[Dilmah G]

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.

Hmm, interesting. Although is it said anywhere that they planned to roll out the Hecate for use by both species? Looking at the wiki, the description looks a little ambiguous in that regard. The differences in mainhall design make me think that perhaps the two species have different philosophies regarding even the internal design of the ship; making the possibility of the Hecate being sold as a vessel for both species unlikely in my opinion (as someone said on the thread mentioning the Vasudan mainhall, the thing looks like it's designed to be operated in 0-G, a Hecate mainhall in 0-G doesn't look the slightest bit helpful).

I could be missing the point you're making here, however. Also, out of curiosity, where's it said that the Hecate is manufactured by both Terran and Vasudan designers/contractors?

[General Battuta]

It's not solid canon, I'm just supposing.

[Kolgena]

I did, based off of vague memories/no evidence at hand.

If you look at design elements on the hull, however, there are a lot more superfluous curves than you see on the Orion. Also, it'd be absurd to assume that internal systems didn't have at least some Vasudan contractors work on them.

[Dilmah G]

That's true. It still looks distinctly 'Terran' to me though. I suppose if you take a very loose view of the thing, it bears slight resemblance to the Herc I and II. But I see where you're coming from.

[Kolgena]

If anything, the Hecate looks very similar to the Colossus thematically, and we know the Colossus was a 50/50 joint effort.

[Dilmah G]

Oh yeah, thematically, I agree with you. But it's vertical stabiliser (why on Earth do spaceships need one of those? If that's what it is) bears similarity in shape to the Herc's, from memory. If you look at the back half, it bears slight resemblance to the Herc II; I digress.

[Marcov]

(to the previous comments)
You can judge the Hecate as canonically bad all you want. However, logic dictates that it would be supposedly a better warship than the Orion. As I've said, it's as good as it can get...beyond the boundaries of the damn canon, which apparently screws up realism for game balance.

However, one thing. The Hecate may be bad against fighters and bombers, but you have the Orion which is even worse, with its FS1-based armament (#of turrets, 17).

[Dilmah G]

In terms of its armament, I think you have a point. However, the Orion's shape means that 17 turrets are sufficient to cover the surface area of the vessel, and that there really isn't such a glaring deficiency in anti-fighter cover. With the Hecate, however, all those jutting angles (why on Earth does it have canards and stabilisers?)  mean that you need turrets to cover them. Meaning that more turrets+more energy+more crew are required to cover the damn thing, let alone get it to wield some firepower, which I understand it lacks in. I believe the Orion has more anti-cap turrets than the Hecate, doesn't it?

[Kolgena]

Oh yeah, thematically, I agree with you. But it's vertical stabiliser (why on Earth do spaceships need one of those? If that's what it is) bears similarity in shape to the Herc's, from memory. If you look at the back half, it bears slight resemblance to the Herc II; I digress.

Thematically also in degree of curviness, color (?), and general feel. Not so much shape, which I realize is the first thing most people think about when they think thematic. Sorry.

[Dilmah G]

*cancel that apostrophe, my bad.

Oh yeah, that's what I thought you were getting at, just thought I'd bring up shape in case, though.

[Marcov]

In terms of its armament, I think you have a point. However, the Orion's shape means that 17 turrets are sufficient to cover the surface area of the vessel, and that there really isn't such a glaring deficiency in anti-fighter cover. With the Hecate, however, all those jutting angles (why on Earth does it have canards and stabilisers?)  mean that you need turrets to cover them. Meaning that more turrets+more energy+more crew are required to cover the damn thing, let alone get it to wield some firepower, which I understand it lacks in. I believe the Orion has more anti-cap turrets than the Hecate, doesn't it?

Didn't someone state earlier that the Hecate can fire through its hull?

Plus, the Hecate has more turrets (about 26 if I remember correctly). The odd superstructures, as I've said, also help confuse the enemy (considering AI-type enemies).

[Dilmah G]

As much as they may confuse a spatially less aware enemy, hit the structure and you cause damage, which impacts the overall hull integrity, which in turn has an effect on the probability of the ship blowing up.

[The E]

(to the previous comments)
You can judge the Hecate as canonically bad all you want. However, logic dictates that it would be supposedly a better warship than the Orion. As I've said, it's as good as it can get...beyond the boundaries of the damn canon, which apparently screws up realism for game balance.

What logic would that be? Canonicity in FS is simple, if it appears in-game in a certain way, that's how it appears in the Universe. And no, it's not as good as it can get. This has got nothing to do with realism vs canon. Or realism vs gameplay. The Hecate is a ****ty design, there are no indicators for it being better anywhere else, there is no hint given to us in-universe that it is even considered to be better than the Hatshepsut, Typhon, or Orion.

The point is, it's useless to argue against canon. You can make stories about how this ship is so much better than the game portraits it to be, but those stories won't be canon. You can make theories about the ship's capabilities to give it redeeming features that are not modelled in FS2's gameplay or mission design, but those theories won't be canon.

However, one thing. The Hecate may be bad against fighters and bombers, but you have the Orion which is even worse, with its FS1-based armament (#of turrets, 17).

And yet, the Orion is easier to defend, more durable in combat, and (IMO) better looking. And it has greater firepower to boot.

