[Rodo]

I agree with those asumptions, GTVA designed the Hecate before the second shivan incursion, their plans might not have included a frontal shivan confrontation for the Hecate, IMO its more like a ship to "keep the house clean", meaning: controlling lots of start systems with a movile and versatile platform that can display territorial power against a weaker enemy.
Hecate is the ideal weapon against guerrilla-kind tactics, the ones used by the so much hated pirates, illegal corporations, etc, etc.

For the confrontation against the Shivans, the Colossus was made, and thats about the only thing they did.

[Timerlane]

Yeah, I figure after 30+ years of relative peace(at least no species-annihilation-level threats, anyway), the GTVA, especially the Terran half, is trying to go cheap. Slow-handling Myrmidons, unremarkable-speed Perseus, reduced-gun Herc IIs, the Boanerges, etc. Deimos were going to replace the departing Leviathans and Fenri, and "become the foundation of tomorrow's fleet", suggesting to me that they might have been intended to replace Orions in the direct combat role, as they eventually retired.

The Vasudans replaced the Osiris with the Bakha as was needed, but are otherwise still heavily reliant on Great War-era fighters. Typhons apparently couldn't be retrofitted with beams as easily, so the Vasudans were forced to create the Hatshepsut as a full-on replacement; with two fighterbays, the Typhon arguably already was very fighter-oriented(compared to the Orion), so, in the upgrade, they gave it serious capability in direct combat while preserving the Typhon's carrier capability. The Sobek arguably looks more like a super-cruiser, with half the number of slash beams of the Deimos, and a much sleeker, smaller hull.

Either this was partly necessary due to resources diverted to the Colossus, or they simply were unable to justify to the populace of the struggling GTVA why the military needed cutting-edge-everything, and just intended to crush most minor uprisings/rebellions with superior training and numbers.

~insert parallels to post-Cold War military spending here~

[Akalabeth Angel]

Hmmn, I don't get all the raggin on the Hecate. Though it doesn't seem like a direct combatant. It's beams fire in every direction, which suggests to me that it's more of a defensive layout. It can hold off enemy ships until it can make good on its escape. It has as much firepower as a deimos plus a BGreen at the nose.

Talking about turret layout on a Destroyer is largely irrelevant in my opinion. The threat from any destroyer should not be the turrets, it should be the fighter compliment. If you're able to hide in some nook firing at the hull it means the enemy fighters aren't doing their job and that in turn the FREDder hasn't done his job.


To me the big guns in the second incursion era are not the Destroyers but the Corvettes. It's their job to get in and take down the enemy. Cruisers provide patrol or escort craft. Destroyers deliver fighters to the battlefield.

The Shivan philosophy is obviously different, at least with the Ravana. Though one could argue that the Demon is in many ways similar in layout to the Hecate with all around firepower.

[NGTM-1R]

Which all basically ignores the point that, frankly, even the Orion grasped back in FS1: a carrier is a Bad Plan. Since it is impossible to isolate the ship from the battlefield, blocking access either physically or by weapons fire, any ship is subject to surprise attack without warning and must be able to adequately defend itself.

This is even more important for a destroyer, upon which the responsibility for fightercraft protection for the fleet rests. A destroyer that's having to flee attack is not conducting flight ops. We saw it happen twice with the Aquitaine. A destroyer must be able to stand its ground, keep the fighters flying without interruption, to be an effective instrument. The Hecate couldn't, and didn't, do that.

[Rodo]

There is no need for such a thing as "holding the ground", what ground are we talking about when you are introduced in an universe where you can be here or there in a fraction of a second?
Holding ground is inviting the enemy to crush you, that's why fighters got their jump drives, that's why destroyers have their jump drives, so you can run.
It seems more plausible to have a destroyer that can jump further and faster than one that can stand its ground alone.
The destroyer leaving the area would not interfere with the deployment and retrieval of fighters.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Which all basically ignores the point that, frankly, even the Orion grasped back in FS1: a carrier is a Bad Plan. Since it is impossible to isolate the ship from the battlefield, blocking access either physically or by weapons fire, any ship is subject to surprise attack without warning and must be able to adequately defend itself.

