[TrashMan]

Jump in below the sath (and a little to the back), as close as possible, with 2 Orions and open a barrage on it's lower beam cannon and fighterbays.
Then warp in 2 more destroyers above it and let the beaming commence.

Basicly flank it - top, below, left, right - so it can't turn - and keep moving.

Yeah no.

You can shoot beams at specific subsystems all you want in FRED but canonically it's never been that precise. I'l give you the Sathanas' fighterbay could be specifically targeted, it's bigger than most cruisers, but a surgical hit on the LRed? Never happen.

Of course you don't see such precision in the retail game. The player has got to do something in those capship battles. But it's completely illogical claiming it can't be done.
A beam cannon is a gun. Point it in the right direction, it will do the rest. Especially if you fire 10 beam cannons at the same target. One of them should hit.

[Dilmah G]

Still disagree.

Trashman, go back to gunnery school. Or rather, the gunners of direct hit beam cannons haven't been there.

[NGTM-1R]

Of course you don't see such precision in the retail game. The player has got to do something in those capship battles. But it's completely illogical claiming it can't be done.
A beam cannon is a gun. Point it in the right direction, it will do the rest. Especially if you fire 10 beam cannons at the same target. One of them should hit.

You've never actually fired a gun before, have you?

[-Norbert-]

Yeah, let's compare a 10 cm handgun to a massive beam cannon too big to even fit on a modern battleship and in need of a reactor even bigger.

Anyway, while it is possible for capships to hit enemy subsystems ingame, both with their beams and blobs, if you are above, below, left or right of the Sathanas, you simply don't have the right angle to be able to hit the main beams, no matter how accurate you are. To hit those you have to be either in front of between them. Neither option is a really healthy one.
On a sidenode, Blobs and missiles seem to specifically aim at turrets, but do too little subsystem damage (at least the retail ones) to have any significance against the high-hp subsystems and turrets of the Sathanas.

The best anti-subsystem capship I saw so far was the UEFg Karuna (about the sice of the Iceny) from Blue Planet. Just for the Hell of it, I put 5 of them behind a Sathanas to see what happened. While they needed a little under half an hour to destroy it, they completely stripped it of any back- and sidewards facing weaponry long before that with their anti-ship torpedos.
But even though they took out two of the engines on the arms, they didn't hit one of the main beams a single time.

[Spoon]

I'll have to agree with trashman here
There is no reason why a weapon that fires a projectile at the speed of light (aka, no leading is needed) shouldn't be able to precisily target subsystem. Its not as if freespace craft go very fast. Not to mention advance targeting systems they might have in the future.
Comparing these situations with present day gunnery is silly.

[NGTM-1R]

Yeah, let's compare a 10 cm handgun to a massive beam cannon too big to even fit on a modern battleship and in need of a ractor even bigger.

A 10cm handgun is, in fact, an artillery piece. 100mm. That's tank gun ante.

For that matter, the basic issues of fire control remain the same regardless of size. It's a valid question. If he thinks hitting a target is easy, let him prove it with the most sophisticated fire-control he has access to; himself.

Or I could tell him to code up and build a computerized FCS. I mean, I'd offer to loan him a ship and a Mark 1 Able Gunfire Computer to test his theories with, but those are kind of hard to come by.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, let's compare a 10 cm handgun to a massive beam cannon too big to even fit on a modern battleship and in need of a ractor even bigger.

A 10cm handgun is, in fact, an artillery piece. 100mm. That's tank gun ante.

For that matter, the basic issues of fire control remain the same regardless of size. It's a valid question. If he thinks hitting a target is easy, let him prove it with the most sophisticated fire-control he has access to; himself.

Or I could tell him to code up and build a computerized FCS. I mean, I'd offer to loan him a ship and a Mark 1 Able Gunfire Computer to test his theories with, but those are kind of hard to come by.

TrashMan's actually correct: we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders, but the plan for taking out the Sath in the nebula was to TAG specific subsystems and then nail them with destroyer beam fire.

[NGTM-1R]

TrashMan's actually correct: we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders

No they don't, they target vertice to vertice for slash and single vertex for straight shooter. Unless that's been changed? (And that would mean slash beams would rule the world, which they don't.)

, but the plan for taking out the Sath in the nebula was to TAG specific subsystems and then nail them with destroyer beam fire.

