[Snail]

Technological superiority except in the area of non-beam weaponry.

[General Battuta]

because they are our technological superiors not that they display any special piloting ability or tactical prowess

But their pilots are demonstrably faster at turning their ships and firing their guns. You only need to look at the AI profiles to see it.

[Eishtmo]

This is nice, as a notion, but flies in the face of canon, where recon elements track down enemy destroyers all the time (the Ravana, the Vindicator, what have you.)

Utterly disagree.  The fact that ships manage to stay in the same system and NOT immediately get blown to hell means the exact opposite to me.  Consider the NTF conflict where the GTA KNEW exactly what systems the NTF had ships in, but couldn't immediately wipe them out until the Colossus arrived, and we can reasonably assume nearly all those attacks were offensive operations against hard targets (shipyards, instillations and nodes).

The Hecate's advantages are all nice, in theory, until you realize that space is tiny in FreeSpace, because subspace; and ships rapidly and routinely get vectored to their origins, because subspace tracking; and that makes a carrier that can't defend itself a problem - as we see twice in FreeSpace 2, where the best the Hecate can do is run.

Subspace tracking, everyone keeps talking about it, but I don't recall a single moment outside of the Lucifer attack, through inter-SYSTEM subspace, that subspace tracking is ever used or even mentioned for that matter.  I'm just not seeing it.  Can the Shivans do it?  Maybe, but I don't see any direct evidence of it.  They could just as easily use their large numbers to basically spam scout a system if they have to, and frequently when the Shivans do launch such a strike, it's to the most static location in Freespace:  Jump nodes.  And if the Shivans are sensitive to subspace, they probably FEEL jumps through the node more often than not.  No need for tracking at all.

Subsapce drives. Charge time. Important elements that need to be taken into account.
The carrier offensive power lies in it's bombers. Bombers take time to launch, to reach their target and lock on, bombs have travel time and can be shot down. Beams have none of those issues.


Consider a battleship ambushing a carrier. . .

Next, consider a carrier ambushing a battleship. . .

We actually don't know charge time, not really anyway (it basically varies from mission to mission).  If we had hard figures we could do more with it, but we don't, so we can't.

Your argument about bombs and time to launch is fine, to a point, but also it comes down to risk.  Bombers are cheaper than battleships.  I'd rather lose 20 bombers and only just damage a target than lose an entire battleship to do the same.  Also once a BB goes into battle, even if it wins against another one, it will have to go in for repairs.  Which means it isn't on the battlefield.  Losing some bombers for a carrier doesn't strictly weaken the carrier's ability to engage targets, it may not be able to take on another ship, but it can still take out raiders, scout, attack supply convoys, intercept other carrier bombers, and with the right weapons can even cripple opposing ships and instillations.  It's more flexible than a battleship which really can only attack other battleships.

Again, we don't know enough about drive charge time to make arguments about how battles should go, but we do know one thing:  If a carrier is jumped by an enemy, it likely knows where it can safely go because it has fighters to scout the region for it.  A battleship does not.  The BB thus is more likely to have to stand it's ground as it doesn't know if where it's going is safe, where the carrier can run safely.

We also aren't considering that there are other ships on the battlefield.  Cruisers can screen fighters, Corvettes can directly engage the battleship with fighter/bomber support, we don't know about scouting, reserve forces, the carriers CAP, the actual energy needed to support beam cannons and how that effects jump drives, ect, etc, etc.  Freespace provides far too many unknowns to allow us to really know how these battles go.

All that we can say is that from what we see from the Hecate is a carrier designed to stand off from it's targets and the Orion and Hatty were more designed to directly engage.  It's about combined arms against an enemy that outnumbers and outguns everything they have.  You need to be flexible to take on these kinds of foe, and a dedicated carrier provides this.  A dedicated battleship isn't nearly as flexible, even if it is effective in a single area.

[redsniper]

Well they mention tracking the Belisaurius through subspace...

[General Battuta]

This is nice, as a notion, but flies in the face of canon, where recon elements track down enemy destroyers all the time (the Ravana, the Vindicator, what have you.)

Utterly disagree.  The fact that ships manage to stay in the same system and NOT immediately get blown to hell means the exact opposite to me.  Consider the NTF conflict where the GTA KNEW exactly what systems the NTF had ships in, but couldn't immediately wipe them out until the Colossus arrived, and we can reasonably assume nearly all those attacks were offensive operations against hard targets (shipyards, instillations and nodes).

