[Androgeos Exeunt]

It actually depends on the warship in question, I think. The Sathanas's fighterbay can be destroyed, if I remember correctly.

[Marcov]

Since an FS fighterbay is actually nothing more than a huge tunnel, wouldn't it be puzzling to manage to "destroy" a fighterbay?

It's like being able to destroy a door, and preventing anything from getting through. 

[Dilmah G]

Damage to the actual deck, though, would prevent fighters from taking off. Much like holes in a runway on Earth.

[headdie]

depends on the launch system, if the fighter operates a SW rebel style hanger then all the fighter has to do is lift clear of the damage and fly out.  now if you were to damage the space door (if there is one) and jam it in a closed or semi closed position that would do it. Also if you damage the support girders above the hanger and dropping them across the threshold to space that would also do it

[Marcov]

Despite that, don't you think a destroyer should handle at least several hundred fighters and bombers? Let's congratulate anyone who could give us a clear shot of the Hecate's hangar and a fighter inside, where we can easily see how much can exactly fit inside the damn cave.

[TrashMan]

Hmm...why aren't hangar/fighter bays destroyable as any other subsystem tough?

Mechanicly it's works just the same - except that if all fighterbays are destroyed, the fighters set to arrive from a warship don't launch.
I guess [V] did it so not to break mission. I say they could have designed missions to account for that...

[Scotty]

Despite that, don't you think a destroyer should handle at least several hundred fighters and bombers? Let's congratulate anyone who could give us a clear shot of the Hecate's hangar and a fighter inside, where we can easily see how much can exactly fit inside the damn cave.

It doesn't exist, because :V: didn't model the inside of an already huge ship that the player never enters anyway.  And, once again, fighters don't fill the whole superstructure.

[NGTM-1R]

Hmm...why aren't hangar/fighter bays destroyable as any other subsystem tough?

They are. Or at least have been on occasion.

Back in the old days of 3.6.7 at least, a fighterbay only became invincible if wings were scheduled to launch from it.  (But remained that way, even if all wings had launched.) If no one was intended to use it in the mission, it was possible to destroy the fighterbay. I assume this was to prevent game-crashing errors in retail, but don't really know.

[Charismatic]

I remember the FS1 mission where they said to enter Lucy fighterbay. The first time i thought it through..but tried none-the-less. Sadly we never could get in:P

[TrashMan]

Hmm...why aren't hangar/fighter bays destroyable as any other subsystem tough?

They are. Or at least have been on occasion.

Back in the old days of 3.6.7 at least, a fighterbay only became invincible if wings were scheduled to launch from it.  (But remained that way, even if all wings had launched.) If no one was intended to use it in the mission, it was possible to destroy the fighterbay. I assume this was to prevent game-crashing errors in retail, but don't really know.

Well, if they are invulnerable if a fighter wing launches...then they aren't really destructable..I mean, how often will you have a ship with a intact fighterbay in a mission that doesn't launch fighters?

That why fighterbays should always be destroyaeel, unless FREDed otherwise..and should have auto-repair on (a destroyed fighter bay is automaticly repaired a bit after a few minutes)

[Marcov]

Err, well, back to topic anyways.

I'll just repeat my statement on this thread.
The Hecate has a reputation for being an odd-looking, impractical destroyer with poor anticapital firepower, and shouldn't be a worthy successor of the Orion. However, let's just consider why the GTVA possibly came up with such a design...

The Hecate, yes, it looks odd. Don't you think Volition did it to make it sort of look like "more advanced" than the Orion? With more superstructures, more functions, and stuff? Also, we never really saw the Hecate perform against powerful enemy ships like destroyers. We saw the Aquitaine take down a Shivan corvette, the Tiamat, and that's the most the frikkin' destroyer could really do. Having let's say, twice as much BGreens as an Orion would be useless if all a Hecate would destroy would be a corvette, and challenge a Juggernaut that would destroy it in a few seconds, if it wouldn't jump out before its 4 rays of death chewed it apart. Besides, wouldn't the fun be eliminated if the Aquitaine decimates the Tiamat in just a single volley of beamfire?

