[IronForge]

Playing EvE really screws up my sense of scale, but just think, how many people are actually needed?

In the bridge, maybe 20-30, another 30-40 engineers in the engine, probably one crew for each turret, I was about to say turrets are AI but then what if weapons subsystem gets fried?.

I would assume in such an advanced society as the GTVA, robots will be at least slightly more advanced. And we already have robot janitors and microwave ovens.

So the 10k pple in the orion I think counts the pilots, marines who are using it as their base, and they probably even have factory farms where they grow chickins in a test tube. And what better place to carry out R&D than a heavily armored orion?
So 10k people die if an orion is ambushed and destroyed. Probably much much fewer if it was already in battle stance.

Bottom line: not counting marines and fighter pilots (though so few fighters were ever scrambled in FS, not the dozens a single orion can hold), I don't see the need for that much crew.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

To solve the problem of the Mentu's limited firepower, perhaps if/when someone Hi-Polies the ship, they could add a button beam turret right between the forward prongs, and make it an optional subsystem, just as was done to the Moloch.

Are you referring to that red eye on the HTL Moloch's front?

[Paladin327]

And what better place to carry out R&D than a heavily armored orion?

The obvious answer is anwer is to do all your critical research for the war effort on a Faustus-class cruiser with a hull made of wet cardboard

[IronForge]

Actually I believe the faustus cruiser is only for field research. Gathering data and then running. Exploring and analyzing new space. Discovering stuff. Highly volatile stuff that could blow up any second where the lives of a dozen geeks are worth less than a destroyer.
If you want to do any STABLE research in 0-G, the orion or a station is the place for you. But most stations will have gravity...
So the obvious choice is:
Faustus if your 'reserch' can frickin explode at any second
Big destroyer if it is top secret military stuff
Military research station
Planetside heavily armored fort

But seriously. 10,000 crew. What are they doing? Making everything squeaky clean? Growing vegetables? And I also don't see the need for the destroyer to be so... big either...

[SpardaSon21]

Because bigger is better, especially if your "bigger" is over 2km long.

[IronForge]

Allright, now imagine an appolo fighter. Now, make it 1/10000 of its size. Now give it 999999999999999^9999999999999999999999 armor. Now give it one hit kill guns with AOE damage. Now send in 10000000000 saths.

Seriously bigger means it can actually tank less. Because one breach in the hull thats it. It doesn't matter that you have 5m of armor plating all over the ship. Point is, once there is one hole, its over.
So if the orion can take 3 beam hits to the same spot before going down, a fenris with 5m of the same armor can also take 3 beam hits to the same spot. And it is more likely to evade.

Only reason to make it big is fighter bays and weapons may take a little room. Same for engines and reactor. But seriously... it is a little too huge even for just that.
Therefore, get a REAL carrier like the aquataine. Modern aircraft carriers aren't meant for head to head fighting. In conclusion, FS has no sense of scale

[The E]

So if the orion can take 3 beam hits to the same spot before going down, a fenris with 5m of the same armor can also take 3 beam hits to the same spot. And it is more likely to evade.

Except that beam weapons never miss. They are the most accurate weapons system in the game; if you're in the field of fire of a beam turret, you will get hit, no matter how maneuverable you are. (If you're in a capship that is; fighters are a different story)

[IronForge]

All right, so they still will be able to get the same amount of hits.
Now imagine you had a block of chocolate. You could melt it down and make it into an easter egg sort of thing, hollow inside. That is your destroyer. Or, you could make it into a big lump like how I like to fill up my easter eggs with nutella and freeze them. Which is going to crack first?

[The E]

All right, so they still will be able to get the same amount of hits.
Now imagine you had a block of chocolate. You could melt it down and make it into an easter egg sort of thing, hollow inside. That is your destroyer. Or, you could make it into a big lump like how I like to fill up my easter eggs with nutella and freeze them. Which is going to crack first?

My mind, while trying to decode your analogies. What the hell are you trying to say?

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The reason why cruisers have crap armour as compared to destroyers, though, is because they're small, and they're meant to be small. With so little space, you can't exactly cram lots of armour along with all the necessary machinery and walking space required to operate a cruiser.

[Herra Tohtori]

...

...

How does the fact that a solid object has more structural integrity than a hollow object have any bearing on space ships and their armour?

It would be sort of unfeasible to make the space ships out of a single lump of whatever material they use to build them.