Recon located the Vindicator and the Ravana. Two huge blows. Proof enough.

The Hecate's advantages are all nice, in theory, until you realize that space is tiny in FreeSpace, because subspace; and ships rapidly and routinely get vectored to their origins, because subspace tracking; and that makes a carrier that can't defend itself a problem - as we see twice in FreeSpace 2, where the best the Hecate can do is run.

Subspace tracking, everyone keeps talking about it, but I don't recall a single moment outside of the Lucifer attack

Belisarius, first mission of FS2. Should be easy to recall. It's used later on a few other inbounds.

All that we can say is that from what we see from the Hecate is a carrier designed to stand off from it's targets and the Orion and Hatty were more designed to directly engage.  It's about combined arms against an enemy that outnumbers and outguns everything they have.  You need to be flexible to take on these kinds of foe, and a dedicated carrier provides this.  A dedicated battleship isn't nearly as flexible, even if it is effective in a single area.

Straw man. Nobody has proposed a dedicated battleship. The battleship/carrier hybrid that is the classic destroyer, however, seems less prone to being disabled by a single cruiser.

[Marcov]

Recon located the Vindicator and the Ravana. Two huge blows. Proof enough.

That isn't subspace tracking.

Heck, haven't you seen how terrible the Orion's defenses are? You'll only need a WING of bombers to destroy it (or perhaps only ONE elite bomber pilot - like Alpha 1 taking down the Uhuru!)

As several said, it's much cheaper to take down a ship with bombers than an entire destroyer - if it's only a wing of bombers (which, in theory, actually packs the same punch as a battleship's armament) there's no risk of losing so much money and glory (why would you lose a flagship of a battlegroup if you could deploy several bombers instead?). Furthermore, as already said, the Hecate has demonstrated a much better anti-fighter/bomber armament than the Orion, which simply isn't up-to-date anymore based on its "AA" armament.

[Hades]

Heck, haven't you seen how terrible the Orion's defenses are? You'll only need a WING of bombers to destroy it (or perhaps only ONE elite bomber pilot - like Alpha 1 taking down the Uhuru!)

Try doing that on insane with Fury's AI profiles without using the maxim or trebuchet.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Though part of the reason that the Orion's AA capabilities suck is the loadout and the low number of turrets, 17 (which, frankly should have been increased to something like 30 in FS2)

[Marcov]

That's the problem. Seems that the GTVA didn't bother to upgrade the Orion from Great-War standards - IMO blob turrets (which are only really good at hitting bombs, they even have difficulty to hit Seraphims and the like) should be replaced with AAAf's.

They also didn't add turrets - didn't the Hecate have about 26 or so? The Orion seems fit only for quick, capital ship strikes by 2367 standards.

[General Battuta]

Recon located the Vindicator and the Ravana. Two huge blows. Proof enough.

That isn't subspace tracking.

No one said it was.

Furthermore, as already said, the Hecate has demonstrated a much better anti-fighter/bomber armament than the Orion, which simply isn't up-to-date anymore based on its "AA" armament.

Thus the Raynor and Titan.

[Droid803]

Plenty of fanmade ships address these issues, why, specifically, are stratcomm's ships brought up each time?
What has this to do with the Hecate?

I am confused~!

[General Battuta]

Plenty of fanmade ships address these issues, why, specifically, are stratcomm's ships brought up each time?
What has this to do with the Hecate?

i dunno lol

The point in bringing them up, though, is that while the Orion is imperfect, it is less imperfect than the Hecate; the Hecate cannot reliably conduct flight operations because it can be chased around or disabled, whereas the Orion can more reliably perform flight ops because it is more difficult to overcome it with a rapid beam strike.

[Hades]

That's the problem. Seems that the GTVA didn't bother to upgrade the Orion from Great-War standards - IMO blob turrets (which are only really good at hitting bombs, they even have difficulty to hit Seraphims and the like) should be replaced with AAAf's.

They also didn't add turrets - didn't the Hecate have about 26 or so? The Orion seems fit only for quick, capital ship strikes by 2367 standards.