What's the alternative to a carrier? A Base that never moves? Mini carriers like the Shivan corvette? What's better a fleet with dedicated fighter carriers or a fleet with below-average warships that can also launch fighters? (ie Moloch)

Everyone always talks about surprise attacks, but how are you going to surprise them in the first place? First you have to find them, second you have to make sure they don't know youve found them, and third you have to hope they don't move between you finding them and your forces launching an attack.

There's subspace tracking, but if tracking does only exit vectors then the obvious thing to do is have fighters make multiple jumps back to the carrier so they can't be tracked.

Destroyers are putting all of one's eggs in one basket, but they also provide centralized and coordinated control of fighter ops. Even if you don't have a dedicated carrier, you still need a ship dedicated to controlling the overall operation. So then do you have a ship without fighters doing it? Or do you have one of these hybrid Moloch ships doing it. Then you've got all your command eggs in one fragile basket. Also do the moloch-type all have command facilities? or just a sub-line of ships. And would these sub-ships have inferior combat and launch capabilities compared to the rest of the vessels? (making them more of a target). Or do you have another ship altogether who's sole purpose is to coordinate the fighters. Does this ship stay with the fleet? Is it hiding? Is it just as vulnerable to surprise attack as any larger dedicated carrier ship?


Carriers certainly have pros and cons, but I've yet to see anyone provide a viable alternative to that model. Maybe the answer lies in some long forgotten thread (this probably the dozenth rehash of this discussion).

[Timerlane]

From what I mentioned, I'd say the Terrans are going for a more "balanced" battlegroup, with higher-mobility corvettes with fairly heavy anti-fighter defenses to engage incoming warships, rather than lumbering destroyer broadsides.

Blue-water carriers rarely travel alone, so why should space-bourne carriers? Canon might have been influenced by at-the-time computer specs. The flagship of a fleet should almost certainly be guarded by at least a couple of corvettes at all times, or perhaps at the very least(now), have them ready to "shock-jump" in and shred a hostile warship from a blind(or at least weaker) spot in its beam arcs.

On a side note, I also suspect the withdrawal of fighter-size intersystem subspace drives(with the exception of specific special operations) was another cost-cutting measure. The related command briefing in FS1 made it sound, to me, like all fighters and bombers were now going to be outfitted with intersystem drives, now that such a thing was possible. If a destroyer/carrier could isolate itself by being an intersystem jump or two away from its fighters'/bombers' targets, it could have even more advance warning to vacate the area(recon fighters patroling the other side of the node), and would have no/much less risk of stranding its fighters. (Of course, I'm sure that would alter the subspace-combat metagame far more than that.)

[Kosh]

Which all basically ignores the point that, frankly, even the Orion grasped back in FS1: a carrier is a Bad Plan. Since it is impossible to isolate the ship from the battlefield, blocking access either physically or by weapons fire, any ship is subject to surprise attack without warning and must be able to adequately defend itself.

This is even more important for a destroyer, upon which the responsibility for fightercraft protection for the fleet rests. A destroyer that's having to flee attack is not conducting flight ops. We saw it happen twice with the Aquitaine. A destroyer must be able to stand its ground, keep the fighters flying without interruption, to be an effective instrument. The Hecate couldn't, and didn't, do that.

If it gets ambushed it can either launch more bombers, fight back with its BGreen, launch some more fighters, call for reinforcements, or bug out all together.

The reason why carriers of some kind or another are needed is because fighters and bombers operating in system must have a place to re-fuel and re-arm. Moving to another system takes a lot more time.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, but NGTM-1R is arguing that an Orion-style destroyer does that way better.

Bear in mind the Hecate's BGreen is one of the ****tiest beam mounts ever. It's ridiculously absurdly easy to take out.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Yeah, but NGTM-1R is arguing that an Orion-style destroyer does that way better.

