it twice by saying that Congress realized the M113 wasn't going to be enough.
Also yes I read that bit, and the GAO report lists problems that would have occurred with any attempt to bring a new weapon with new capablities into service. Of course it doesn't yet have a doctrinal role, it's completely new and it does things nobody making doctrine has ever had something do before.
NGTM-1R, if you can find a single scenario outside the incredibly brief window that relies more on luck to destroy the Lucifer shown in canon, using the means available at the time, to destroy the Lucifer, you might have a case for design flaw (maybe).
As it so happens, the criteria for destroying the Lucifer are so incredibly detailed as to be nearly impossible to replicate without the advance knowledge the GTA/PVE discover during the campaign. By the logic you are attempting to use, any ship you could destroy by rubber banding the fire button has a massive design flaw, and by all rights, should have been retired due to the comparative cost-ineffectiveness. However, we still see Demons in the FS2 campaign.
Some of this has already been discussed in this post or others. We do not have a small time window; we have instant subspace travel. We do not have an impossible set of circumstances; if the Ancients could do it so can others. There is no such thing as a one-time event. Anything that happens once, can happen more than once. A thing repeated will occur a third time. And finally, we have the issue that in the one, the only place where the Lucifer could realistically be attacked, its own defenses in both hull-based guns and fighters are woefully inadequate to defend it. The fighters are so inadequate
only in the one place where they'd be called upon to defend a Lucifer.
The only real defense a Lucifer actually has against interception in subspace is an unpredictable route. That is the only possible defense the Shivans themselves can employ. Everything else? They can only pray, if they do pray. Prayer is not a defense.