I just told you the real reason the Orion didn't have as many turrets, it's from FreeSpace 1. You'll notice that all FreeSpace 1 capitalships (cruisers, destroyers) have less turrets than their FS2 counter-parts. Why they did it like this, I'm not sure (though likely for performance issues if anything), but they really should have added more turrets to the ships in FreeSpace 2 but they didn't since none of the Freespace 1 models used in FreeSpace 2 were touched. At all.

There's no canon explanation for this seeing as how the tech description for the Orion in one of the games says it has 'dozens and dozens of turrets' (or something to that effect)

[Droid803]

Well, in practice the Hecate should technically be harder to disable than the Orion.

All it takes is one good beam hit or a single stiletto strike to disable the Orion, the Hecate has a whole lot of engines everywhere, blocked from some angles by its odd superstructure, meaning it should theoretically be a lot harder to disable. Somehow a single rakshasa manages to take out all the engines before it can flee canonically though, which is strange, really. Very strange. I rarely see Hecates actually disabled in combat, just like how I never see Deimoses get disabled unless there are wings with very specific orders (and scripted beam-fire events) to take down its engines...I've seen stuff with a single engine like the Demon routinely lose all means of propulsion in a regular beam exchange though.

Its more like the Orion doesn't have as much of a need to run away the moment it sees anything bigger than...a fenris, cause an Orion can take on corvettes pretty easily while the Hecate can't.

Yay we're going in CIIIIRCLES~!

[Hades]

Actually, the Orion's engine subsystem can take numerous cyclops torpedo hits before faltering.

[Marcov]

The point in bringing them up, though, is that while the Orion is imperfect, it is less imperfect than the Hecate; the Hecate cannot reliably conduct flight operations because it can be chased around or disabled, whereas the Orion can more reliably perform flight ops because it is more difficult to overcome it with a rapid beam strike.

Lol. NO ONE would want to challenge an Orion with another capital ship if the had the choice to summon a bunch of bombers.

Also, as Droid803 said, the Orion would be theoretically easier to disable because of it s exposed subsystems and poor anti-bomber armament.

There's also no point in the Hecate conducting flight operations involving itself; if we call it a carrier, it shouldn't move around and follow where its bombers are supposed to be - it's just there, far away, watching its bombers taking down a hapless warship.

[Hades]

Lol. NO ONE would want to challenge an Orion with another capital ship if the had the choice to summon a bunch of bombers.

Also, as Droid803 said, the Orion would be theoretically easier to disable because of it s exposed subsystems and poor anti-bomber armament.

There's also no point in the Hecate conducting flight operations involving itself; if we call it a carrier, it shouldn't move around and follow where its bombers are supposed to be - it's just there, far away, watching its bombers taking down a hapless warship.

You give bombers far too much credit against capital ships, they really get ****ed up by most capital ships unless they have good numbers and disable some turrets first. Like the Aeolus, that mother****er will easily kill numerous bombers by itself.

[Marcov]

But the Aeolus has far deadlier anti-fighter/bomber armament than the Orion. In fact, the Orion is 5 times bigger than the Deimos but has about the same number of turrets only, and even so, it has more primitive armament than said corvette.

[NGTM-1R]

But the Aeolus has far deadlier anti-fighter/bomber armament than the Orion.

One wing flying escort without reinforcements vs. three wings flying escort with reinforcement.

Utterly disagree.  The fact that ships manage to stay in the same system and NOT immediately get blown to hell means the exact opposite to me.  Consider the NTF conflict where the GTA KNEW exactly what systems the NTF had ships in, but couldn't immediately wipe them out until the Colossus arrived, and we can reasonably assume nearly all those attacks were offensive operations against hard targets (shipyards, instillations and nodes).

We have examples going back to the Great War of ships being taken by surprise, without apparent means of detection, by Shivan forces. Very critical ships, which would be taking measures to ensure they weren't detected like the Plato, and even more critically the  Asimov and Ravage in The Big Bang.

If someone didn't take this possibility into account in designing any post-Great War ship, serious mistakes were made.

[TrashMan]

We actually don't know charge time, not really anyway (it basically varies from mission to mission).  If we had hard figures we could do more with it, but we don't, so we can't.