However, as I've alreay mentioned before, the Hecate's antifighter defenses are quite poor for a skilled pilot, but still better than an Orion's. Hell, it has 26 turrets which would fire through the ship. And lots of superstructures which an unlucky pilot would collide to if he were clumsy, stunning his fighter, and exposing himself to an enemy fighter, where he'd then be vaporised. The AI sucks at this point. See Shivans clumsily colliding into one of the Aqui's wierd structures, and watch it gleefully bounce back, as if saying, "hey, c'mon, now's the time to shoot me to pieces!".

Furthermore, I'd say that the Hecate's multiple hangars might allow it for fighters to flank the enemy ("Attack from all sides" sort of tactic). Unlike the Orion, whose one massive fighterbay might mean a little more time for its fighters to evacuate and patrol their mother ship. Hell, we don't even know what could be inside those hangars, apart from mere fighters and bombers. Of course, canonically there's nothing else, but try to think; could there be transports, gunboats, sentry guns, and other sorts of crazy stuff?? With only one hangar, the Orion might have a hard time cramming that all up.

As it is, you could judge the Hecate badly all you want. However, if we think beyond the boundaries of canon, there are tons of possibilities why the GTVA thought of such a design.

[The E]

The Hecate, yes, it looks odd. Don't you think Volition did it to make it sort of look like "more advanced" than the Orion? With more superstructures, more functions, and stuff? Also, we never really saw the Hecate perform against powerful enemy ships like destroyers. We saw the Aquitaine take down a Shivan corvette, the Tiamat, and that's the most the frikkin' destroyer could really do. Having let's say, twice as much BGreens as an Orion would be useless if all a Hecate would destroy would be a corvette, and challenge a Juggernaut that would destroy it in a few seconds, if it wouldn't jump out before its 4 rays of death chewed it apart. Besides, wouldn't the fun be eliminated if the Aquitaine decimates the Tiamat in just a single volley of beamfire?

"we never really saw the Hecate perform against powerful enemy ships like destroyers" Yes, we did. Phoenicia vs Sathanas.

Okay, I admit that's a poor comparison. We only get to see the Aquitaine vs Tiamat fight. Which the Aquitaine almost lost. A Destroyer that has to turn tail and run away from a Corvette doesn't deserve to be designated a Destroyer.

Let's make a list here. Point 1: We've proven now that the Hecate, on its own, is bad against other capital ships.

However, as I've alreay mentioned before, the Hecate's antifighter defenses are quite poor for a skilled pilot, but still better than an Orion's. Hell, it has 26 turrets which would fire through the ship. And lots of superstructures which an unlucky pilot would collide to if he were clumsy, stunning his fighter, and exposing himself to an enemy fighter, where he'd then be vaporised. The AI sucks at this point. See Shivans clumsily colliding into one of the Aqui's wierd structures, and watch it gleefully bounce back, as if saying, "hey, c'mon, now's the time to shoot me to pieces!".

Point 2: The Hecate is badly designed for a defensive engagement against fighters.

Furthermore, I'd say that the Hecate's multiple hangars

Uhh, it has ONE hangar? Like, singular? Uno? Einen einzigen?

might allow it for fighters to flank the enemy ("Attack from all sides" sort of tactic). Unlike the Orion, whose one massive fighterbay might mean a little more time for its fighters to evacuate and patrol their mother ship. Hell, we don't even know what could be inside those hangars, apart from mere fighters and bombers. Of course, canonically there's nothing else, but try to think; could there be transports, gunboats, sentry guns, and other sorts of crazy stuff?? With only one hangar, the Orion might have a hard time cramming that all up.

Well, seeing as both Destroyer classes only have one hangar bay, I think this argument is sort of invalidated.

As it is, you could judge the Hecate badly all you want. However, if we think beyond the boundaries of canon, there are tons of possibilities why the GTVA thought of such a design.

