[TopAce]

We're more than 400 years after WWII in FS2. The GTVA must have had far more advanced factories and efficient construction logistics than the US.

[The E]

The cost of an Orion is mentioned as "far exceeding the cost of feeding its crew for three years". While this is by no means an accurate base for measurements, the fact that that number is high enough to serve as a comparison is significant. Also note that, at ~7 times the length, an Orion only carries twice the crew complement of a Nimitz, hinting at an enormous amount of automation employed.

[Black Wolf]

The cost of an Orion is mentioned as "far exceeding the cost of feeding its crew for three years". While this is by no means an accurate base for measurements, the fact that that number is high enough to serve as a comparison is significant. Also note that, at ~7 times the length, an Orion only carries twice the crew complement of a Nimitz, hinting at an enormous amount of automation employed.

Actually, it says paying, according to the wiki, so assuming an average salary of, say, $50000 and a crew of 10000, an Orion costs somewhere between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars, which is bugger all for something two kms long (Wiki says a Nimitz costs around 3 times as much).

[TopAce]

Guys: That's just a tech description, written by a grand total of one V employee. It sounded cool and apparently they couldn't be bothered to double-check if those numbers are realistic, assuming that someone 11 years later would pose the question.

[The E]

But since it's also the only figure we have, it's undisputably canon.

[Black Wolf]

Yeah. The tech descriptions - hell, the entire universe - is chocka block full of bad canon. You can ignore it if you choose, but it'll always be fact.

[Spoon]

'Cost' becomes kinda irrelevant when you have a horde of really angry shivan nuking your planets 

[MatthTheGeek]

'Cost' is not really a matter of money here, rather a matter of materials and infrastructure - both things the GTA and PVN didn't have anymore after the 14 years war, after been f*cked up by the Shivans, after the destruction of Vasuda prime, the loss of Sol, the GTI rebellion and the HoL guerillas. It is explicitly stated in the Reconstruction entry that the Terran economy is ruined, and the same is to be expected to a lesser degree about the Vasudan one. They had probably millions if not billions of refugees to build new homes for, so they probably weren't able to build a single ship larger than a freighter during the 4-5 years following the end of the GW.

[Snail]

I remember the Galactic Terran-Vasudan Alliance being mentioned in one of FS1's last debriefs. I think it was the mission in which you destroy the Anvil.

What? Where?

[TopAce]

The CB before the Hammer and the Anvil mentions that the Hammer of Light opposes any "Terran-Vasudan alliance", but that's about it.

[Mobius]

We have to assume that most combat spacecraft are based on outposts and, who knows, on planetary bases. Combat fighters stationed on destroyers may be only the tip of the iceberg.

[Snail]

We have to assume that most combat spacecraft are based on outposts and, who knows, on planetary bases. Combat fighters stationed on destroyers may be only the tip of the iceberg.

omg mobius you're back

Just so that you know, the topic has moved on a bit from the subject title.

[Mobius]

I think it's yet another Game Vs. Universe debate. In the former we would expect a couple of bomber wings to disarm a Juggernaut while in the second we would see dozens and dozens of spacecraft being vanquished to neutralize a flak turret...

[Snail]

I think it's yet another Game Vs. Universe debate. In the former we would expect a couple of bomber wings to disarm a Juggernaut while in the second we would see dozens and dozens of spacecraft being vanquished to neutralize a flak turret...

I don't think so. I think we should take the Game to be an accurate representation of in-universe events unless there are minor inconsistencies.

[Mobius]

It's a matter of opinions, really. I've always considered games bad representations of the universes they were based on, with Star Wars games being the most famous examples. Obviously, you can't pretend lethal lasers and missiles to be that devastating in a game... or the game itself would become unplayable.

This might inspire a Death Mode...

[The E]

Mobius, there's a difference between a fictional universe that exists primarily in non-game media (like SW), and a universe that is completely defined in a game or series of games.

In the latter case, since there is no other source of canon available, we have to stick with what we have. No matter what you may want to believe, but both gameplay and the in-game tech descriptions ARE canon.

[Mobius]

No doubt they're canon, but they feel completely different from the cutscenes they have. Weapons, speeds and many other parameters seem different in the cutscenes. Yet again, it's a matter of opinions.

[NGTM-1R]

Doubtful. We know, for example, that the cutscenes were contracted to a company outside of the game-making publishing group, much less not developed inhouse at . It is therefore far more likely that the cutscenes inaccurately represent the reality of the world the games live in then that the games do.

[Klaustrophobia]

the cutscene weaponry makes more sense to me though.  turrets shoot things that look like they should be coming out of the turret.

[SF-Junky]

@MatthTheGeek
The FS1 tech entry of the Typhon states the ship to be deployed two years prior to the start of the main campaign. That would be 2333. In FS1 there appear four Typhons:
PVD Pinnacle
PVD Hope
HLD Anvil
HLD Prophecy
+ two destroyers that are said to be destroyed by the GTA.
That makes at least six being put into service within two years. If the PVN can deploy six destroyers within two years, it is absolutely no exaggeration that Terrans and Vasudans have four to five dozen of them thirty years later.

What? Where?

http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Briefing_texts_%28FS1%29#Debriefing_26
Oops, okay it's just "terran-vasudan alliance" without "galactic"...

We have to assume that most combat spacecraft are based on outposts and, who knows, on planetary bases. Combat fighters stationed on destroyers may be only the tip of the iceberg.

They must be. It's nothing but ridiculous to think that 3 km long dreaghnoughts a capable of bringing fighters and bombers into battle. Even if each fleet/BG has three destroyers, it could bring only some 300 to 400 fighters/bombers into battle. With such a tiny number of combat craft you could never launch a serious offensive against an enemy star system in which probably thousands of fighters are stationed on ground bases and installations.