We don' have exact numbers, but from various mission, we can see the following:

a) It takes a destroyer (Orion) roughly a minute to full charge his jump drives - after a inter-system jump, which requires more power than in-system jumps. In the case of the Iceni, even less. While there are variation on how long it takes the ship to jump (in some mission they first need to plot a course, or move to a location before jumping, thus such missions are not good examples), we do have a lower estimate.

b) Ships with charged drives can plot a escape course and jump within 10-15 seconds. Seen with friendly ships running from danger. Bombers can do squat in 15 seconds. A battleship on the other hand....

Your argument about bombs and time to launch is fine, to a point, but also it comes down to risk.  Bombers are cheaper than battleships.  I'd rather lose 20 bombers and only just damage a target than lose an entire battleship to do the same.  Also once a BB goes into battle, even if it wins against another one, it will have to go in for repairs.  Which means it isn't on the battlefield.  Losing some bombers for a carrier doesn't strictly weaken the carrier's ability to engage targets, it may not be able to take on another ship, but it can still take out raiders, scout, attack supply convoys, intercept other carrier bombers, and with the right weapons can even cripple opposing ships and installations.  It's more flexible than a battleship which really can only attack other battleships.

Each has it's role.
I said it's likely that BB ambushing a carrier would result in a destroyed carrier (especially if the first strike is crippling). A BB can deliver more firepower, that is uniterceptable, within a shorter time period. Of course, it also takes more risks for that - but again, it's also more resilient to damage.
Ambushes favor battleships..of course, in this discussion we are pitting battleships vs. carriers, not carriers vs. carriers or battleships vs. battleships. In other words, BB ambushing a carrier is more likely to destroy the carrier than carrier ambushing a BB destroying a BB.

If 2 carriers engage in combat, or if 2 battleship engage in combat, damage or destruction is more than likely on both sides (the attacking carrier can't stay hidden forever, so it can expect a counterattack). One or the other will either run or get destroyed.

Again, we don't know enough about drive charge time to make arguments about how battles should go, but we do know one thing:  If a carrier is jumped by an enemy, it likely knows where it can safely go because it has fighters to scout the region for it.  A battleship does not.  The BB thus is more likely to have to stand it's ground as it doesn't know if where it's going is safe, where the carrier can run safely.

It is incorrect to assume a battleship carries no fighters whatsoever. Even WW2 battelship carried scout planes. I'd imagine a squadron of light interceptors/scouts on a BB.

We also aren't considering that there are other ships on the battlefield.  Cruisers can screen fighters, Corvettes can directly engage the battleship with fighter/bomber support, we don't know about scouting, reserve forces, the carriers CAP, the actual energy needed to support beam cannons and how that effects jump drives, ect, etc, etc.  Freespace provides far too many unknowns to allow us to really know how these battles go.

I'll again point to the in-game example of an Orion jumping it, shooting beams for all it's worth, then jumping out 1 minute later. Beam cannons and jump drives do not appear to be connected systems.

[Marcov]

I'll again point to the in-game example of an Orion jumping it, shooting beams for all it's worth, then jumping out 1 minute later. Beam cannons and jump drives do not appear to be connected systems.

...unless it gets destroyed/heavily damaged.

You see, it takes TIME for an entire destroyer to be repaired; remember that the Colossus took several months to repair by losing only about 20% of its hull integrity. It'd take only a short amount of time to repair several bombers.

Also, the pride factor is another thing here. A destroyer is a MASSIVE warship supposedly acting as flagships, sourcing the pride and courage of its respective battlegroup/fleet. Once a destroyer gets destroyed, the morale of pilots gets shattered. And especially when fighting Shivans themselves, morale is a greatly vital factor in the battlefield.

The point here really is that Hecates have better anti-bomber firepower. Of course the Orion HAS, too, but significantly less, having nearly Great-War era weaponry (except the BGreens, of course).

Moreover, after the Great War, the Terrans feared the Shivans so much they wanted to concentrate on building defenses SPECIFICALLY AGAINST THEM. Relying on Orions would be lethally risky; the Shivans had far more dangerous anti-capital armament than the Terrans, so they concentrated more on bomber warfare; and, of course, the Terrans didn't want to waste entire destroyer against them if they had the option to summon bombers instead. Of course, Orions mean the dramatic destroyer vs. destroyer battles which is extremely prone to failure for the Terrans against Shivan Demons/Ravanas. Ask yourself; why didn't the Terrans field the Aquitaine itself against the Ravana instead of several Boanerges bombers?