Does what better? Fight back?
There are more in-universe factors that determine the superiority of one ship over another than what weapons it mounts.

It could be easier and/or cheaper to maintain and operate, have better living conditions, longer operational times, better command and control facilities, greater storage capacity, superior subspace drives, and all manner of other potential factors that don't directly affect gameplay and the statistical data behind it.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, that was exactly my argument earlier about externalities.

[Rodo]

Well it's two BIG modular engines on the rear would alone indicate a superiority at making consecutive jumps within the same system.

[NGTM-1R]

There is no need for such a thing as "holding the ground", what ground are we talking about when you are introduced in an universe where you can be here or there in a fraction of a second?
Holding ground is inviting the enemy to crush you, that's why fighters got their jump drives, that's why destroyers have their jump drives, so you can run.
It seems more plausible to have a destroyer that can jump further and faster than one that can stand its ground alone.
The destroyer leaving the area would not interfere with the deployment and retrieval of fighters.

Since you fail to understand my metaphor, allow me to expand upon it.

Flight ops depend on a base. The fighters and bombers depend on a base. And when that base can move, it causes problems as anyone with even a rudimentary grounding in the history carrier aviation would know.

Point Option, where you return to, moves in an unanticipated way. This, at the very least, must be communicated to fightercraft in flight so they know where to return to; this takes time and also introduces some risk. Similarly while a ship is in transit, and for some period of time after exiting subspace, it will not be able to recover fightercraft. If you have to run away from every Lilth, then the Shivans can easily keep you hopping using only three or so. (And recall the Shivans likely can afford to do this.) Your Hecate is now useless.

A destroyer, if threatened by an enemy ship that isn't at least its equivalent, needs to be able to kill that ship and continue the mission without interruption. Ideally, it should also be able to kill something roughly equivalent as well in conjunction with its escorting fighters. The Hecate does not do either.

What's the alternative to a carrier?

The existing destroyer, as embodied by the Hapshepsut, Orion, and Typhon. Able to carry a significant number of fightercraft and yet capably defend itself against hostile cruisers and corvettes.

Everyone always talks about surprise attacks, but how are you going to surprise them in the first place? First you have to find them, second you have to make sure they don't know youve found them, and third you have to hope they don't move between you finding them and your forces launching an attack.

Simple recon. We're fighting the Shivans, remember, we don't really know what they can do, but we do know they can probably blanket the system in fighters for recon duty if they have to. And they demonstrated an ability to locate targets regardless of whatever countermeasures were taken in the Great War, considering you were forced to escort ships carrying top-secret projects delving into antimatter weaponry that would have been well-hidden.

If it gets ambushed it can either launch more bombers, fight back with its BGreen, launch some more fighters, call for reinforcements, or bug out all together.

The reason why carriers of some kind or another are needed is because fighters and bombers operating in system must have a place to re-fuel and re-arm. Moving to another system takes a lot more time.

Bombers take time (and thereby expose the ship to damage), and take up space on the flight deck that isn't being used for more pressing concerns, are not guaranteed since bombs may be intercepted, and could also be used to contribute to more offensively substantive strikes. The best weapon for destroying incoming fightercraft is a fighter, but the best weapon for attacking capitals remains the beam cannon. An Orion is better-equipped to handle a variety of threats than a Hecate. It's already placed its faith in escorting fighters for defense against hostile fightercraft, as it should, and it has an array of beam cannon for dealing with errant cruisers and corvettes.

I'm not arguing against carrying fighters; I'm saying that the nature of FS combat means that a purely or even mostly carrier design is a misstep. The hybrid presented by a Hapshepsut- or Orion-like ship (or for that matter a Titan or Raynor) represents a more effective and efficient tool.

