[Lucika]

People, don't you see that there isn't any space left for more fighters with all that AWESOME being packed on the destroyers?
As for the Hecate, I admit I don't know what it is filled with...

[Scotty]

Yes, Trash, we know that Destroyers are huge.  What you seem to be ignoring is that the flight deck, maintenance, rearming, refueling, etc. are going to be necessarily more massive even scaled with the destroyer due to A) the massive increase in ordinance expended.  B) the fact that these fighters are hugely more massive than normal fighters and therefore need more fuel than a modern fighter.  Not to mention that non-newtonian fyzyx means they have to continuously use fuel to maintain the same velocity.  And then, once again, there are water stores, food stores, air stores and all sorts of things that take up a hell of a lot more space for 10,000 people than you're giving them credit for.

Actually, I have a question for you.  How many fighters can you fit inside a WWII battleship?  I'd bet you almost anything that it's not as much as the displacement of the ship would indicate.

[TrashMan]

Yes, Trash, we know that Destroyers are huge.  What you seem to be ignoring is that the flight deck, maintenance, rearming, refueling, etc. are going to be necessarily more massive even scaled with the destroyer due to A) the massive increase in ordinance expended.  B) the fact that these fighters are hugely more massive than normal fighters and therefore need more fuel than a modern fighter.  Not to mention that non-newtonian fyzyx means they have to continuously use fuel to maintain the same velocity.  And then, once again, there are water stores, food stores, air stores and all sorts of things that take up a hell of a lot more space for 10,000 people than you're giving them credit for.

a) Freespace fighters are not more massive than real ones by a large margin
b) hence, flight deck, mantainance and stuff doesn't have to be MASSIVELY more huge. Even if it does...frigin 20 times more volume. 20 TIMES. A low end estimate!
c) What IS MASSIVELY more huge is the destroyer.

You are ignoring the vast difference in scale.
Again - destroyer at least 20 times bigger than a carrier, while a fighter is roughly twice the size of a regular fighter. Do the math.
Even if the fighters were 5 times bigger and used 10 times more fuel, there would STILL be more space left than you'd know what to do with it.

You got so much volume to work with it's not even funny. A friggin corvette has several thousand on board (and all the air, food and water for them) and it only has about 1/9th of a destroyer volume. So yea.

[General Battuta]

This is so stupid.

[The E]

Agreed.

[General Battuta]

Reopened by request. Keep it cool.

[Lucika]

If I may suggest, we should clearly define what each of us would want from a destroyer in FS. I agree with the established suggestion that a Hecate is in the "dead zone" between a destroyer and a carrier. The thing is, what is the supposed usage of a destroyer? Nothing but being able to beamzzzorz smaller vessels/other destroyers? If so, the Hecate definitely fails in this role. However, the more "universal" we want, allow or wish the destroyer class to be, the Hecate will more and more fit our description. At least that is my humble opinion.

[The E]

For me, a Destroyer in FS needs to be something like the Battlestar. A multirole vessel that has significant ship-to-ship firepower distributed between the air wing it carries and the weapons mounted on its hull.
Its mission profile would be to be prepared for anything. The expectation I have for a Destroyer is that it should have at least a fighting chance to escape from any tactical situation it finds itself in, which means that pure Carrier designs and pure Battleship designs are contraindicated.

As was stated in this thread numerous times, the Hecate is a carrier used in a universe that really isn't carrier-friendly. A Carrier's first line of defence is that it's not supposed to be anywhere near the actual combat; In FS, this is a tactical goal that simply is not achievable. Thus, the Hecate simply is the wrong tool for the job at hand.

[NGTM-1R]

However, the more "universal" we want, allow or wish the destroyer class to be, the Hecate will more and more fit our description. At least that is my humble opinion.

Considering the main criticism leveled at the Hecate by its detractors is that it's not "universal" enough, this is doubtful.

[Lucika]

However, the more "universal" we want, allow or wish the destroyer class to be, the Hecate will more and more fit our description. At least that is my humble opinion.

Considering the main criticism leveled at the Hecate by its detractors is that it's not "universal" enough, this is doubtful.

Well, "universal" - in my book - means that it is capable to perform in multiple roles, albeit not as effectively as something specialized. I think the Hecate simply does not perform well enough in either of its roles to make the "universal" applicable. But again, that is something that depends on personal interpretation.

[The E]

Wait. First you say:

. However, the more "universal" we want, allow or wish the destroyer class to be, the Hecate will more and more fit our description. At least that is my humble opinion.

Then you say:

I think the Hecate simply does not perform well enough in either of its roles to make the "universal" applicable. But again, that is something that depends on personal interpretation.

So, first you say that "The more universal the design you want is, the more you'll like the Hecate", then you say "The Hecate is overspecialized".

You really should decide what you want.

[Delta_V]

I wouldn't call the Hecate too specialized; if anything, I'd call it too generalized.  With a ship as large and valuable as a destroyer, you want it prepared for anything, but this can lead to the "jack of all trades, master of none" problem, which is what I'd say happened to the Hecate.  It tries to fill both the role of carrier and battleship and ends up failing at both.  Its fighterbays are too easily disabled for it to rely on bombers to deal with capital ships, and it doesn't pack enough beams to deal with capital ship threats itself.  It may have been better if they had picked one role as its primary purpose with the other as a secondary concern.  As has been mentioned in the past, the Raynor/Titan combination in Blue Planet exemplifies this idea: the Raynor is first and foremost a battleship, while the Titan is primarily a carrier, and they each have the other role as a secondary objective.

Another problem is the Hecate's idiotic design.  It compromises the fields of fire of both its antifighter weapons and its broadside and stinger slash beams.  If you put the same armaments on a "cleaner" ship with better fields of fire, like the Orion or Hatshepsut, they might not seem so inadequate.