In terms of its armament, I think you have a point. However, the Orion's shape means that 17 turrets are sufficient to cover the surface area of the vessel, and that there really isn't such a glaring deficiency in anti-fighter cover. With the Hecate, however, all those jutting angles (why on Earth does it have canards and stabilisers?)  mean that you need turrets to cover them. Meaning that more turrets+more energy+more crew are required to cover the damn thing, let alone get it to wield some firepower, which I understand it lacks in. I believe the Orion has more anti-cap turrets than the Hecate, doesn't it?

Yep. The Hecate has more turrets than the Orion, but at the same time, the Hecate is undergunned due to her geometry. Her turrets do not have many overlapping fields of fire, something which the Orion's turrets manage without problem. So the effective firepowwer it can bring to bear on a given threat is severely reduced.

The odd superstructures, as I've said, also help confuse the enemy (considering AI-type enemies).

Except, they really don't. As Dilmah said, you don't need to be near it to launch bombs at it. And considering the many, many possible approaches that are only lightly defended, it's pretty much given that the ship will be hit. The odd superstructures make it harder for the AI, yes. Unfortunately, it's the defending AI that is most affected by this.

[Marcov]

The point is, it's useless to argue against canon. You can make stories about how this ship is so much better than the game portraits it to be, but those stories won't be canon. You can make theories about the ship's capabilities to give it redeeming features that are not modelled in FS2's gameplay or mission design, but those theories won't be canon.

It seems that I wouldn't be arguing against anyone's point anymore. However, Kosh, the starter of the thread, already proposed non-canonical roles for the Hecate. Being a strike carrier, being a good anti-fighter/bomber but poor anticapital warship, etc. etc.

So, considering what you stated, as far as canon gets, the Hecate sucks. Its design is pretty bad, worse than the Orion. Good. So that's what you think. Apparently, for the past hundreds of replies, there have been instances of members arguing non-canonical roles for the Hecate (which already includes the starter of the thread).

Canonicity in FS is simple. It refutes realism in some aspects. BUT still it seems that this has got something to do with realism vs. canon, based on the expansive post number of the thread. Look back.

[TrashMan]

However, one thing. The Hecate may be bad against fighters and bombers, but you have the Orion which is even worse, with its FS1-based armament (#of turrets, 17).

As Dilah pointed out, the Orions shape is an asset. Have you tried attacking my up-turret Orion? With 26 turrets and anti-fighter armament comparable to the Hecate? Much harder to take out, trust me.

[NGTM-1R]

However, Kosh, the starter of the thread, already proposed non-canonical roles for the Hecate. Being a strike carrier, being a good anti-fighter/bomber but poor anticapital warship, etc. etc.

He was trying to come up with something it would be good at. Which, while laudable effort for campaign designers, has little bearing on the fact that even in those roles a well-deployed Hecate would be outperformed by a well-deployed Orion or the basic premise behind them has been disproved.

For strike support, an Orion can bring a heavier broadside to bear, and most importantly it can do this while using its own hull to shield fightercraft launch and recovery from enemy fire, thus protecting against accidental or deliberate beaming of fightercraft trying to take off or land.

The Hecate's antifighter superiority has been discussed numerous times in this thread. The general response has been poor. Its vastly increased surface area makes it much more vulnerable than an Orion to attack, not entirely compensated by its higher number of turrets. Its strange, rambling superstructures make it difficult for friendly pilots to get to the part of the ship that needs defending (sometimes even to figure out which part of the ship needs defending), thus hampering the true best weapon of any destroyer: its own fighters.

Apparently, for the past hundreds of replies, there have been instances of members arguing non-canonical roles for the Hecate (which already includes the starter of the thread).

But the question has always been "okay, we've got this ship that's kinda crap, what can we accomplish with it?" Nobody (well, almost nobody) has suggested the outright rejection of the Hecate's canonical abilities as a reasonable course of action. Even Trash isn't arguing for total rejection of the Hecate's canonical abilities, but quibbling over the one least likely to be of import in an FS mission, the total fighterbay capacity.

Canonicity in FS is simple. It refutes realism in some aspects. BUT still it seems that this has got something to do with realism vs. canon, based on the expansive post number of the thread. Look back.

Nah, nah, you don't get it. See, canon does not refute realism in the context of stories. Canon defines realism. Canonical is real. Anything else isn't.

[jr2]

Don't know if that's relevant.  But it's neat.

[headdie]

However, one thing. The Hecate may be bad against fighters and bombers, but you have the Orion which is even worse, with its FS1-based armament (#of turrets, 17).

As Dilah pointed out, the Orions shape is an asset. Have you tried attacking my up-turret Orion? With 26 turrets and anti-fighter armament comparable to the Hecate? Much harder to take out, trust me.

If you have up turreted the orion it is not canon therefore not comparable

[NGTM-1R]

Don't know if that's relevant.  But it's neat.

It has Tomcats on it. And Vikings. _lostagia

[TrashMan]

Don't know if that's relevant.  But it's neat.

It has Tomcats on it. And Vikings. _lostagia

And yes...nostalgia.. Damn whatever military/political ****er messed up the F-14 Super Tomcat. Damn you to hell. Thrice and with a rusty halberdup your behind!

But to be more serious:
That image gives a good impression on the size of the actual hangar on a carrier. Which is exactly why 120 seems to low in FS.

If you have up turreted the Orion it is not canon therefore not comparable

No, ti's not canon. But it DOES demonstrate the effectivness of hull shape and it's impact on turret coverage.