Uh, the only part of the Sath taking down in the nebula that was actually explored was the part about luring it into posistion. This is logical enough, but I don't see it actually stated in the briefing or the background for "Speaking In Tongues" so what's your source?

[TrashMan]

TrashMan's actually correct: we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders

No they don't, they target vertice to vertice for slash and single vertex for straight shooter. Unless that's been changed? (And that would mean slash beams would rule the world, which they don't.)

Dear Lord!
You make "arguments" like this and then you have the gall to call my arguments flawed!!

I can't believe you're actually trying to use how the game engine handles targeting as a argument for a fluff discussion!

And vertex targeting? Aren't turrets also made of out vertexes? Subsystems too (technicly).

I...really.. I'm rendered speachless.

Beam cannons are capable of taking out subsystems and turrets. They do that sometimes in retail. They can certanly do that in both FRED and in other campaigns. There's even the AI profile setting for them.
Not that AI profiles or FRED or other campaigns have anything to actually do with the argument, but you seem to think tehy have....

[NGTM-1R]

Misc. twaddle removed. Argue the merits or get out of the game, Trash.

I can't believe you're actually trying to use how the game engine handles targeting as a argument for a fluff discussion!

Actually, that would be Battuta bringing up how the game engine targets, not me. I presume you actually did notice I was quoting someone, right?

Now, if it did actually target subsystems, that would be important to a fluff discussion since it means subsystem damage is inevitable. If somebody blows out the weapons subsystem, it has an in-game effect, so it needs to be accounted for.

And vertex targeting? Aren't turrets also made of out vertexes? Subsystems too (technicly).

Subsystems are handled by a seperate system from the raw model, unless I'm completely misinterpreting the system used to define them in the modding tools. This means you could in theory cheat on their placement and make it so a straight-firing beam will never hit a subsystem, but I doubt that any canonical model does this, or that anyone's actually tried.

Turrets are handled as subobjects as anyone with cursory experience in modding FS knows, which would seem to indicate a seperate handling from the same model. I've never, in years of playing, seen a direct beam hit on a turret that was not scripted into the mission in FRED. Considering on a model like a retail Orion the turrets have a very high proportion of the total number of vertices on the model, that would seem to militate for turret vertices not being considered as points to fire against.

Beam cannons are capable of taking out subsystems and turrets. They do that sometimes in retail.

The mere fact it's only sometimes is more or less proving my point, since that means they do not target subsystems or turrets delibrately in retail. Otherwise it would be an "always."

They can certanly do that in both FRED and in other campaigns. There's even the AI profile setting for them.

Capablities outside of retail useage are irrevelant to discussion of canonical capablities. Wait, you actually knew that. You said so in the very next sentence. What's your point?

Not that AI profiles or FRED or other campaigns have anything to actually do with the argument, but you seem to think tehy have....

Cite source for this statement. I have always, and only, said exactly this.

[Paladin327]

Are TrashMan and NGTM-1R at war or something? if so, STOP IT! this is taking the discussion nowhere

[NGTM-1R]

Are TrashMan and NGTM-1R at war or something? if so, STOP IT! this is taking the discussion nowhere

I'm not exactly sure what Trash's problem is, but he also sent me a PM that basically consisted of calling me names.

I really am trying to keep this on-point here, personally.

[TrashMan]

Actually, that would be Battuta bringing up how the game engine targets, not me. I presume you actually did notice I was quoting someone, right?

Eugh...that is just two posts up, you're not fooling anyone.

Here:

TrashMan's actually correct: we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders

No they don't, they target vertice to vertice for slash and single vertex for straight shooter. Unless that's been changed? (And that would mean slash beams would rule the world, which they don't.)

Who is the one bringing up the exact method of how the engine targets?
Don't try to incriminate GB for that.

This of course, renders all that rambling about vertices pointless. Beams that hit turrets destroy them. Beams can hit turrets. Beams that hit subsystems destroy them. Beams can hit subsystems. Period.

The mere fact it's only sometimes is more or less proving my point, since that means they do not target subsystems or turrets delibrately in retail. Otherwise it would be an "always."

Why would it be always?
The fact that you CAN target something doesn't mean you HAVE to target it always. The captains and gunners decide what to shoot at.

I'm not exactly sure what Trash's problem is, but he also sent me a PM that basically consisted of calling me names.

I really am trying to keep this on-point here, personally.