Yes, if the Hecate was different, it would be better.

What.

In Canon, the Hecate sucks. In Canon, it is outperformed by nearly every other class of Destroyer presented in FS2. In Canon, Command shows poor judgment in deploying these Ships. In Canon, they are a bad design.

[Dilmah G]

I agree with The E here. Marcov, canon proves it's bad at basically everything the Hecate should be good at. It's simply poorly designed and badly deployed. Although you could argue, as people have, that the Hecate's primary purpose isn't to destroy things; counterintuitive for something classified as a destroyer in the least.

How does one deploy the Hecate well? The same way you generally deploy most modern carriers; with their battlegroups by their sides. (As I believe someone may have said earlier).

[Kolgena]

It was a joint-vasudan project, and we all know how zods use funky impractical architecture. Command gave the blue prints a go-ahead because of political pressures.

/xenophobia

[The E]

Yes. As TrashMan pointed out earlier, the Hecate is a good mobile command base. But the flipside is that it needs a constant escort, and that it should always be deployed behind the lines (which, in FS terms, means one interstellar jump away). Putting it anywhere near active combat is a really, really bad move.

It was a joint-vasudan project, and we all know how zods use funky impractical architecture. Command gave the blue prints a go-ahead because of political pressures.

/xenophobia

Funny how the Hatshepsut is a much, much better ship......

[General Battuta]

I...actually wouldn't be surprised if design compromises or even intentional mishandling undercut the Hecate as part of a bid by Vasudan contractors to sell their own ships.

[Dilmah G]

Yes. As TrashMan pointed out earlier, the Hecate is a good mobile command base. But the flipside is that it needs a constant escort, and that it should always be deployed behind the lines (which, in FS terms, means one interstellar jump away). Putting it anywhere near active combat is a really, really bad move.

Yeah, alternative I can see to positioning it ridiculously far away is to drop it at a depot, where there are already defences in places. In addition to this, is the fact it's flanked by its escort. This in itself is a deterrent to most piecemeal attacks an enemy could mount. Or you could step into the other direction and hide it in the middle of a bloody asteroid field. Where the radar contacts would probably make it harder to pinpoint the exact location of the destroyer, as well as mount an attack on it. Getting it in there is another story which I haven't thought far enough ahead for.

Regardless, then you have the enemy attack points throughout the system, in order to draw the escort away from the Hecate, or better yet, have the Hecate and its escort deploy. Present the 'smallest credible threat' perhaps, in the same spirit almost as that mission you fly with the 242nd.

I...actually wouldn't be surprised if design compromises or even intentional mishandling undercut the Hecate as part of a bid by Vasudan contractors to sell their own ships.

But the Vasudans don't sell Vasudan ships to Terran navies. Although I don't know the specifics of ship manufacture in FS. And in addition to that, is there anything said about the Vasudans having that much of a disdain with the Terrans post-GW to do something like that? Not counting the NTF insurgency.

[General Battuta]

I...actually wouldn't be surprised if design compromises or even intentional mishandling undercut the Hecate as part of a bid by Vasudan contractors to sell their own ships.

But the Vasudans don't sell Vasudan ships to Terran navies. Although I don't know the specifics of ship manufacture in FS. And in addition to that, is there anything said about the Vasudans having that much of a disdain post-GW to do something like that? Not counting the NTF insurgency.

It has nothing to do with disdain, it's just economics. Happens IRL all the time. Say the Hecate's planned as a universal Terran/Vasudan fleet destroyer; Vasudan contractors handicap the Hecate, aided by some fluctuating design requirements and intentionally bad calls by Vasudan elements of the requisition process. Then they say it doesn't meet design requirements and roll out the Hatshepsut to take its place in Vasudan battle groups.

[Kolgena]

Or they're purchasing some insurance, if you know what I mean.

[General Battuta]

Indeed. Doesn't hurt that the Hattie's components probably come exclusively from Vasudan contractors, making it a very popular ship back home.