[The E]

This has been brought up before. The Orion is a Battleship/Carrier Hybrid, and it performs adequately in both roles. The failure of the Hecate is not that it tries to fill both roles, the failure is that it is too specialized for the carrier role to adequately perform as a direct-combat ship.

And its armament mix, while adequate against fighters, sucks against capital ships.

[Charismatic]

First off, thanks to the MODS for reopening @ my request.
Guys I vouched for you and this discussion, so please keep it civil. If you cant agree to dissagree refrain from posting rather then turning things ugly like before. Maintain an adult conversation discussion.

Am I the only one who loves the asthetics of the Hecates design? It is a beautiful magestic ship. Not speaking of tehcnical blindspots or flaws.

I think its offensive beams are adequate and its fighter compliment is good. They should always have deployed more fighters in each situation--but its a playabliity thing in the FS world. The player has to feel the strain even tho its unrealisitc. I remember a situation where the Aquitane was running from a fight, got 10% health and refused to send any extra fighters out even tho it only send 3-4 wings total with only Alpha1 remaining. It has plenty that would rush to its defense. But..if it spit out 100 fighters what fun would Alpha1 have?

Also one main point I want to point out is this. Alpha1 has seen the worst of the battles. Our missions are not the everyday run of the and routine. Im sure the R&D of the 24th? century were not morons as to botch up a total Class of ship such as the Hecate. If it was that bad they would not have made a whole line of them, spending all the money and resources they did---Anyone dissagree? In theory at least. I think the Hecate operates Just fine as a (carrier) or whatever roll its designed to be in most routine situations. Our missions take place weeks or months apart. (FS2 took place over 1 year and FS1 took place over 2-4? years)

So it may not have been designed for all that direct heavy combat, which mostly was ship to ship.

Ill come up with a more detailed post later on.

*I have read every post to date in this 11 page topic

[The E]

Am I the only one who loves the asthetics of the Hecates design? It is a beautiful magestic ship. Not speaking of tehcnical blindspots or flaws.

Technical drawbacks and design flaws are what this topic is about, soooo....

I think its offensive beams are adequate and its fighter compliment is good.

1 BGreen and 4 TerSlashes are "adequate"? For what, scaring Cruisers?

Also one main point I want to point out is this. Alpha1 has seen the worst of the battles. Our missions are not the everyday run of the and routine. Im sure the R&D of the 24th? century were not morons as to botch up a total Class of ship such as the Hecate.

And yet, they did.

If it was that bad they would not have made a whole line of them, spending all the money and resources they did---Anyone dissagree? In theory at least.

In military procurement, one finds the nasty tendency of militaries across the ages to always prepare for the last war they thought, thus inevitably being unprepared for what the next war will bring. The big lesson of FS1 was "Fighters and Bombers are king", so as a result, we get the Hecate class Carrier.

I think the Hecate operates Just fine as a (carrier) or whatever roll its designed to be in most routine situations. Our missions take place weeks or months apart. (FS2 took place over 1 year and FS1 took place over 2-4? years)

Plz 2 quote canon on the dates there.
While the Hecate is performing adequately as a Carrier, that's not the point. If the GTVA had retired all Orions, the main fleet would have lacked a direct fire element that can mix it up with other Destroyers.

So it may not have been designed for all that direct heavy combat, which mostly was ship to ship.

That's the problem. The Hecate is inadequate in the ship-to-ship role, and yet is deployed in situations where ship-to-ship combat is to be expected.
Bad tactics? Yes. Command stupid? Yes. But the main flaw, IMO, is the Hecate's design not being multi-role enough.

[TrashMan]

Am I the only one who loves the asthetics of the Hecates design? It is a beautiful magestic ship. Not speaking of tehcnical blindspots or flaws.

Yes, it does look neat.
But when choosing between "good looking and efficient" and "just good looking" I'll go for the former.

***

Back on the crux of the matter..If you compare the Hecate to the Orion..

Both have 1 fighterbay (bad). The Hecate one is a bit harder to get to and take out.

The Hecate has multiple engines, making it difficult to disable (realisticly...it gets disabled far too easily in the campaign)

The Hacate has superior AA defenses ,but it's shape prevents it for using it efficiently.
The Orion has inferior AA defenses, despite a shape that would benefit the most from them.

Orion fighter capacity: 120
Hecate fighter capacity: 150

Orion beam power - 3 BGreen, 3 Slash
Hecate Beam power - 1 BGreen, 4 Slash

Clearly, the Hecate was not designed to stay and fight, but to escape. Many engines testify to that. The rear beam is useless, so the most firepower is can hope to bring to bear is 1 BGreen and 2 Slashers, something it's rarely even capable of doing.


Theorethicly, it should last longer than the Orion against fighter/bomber attacks, but even it's 30 extra fighters don't compensate for it's lack of a powerful alpha strike. Quite simply, it's not meant to stay in combat or go into it, unless absolutely necessary.
I see it more as a mobile command center than an actual warship.

[Hades]

Te Hecate is an ugly design, an ugly ship made of random parts that don't go together. Like the skull, on the front, the elephant ears, on the side of the head and at the engines, etc etc.

[Kie99]

Aren't fighterbays indestructible?

[Dilmah G]

It's said in at least one mission I believe that the Colossus can't sortie fighters to assist because she's sustained damage to her fighterbay.

[headdie]

Aren't fighterbays indestructible?

in terms of game mechanics yes they are indestructible but for story reasons the colly is unable to launch fighters in I think 2 missions and in one of the Aquitaine defense missions it to is "unable" to launch fighters