[NGTM-1R]

Misc. twaddle again removed.

Eugh...that is just two posts up, you're not fooling anyone.

Thank you for pointing out (again) for me that I was quoting Battuta, who first brought up the mechanics of how the game engine targets.

Who is the one bringing up the exact method of how the engine targets?

Is "it targets subsystems" not exact somehow?

Why are you moving the goalposts? Your original post said "I can't believe you're actually trying to use how the game engine handles targeting as a argument for a fluff discussion!" Which Battuta did first, as you've demonstrated for me. Now you want to add "preciseness" to the list, which wasn't required by your original post, but still doesn't help you anyways.

This of course, renders all that rambling about vertices pointless. Beams that hit turrets destroy them. Beams can hit turrets. Beams that hit subsystems destroy them. Beams can hit subsystems. Period.

Explain this conclusion. You're not actually making an argument here, you're just stating a conclusion. Without presenting evidence for it, I have no reason to believe you, nor does anyone else.

Why would it be always?
The fact that you CAN target something doesn't mean you HAVE to target it always. The captains and gunners decide what to shoot at.

If you have the option to severely degrade your enemy's ability to hurt you every time, and you aren't taking it every time, something is very wrong with you. Do you now propose that all captains or whatever commands the ships from all sides are morons now?

[karajorma]

I'm just going to lock this one too and it seems the arguments from the other thread have simply moved over.

I'm not exactly sure what Trash's problem is, but he also sent me a PM that basically consisted of calling me names.

Feel free to report that PM. I tend to take a very dim view of people doing that.

[TrashMan]

Wasn't this locked? Oh well...

One note, GB never brought how the engine targets specificly. She said:
we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders

FS shuips are quite capable of taking out a subsystem or two during retail battles. Lucky shots? Maybe, maybe not.
But point is, that if you point enough guns at a target, even innacurate ones, you are going to hit it sooner or later.

After all, aren't soldiers capable of targeting the head of their enemies? Yet they usually go for the center of mass. By your logic, we must conclude that soldiers are incapable of targeting heads.

So I'm gonna cut this short and simply conclude that you have provided no evidence that beam cannons are INCAPABLE (key word) of targeting subsystems.

How does this relate the GTVA fighting strategy? A little. The GTVA certanly is capable of bomber surgical strikes, so beam barrages to cripple subsystems aren't necessary for such strategies, but they sure as hell help.
Bomb the rear beam cannon and you're set.

One could also try to load a Fenris with a Meson bomb or two and jump in next to a Sath, then ram it.

[Scotty]

Holy crap guys.  Is it too much to ask to be civil to each other?  It's a game.  Get over it.

The whole argument can be summed up thus:

"Beams target subsystems."
"No they don't!  They target other stuff."

The only thing I have to ask is if beams don't specifically target subsystems and turrets, why do we get those weird beam shots that hit the very tip of a ship spike?

[General Battuta]

I'm still pretty sure that one of the FS2 missions around the Sathanas' arrival specified TAGging specific subsystems. Somebody should check that out.

[Droid803]

If I recall correctly the briefing only mentions attacking "weak spots" with destroyer-grade beam weapons. No specifics as to how.

[NGTM-1R]

One note, GB never brought how the engine targets specificly. She said:
we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders

How is that not specific?

Why is specific required when your original post did not specify it?

FS shuips are quite capable of taking out a subsystem or two during retail battles. Lucky shots? Maybe, maybe not.

But they don't take out the subsystems that matter. Oh sure comm and nav and maybe an engine or two...never weapons. Almost never turrets. If you can actually target a subsystem that will consistantly improve your chances of surviving the engagement, why aren't you?

After all, aren't soldiers capable of targeting the head of their enemies? Yet they usually go for the center of mass. By your logic, we must conclude that soldiers are incapable of targeting heads.

Meaningless comparison. Either will be immediately effective. This is not true for FS spacecraft.

So I'm gonna cut this short and simply conclude that you have provided no evidence that beam cannons are INCAPABLE (key word) of targeting subsystems.

How does this relate the GTVA fighting strategy? A little. The GTVA certanly is capable of bomber surgical strikes, so beam barrages to cripple subsystems aren't necessary for such strategies, but they sure as hell help.
Bomb the rear beam cannon and you're set.

One could also try to load a Fenris with a Meson bomb or two and jump in next to a Sath, then ram it.
[/quote]