Aside from that there are multiple other issues, like maneuverability, propellant consumption, propellant storage, energy production, weapons placement, crew quarters, hangar decks etc. Where do you put them if the ship is a solid mass? On the surface? All the enemy needs to do is bombard the surface and you're done.

You can't make a destroyer filled with nutella.

[IronForge]

I'm saying, a destroyer is going to take a lot more metal to make solid than a cruiser made solid. So I was saying we could have 5m of plating on a cruiser so that it is kinda filled up, except small cavities for necessary systems.
Destroyers have to be hollow cos they house things in them. What things require 2m of space is up to speculation, a hangar doesn;t reeally take that much space.
So I was proposing scrapping the hangar and filling it with hull instead.

So its like the hollow easter egg = our orion. Inside, instead of toys, are fighters (ok my kinda toys)
THe egg filled with nutella (which symbolises the armor plates) is my proposed new destroyer.

But its getting kinda off topic, sorry for that. I was in both threads and mixed up the collosus thread and this one.

[Dilmah G]

You can't make a destroyer filled with nutella.

Especially when you're allergic to nuts.

[The E]

So its like the hollow easter egg = our orion. Inside, instead of toys, are fighters (ok my kinda toys)
THe egg filled with nutella (which symbolises the armor plates) is my proposed new destroyer.

So, you want to remove the one asset that makes an FS2 Destroyer as versatile and powerful as it is? Great plan, I can certainly see how removing a good deal of your firepower and your first line of defense make sense. There is nothing that could go wrong with that, I'm sure.

[Herra Tohtori]

I'm saying, a destroyer is going to take a lot more metal to make solid than a cruiser made solid. So I was saying we could have 5m of plating on a cruiser so that it is kinda filled up, except small cavities for necessary systems.
Destroyers have to be hollow cos they house things in them. What things require 2m of space is up to speculation, a hangar doesn;t reeally take that much space.
So I was proposing scrapping the hangar and filling it with hull instead.

Obviously, you do not have any sense of scale regarding how big the cruisers are in FS2 universe. Five metres of armour wouldn't make them anywhere near "filled up".

[IronForge]

No, I'm suggesting let destroyers be destroyers and a second line of ships as carriers. And is the orion 2Km? Looks a hell lot more than 2m in that picture. Seeing an aircraft carrier is already 1km

Anyway, so imagine an aircraft carrier filled up with armor and guns, and far far away, an aircraft carrier with next to no armor, alligned and ready to warp out at the slightest sign of trouble. As weak as a faustus. More cost effective that way, big items take more armor.

Thing is, I'll say again, 5m of armor is going to resist the same amount of damage, no matter how big the sheet is. Its how thick that counts. so you can get a lot more tank outta your metal with smaller, filled up ships than large filled up easter eggs.

[Herra Tohtori]

I see you have no sense of scale at all, period.

[IronForge]

Well I wiki'ed it. Sorry about that, a nimitz carrier is about 330m. So the pic is accurate.

Thing is, I'll say again, 5m of armor is going to resist the same amount of damage, no matter how big the sheet is. Its how thick that counts. so you can get a lot more tank outta your metal with smaller, filled up ships than large filled up easter eggs.

Sorry edited the post on top.

[Herra Tohtori]

Except that the power requirements for bigger weapons require bigger reactors, and bigger physical size requires bigger engines, and bigger ships require bigger crews with larger crew quarters.

Your lump cruisers would certainly have some use as stationary weapons platforms but aside from that they would have no usefulness whatsoever. What sort of pew pew weapons could you possibly mount onto them? What sort of propulsion system, if you want the thing to be mostly solid?


Just surviving long doesn't make a ship effective... it also needs firepower and maneuverability.

[General Battuta]

No, I'm suggesting let destroyers be destroyers and a second line of ships as carriers. And is the orion 2Km? Looks a hell lot more than 2m in that picture. Seeing an aircraft carrier is already 1km

Anyway, so imagine an aircraft carrier filled up with armor and guns, and far far away, an aircraft carrier with next to no armor, alligned and ready to warp out at the slightest sign of trouble. As weak as a faustus. More cost effective that way, big items take more armor.

Thing is, I'll say again, 5m of armor is going to resist the same amount of damage, no matter how big the sheet is. Its how thick that counts. so you can get a lot more tank outta your metal with smaller, filled up ships than large filled up easter eggs.

The whole analogy is faulty and stupid.

Ships are compartmentalized. A blowthrough in one area won't do anythingg.