[Rodo]

The ship moving around does not present a hell of an impossible problem to fix...the destruction of the Galatea should have ****ed up it's entire fighter planning on the system, yet the responce to return to the Bastion by command was swift enough, then a repositioning of the ship at different coordinates would not present a problem IMO.
The secrecy of that intel might, on the other hand...
Just for the record, the Hecate is indeed a crappy destroyer, but if you look at it as a carrier it's really a decently planned vessel, and the fact that it can't hold it's ground does not make a hell lot of difference, fighters have jump drives, they can be rescheduled to return to different coordinates as evidenced in many missions throughout the retail campaign.

[Timerlane]

I agree that the Hecate kind of pales once we know what the Shivans are capable of, though much as I'd like to think the Shivans will start slapping some armor on their Ravana 'fangs'(hey, they toughened up the Demon 60% since FS1), I'd like to think some refits will be done to the Hecate post-SSI(turrets added/swapped/other new technology incorporated).

But again, we have accept that in-universe, the Hecate was never originally made to fight FS2 Shivans, as there were no FS2 Shivans to compare to.

I also still think destroyers in a real 'war' situation in the 'modern' worlduniverse need corvette, or at the very least, Aeolus escort. Corvettes also have the benefit of being able to be rotated off the front line, and replaced with other corvettes, rather than dealing with the arguably more 'permanent' damage likely done to the fighter-carrying destroyer that has to slug its battles out by itself. You break your destroyer, you've got to send out a whole new one(possibly also arranging for the transfer of materials, fighters and/or pilots from the damaged one), and that will be far more disruptive to battle plans than swapping out a corvette.

I would dare say that nothing smaller than a corvette should 'really' be a dire threat, as long as there's a wing of assault fighters/interceptors kept on standby to pop beam turrets. Even assuming you nerf Trebs and Maxims(half range, ballistic ammo count?) a bit for balance/realism's sake; operating so close to 'home', it shouldn't be much of a problem. Nothing that Shivan technology would make impossible to survive, anyway. Multiple Liliths aren't going to make a Hatshepsut much happer than they would a Hecate.

[Qent]

Perhaps it's not a question of Orion vs. Hecate anyway. Having a fleet of corvettes at all could have been conditional on going with the Hecate instead of a ship with buffer beams. If you view it that way, then all that happened was the beam component got split off from the fighterbay component so the beams can keep shooting even while the carrier hangs back.

[Akalabeth Angel]

n swapping out a corvette.

I would dare say that nothing smaller than a corvette should 'really' be a dire threat, as long as there's a wing of assault fighters/interceptors kept on standby to pop beam turrets. Even assuming you nerf Trebs and Maxims(half range, ballistic ammo count?) a bit for balance/realism's sake; operating so close to 'home', it shouldn't be much of a problem. Nothing that Shivan technology would make impossible to survive, anyway. Multiple Liliths aren't going to make a Hatshepsut much happer than they would a Hecate.

The Hatshepsut, like the Sobek have minimal firepower if any on their undersides as well. Get any significant firepower beneath them and they're pretty much boned. Most ships in the game can be outmanouevered by a precise attack. The exception being the Lilith and the Cain which have such wide arcs on their turreted beam.

[Droid803]

The Lilith can't shoot up.
Doesn't really matter, since cruisers and corvettes can turn pretty fast.

Destroyers have a lot more trouble maneuvering.

[Mongoose]

Bear in mind the Hecate's BGreen is one of the ****tiest beam mounts ever. It's ridiculously absurdly easy to take out.

When you look at it that way, the Ravana's main beam mounts are equally ****ty.

[Droid803]

Except that LReds are about a million times better than BGreens, seeing as they have no cooldown and can basically fire continuously until the turret is destroyed, or the target is dead.

Its not sitting there for 30 seconds waiting politely for people to disarm it.

Also, the Ravana's turret mounts are significantly harder to hit with primaries (and basically never get blasted out by beams) than the sodding huge beam dish in front of the Hecate, which routinely gets killed by incoming direct-fire beams, even.

In a warship fight (without superblobs or torpedoes), you can expect the Ravana to keep its beams (regardless of how low-HP they are) but you can't say the same about the Hecate's.